[bradhilton]

I'm glad he vetoed the bill, but his rationale is worrisome. Even if he's just trying to placate SB 1047 proponents, they will try to exact concessions from him in future sessions. I'll take this brief reprieve, but it's still a large concern for me.

[RIMR]

What specifically do you find worrisome about his rationale? It mostly seems like he's asking for evidence-based policy that views AI as a potential risk regardless of the funding or size of the model, because this doesn't actually correlate with any actual evidence of risk.

I can't tell what direction your disagreement goes. Are you worried that he still feels that AI needs to be regulated at all, or do you think that AI needs to be regulated regardless of empirical evidence of harm?