the AI Safety Measures Act creates a framework that will require the “developers of the largest advanced AI systems” (read: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.) to provide public disclosures as to their safety practices, report any significant safety incidents, and remain in line with a set of compliance processes. It also creates a channel for whistleblowers working inside AI labs to safely and securely relay any safety concerns they might have without fear of repercussions.
Whoa this sounds pretty serious. It asks these companies to self report safety incidents and creates a “channel” for whistleblowers.
That’s some serious hammer dropping. 🙄
OpenAI and Anthropic both endorsed the bill as it moved through the legislature
Of course they did because this is just the Democratic version of what Republicans do with regulatory capture. They just like to dress their version up with a facade of “consumer protections” when the law doesn’t actually protect anyone or improve anything.
That requirement will apply to any AI company reporting more than $500 million in revenue.
This part right here makes it laughably simple for these companies to circumvent this law considering so many of these companies are operating at a loss. And it would only takes some creative accounting for them to just barely make just not enough to qualify.
Revenue and profit/loss are not the same thing. Revenue only counts the money they bring in BEFORE any expenses or losses, and is used precisely to avoid the issue you raised. That said, it is still possible to get around it, but it’s not quite as trivial as just spending more.
If my company made a billion dollars while losing 10 billion dollars, I still had a billion dollars in revenue. I just also happened to piss away 9 more billion dollars than I made.
Whoa this sounds pretty serious. It asks these companies to self report safety incidents and creates a “channel” for whistleblowers.
That’s some serious hammer dropping. 🙄
Of course they did because this is just the Democratic version of what Republicans do with regulatory capture. They just like to dress their version up with a facade of “consumer protections” when the law doesn’t actually protect anyone or improve anything.
This part right here makes it laughably simple for these companies to circumvent this law considering so many of these companies are operating at a loss. And it would only takes some creative accounting for them to just barely make just not enough to qualify.
Revenue and profit/loss are not the same thing. Revenue only counts the money they bring in BEFORE any expenses or losses, and is used precisely to avoid the issue you raised. That said, it is still possible to get around it, but it’s not quite as trivial as just spending more.
If my company made a billion dollars while losing 10 billion dollars, I still had a billion dollars in revenue. I just also happened to piss away 9 more billion dollars than I made.
Hell, if you did that, you could make a 100 billion IPO, with today’s market.
“operating at a loss” =/= “low revenue”