Public opinion surrounding the California AI safety regulation is mixed, with significant concern over government overreach and potential negative impacts on innovation. While some advocates support increased regulation for safety and transparency, there’s widespread distrust of lawmakers, fears about job losses, and skepticism about AI's future. This results in frustration towards both governmental and corporate entities involved in AI development.

California Government

AI Companies

Public Advocates

Legislators

So… it’s obviously worthless. 🤷🏼‍♀️

WickedTwitchcraft

The bill requires AI to kill *at least* 50 people, or cause 1 *billion* dollars damage before it considers anything important enough. That's just nuts. How about 1 person, and $10,000 loss? 

&gt;Senator Wiener’s bill specifically focuses on limiting AI models from contributing to “catastrophic risks,” which the bill defines as the death of at least 50 people or more than a billion dollars in damages. SB 53 focuses on the extreme side of AI risk — limiting AI models from being used to provide expert-level assistance in the creation of biological weapons or being used in cyberattacks — rather than more near-term concerns like AI deepfakes or sycophancy.

the_red_scimitar

tmdblya

Then use Nepenthes Tarspin to fight A.I. 

[Kyle Hill explains its effectiveness.](https://youtu.be/vC2mlCtuJiU?si=s5WlGVKw1qnSq50K)

Spread the word.

whathell6t

Irreversible Harms is my new progressive folk-punk band.

Tinfoil_Haberdashery

seste

Almost as if the Russian and Chinese influence was true.

1320Fastback

Did they have similar reports about the coming of the interwebs, social media, gaming and every new scary thing?

Money_Description248

Newsome and his “ policies” also brags about spending “ $24 billion  fighting  homelessness “ under him only for it to go UP EVERY YEAR. Now California accounts for 34% of THE ENTIRE COUNTRIES homeless population. So forgive me if I doubt any policies he may have on AI or how they may be effective ruining my state.

DaftXman

Also, its all Trumps fault and the reason for the deficit and climate change.

Dizzy_Chipmunk_3530

The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:

---

From the article: California lawmakers are advancing a new bill that would require police officers to disclose when they use generative AI to write reports. The measure, which has passed the Senate and is awaiting a vote in the Assembly, is among the first in the country to address law enforcement’s use of AI to produce incident reports. KQED first reported on local departments adopting these tools last October.

Proponents of the bill say it’s critical to understand how police reports are created, given their key role in the criminal justice system.

“From the get, this police report is used to determine whether a criminal case will be started,” said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association, which sponsored the bill. “Then a judge would be reviewing this police report, for example, to determine the circumstances of offense and to determine whether or not to hold somebody in jail.”

Chatfield said she doesn’t know if AI-generated police reports have caused any miscarriages of justice — and that’s part of the concern.

“We don’t know what we don’t know,” she said.

Police technology companies like Axon offer report-writing tools that process and summarize audio from body-worn camera footage, which have some safeguards to ensure officers review the AI-generated reports and sign off on them. But Chatfield said officers could also be using commercial products like ChatGPT, which lack such protections.

The law, introduced by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, D-7, covers all uses of generative AI for report writing. It would require a disclosure at the bottom of each page of an AI-generated police report, along with preservation of the original draft and an “audit trail” that identifies the bodycam footage or audio from which the report was generated.

Chatfield said it’s imperative that officers take full responsibility for their reports and review anything written by AI. Officers — not the technology — are the ones who must face cross-examination.

“Everybody deserves the right to know how that police report was generated,” she said.

In its analysis of the bill, the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection raised concerns that third-party tech companies could access and profit from sensitive police materials, potentially compromising privacy. KQED’s reporting was also cited in the analysis.

“There is potential for a race to the bottom, where sensitive body-worn camera data could be repurposed to train other technologies, including facial recognition systems or other surveillance tools,” the report said.

The committee added language to ensure that AI vendors cannot sell or misuse any personal information contained in the bodycam footage or report.

Opponents of the bill include the California Police Chiefs Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California, a police union advocacy and lobbying group. Neither responded to KQED’s request for comment, but PORAC submitted a statement to the legislature.

“The bill raises serious concerns about unintended consequences that would undermine officer integrity, impose significant administrative burdens, and introduce unnecessary legal vulnerabilities,” the statement said.

It said that the mandatory page disclosures “imply to the public, courts, or defense attorneys that such reports are inherently less reliable or credible” and that defense attorneys “might argue that AI introduced errors or biases, casting doubt on the officer’s account, regardless of the officer’s oversight or edits.”

---

 Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1mrtmad/california_bill_would_require_police_to_disclose/n8zwqba/

FuturologyBot

That bill needs to say only "Artificial Intelligence shall not be used in police reporting."

OneSplendidFellow

From the article: California lawmakers are advancing a new bill that would require police officers to disclose when they use generative AI to write reports. The measure, which has passed the Senate and is awaiting a vote in the Assembly, is among the first in the country to address law enforcement’s use of AI to produce incident reports. KQED first reported on local departments adopting these tools last October.

Proponents of the bill say it’s critical to understand how police reports are created, given their key role in the criminal justice system.

“From the get, this police report is used to determine whether a criminal case will be started,” said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association, which sponsored the bill. “Then a judge would be reviewing this police report, for example, to determine the circumstances of offense and to determine whether or not to hold somebody in jail.”

Chatfield said she doesn’t know if AI-generated police reports have caused any miscarriages of justice — and that’s part of the concern.

“We don’t know what we don’t know,” she said.

Police technology companies like Axon offer report-writing tools that process and summarize audio from body-worn camera footage, which have some safeguards to ensure officers review the AI-generated reports and sign off on them. But Chatfield said officers could also be using commercial products like ChatGPT, which lack such protections.

The law, introduced by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, D-7, covers all uses of generative AI for report writing. It would require a disclosure at the bottom of each page of an AI-generated police report, along with preservation of the original draft and an “audit trail” that identifies the bodycam footage or audio from which the report was generated.

Chatfield said it’s imperative that officers take full responsibility for their reports and review anything written by AI. Officers — not the technology — are the ones who must face cross-examination.

“Everybody deserves the right to know how that police report was generated,” she said.

In its analysis of the bill, the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection raised concerns that third-party tech companies could access and profit from sensitive police materials, potentially compromising privacy. KQED’s reporting was also cited in the analysis.

“There is potential for a race to the bottom, where sensitive body-worn camera data could be repurposed to train other technologies, including facial recognition systems or other surveillance tools,” the report said.

The committee added language to ensure that AI vendors cannot sell or misuse any personal information contained in the bodycam footage or report.

Opponents of the bill include the California Police Chiefs Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California, a police union advocacy and lobbying group. Neither responded to KQED’s request for comment, but PORAC submitted a statement to the legislature.

“The bill raises serious concerns about unintended consequences that would undermine officer integrity, impose significant administrative burdens, and introduce unnecessary legal vulnerabilities,” the statement said.

It said that the mandatory page disclosures “imply to the public, courts, or defense attorneys that such reports are inherently less reliable or credible” and that defense attorneys “might argue that AI introduced errors or biases, casting doubt on the officer’s account, regardless of the officer’s oversight or edits.”

chrisdh79

Nothing wrong with disclosure imo.  With body cams everywhere,  there will never be enough man power to go through it all.   AI is the only solution,  and Axon is basically the only player in the integrated hardware/ai space for body cams.

kjuneja

California lawmakers passed an AI safety bill, requiring transparency from large AI companies and setting new safety protocols for AI technologies.

California AI Safety Regulation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want