Why Newsom should veto SB 1047

The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act (SB 1047) might appear as a forward-thinking approach to regulating AI, but it overlooks a crucial reality: we lack the infrastructure to implement its provisions effectively. While some companies will inevitably claim they can audit AI systems and evaluate safety protocols, their motivations will often be driven by profit rather than genuine expertise.

Moreover, the burdens imposed by this bill will disproportionately affect smaller developers, particularly those on college campuses or within startups, who simply cannot afford the additional costs. This will stifle innovation, further entrenching the dominance of large tech companies and discouraging new entrants from participating in the AI landscape.

Before implementing such heavy-handed regulations, California must first focus on developing clear standards and building the capacity to enforce them. Without this groundwork, the bill will do more harm than good, leading to increased monopolization and a chilling effect on the very innovation it seeks to protect. The Governor should veto this bill and advocate for a more measured, phased approach that prioritizes the development of standards and capacity before regulation.

Public Money, Private Glory?

At tech events, where AI CEOs bask in the adoration, there's a conspicuous absence in the narrative: the role of public funding and research. These sectors haven't just sprung up through the ingenuity and perseverance of a few brilliant minds; they're the culmination of substantial public investment. Yet, you'd be hard-pressed to hear a word of thanks to taxpayers or governments at these glittering presentations.

The problem with this omission is twofold. Firstly, it promotes a misleading story of technological development—one where breakthroughs seem to happen through sheer brilliance rather than collaborative, incremental progress supported by public funding. This narrative can skew public perception, suggesting that technological advancement might somehow spontaneously occur without structured support. It makes the process seem more magical than methodical, glossing over the reality that innovation is usually more marathon than sprint, and certainly not a solo race.

Secondly, this narrative concentrates excessive admiration—and thus influence—in the hands of tech leaders. Celebrated as visionary and almost superhuman, these individuals often come to wield significant power, not just over their companies but within society itself. Yet, while they may be exceptional in their fields, they frequently lack broad education in social sciences and humanities, or experience in broader human affairs, areas crucial for understanding the implications of the technologies they unleash. This can lead to decisions that prioritize innovation over social impact considerations or public welfare, a risky imbalance.

The superstar culture in technology isn't just an issue of misrepresentation. It has practical consequences, potentially leading policymakers and the public to undervalue the importance of ongoing governmental support for research. If tech advancements are viewed as products of individual genius rather than results of public investment and collaboration, governments and voters might feel justified in cutting funds to these areas, mistakenly believing the private sector will fill the gap. This could slow innovation and shift the global tech landscape, especially towards countries that maintain robust public funding for research.

Acknowledging the role of public funding in technology isn't about diminishing the achievements of tech leaders—it's about painting a more complete and accurate picture of innovation. This more nuanced understanding could foster better-informed decisions regarding funding, education, and policy, ensuring the ecosystem that nurtures new technologies remains dynamic and well-supported.

Ultimately, recognizing the collective contributions to technological advancements isn't just about giving credit where it’s due. It's about ensuring a balanced narrative that neither idolizes the individual innovator nor underestimates the foundational role of public investment. By correcting this imbalance, we can encourage a more sustainable, equitable approach to technology development—one that's grounded in reality and attentive to the broader implications of rapid technological change.

The Disruptive Potential of AI: Lessons from Clayton Christensen's Theory

As AI continues to make inroads into various industries, it is easy to dismiss its current shortcomings and remain complacent. However, those who do so risk falling victim to the very phenomenon described by the late Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen in his seminal work on disruptive innovation.

Christensen's theory posits that disruptive technologies often start at the bottom of the market, offering inferior performance compared to incumbent solutions. However, these technologies are typically cheaper and more accessible, allowing them to gain a foothold among less demanding customers. Over time, as the technology improves, it begins to meet the needs of more sophisticated users, eventually displacing the incumbent players entirely.

The parallels with AI are striking. Today, we may scoff at awkward AI-generated movies featuring characters with anatomical oddities or primitive music engines churning out cliched tunes. However, it would be foolish to assume that these technologies will not improve. Just as the early smartphones were no match for desktop computers, the AI of today is merely a stepping stone to more advanced systems that will rival and surpass human capabilities in various domains.

The rapid pace of investment in AI only serves to underscore this point. With billions of dollars pouring into research and development, the march of progress is inexorable. While the exact timeline remains uncertain, it is clear that AI will continue to evolve at a brisk pace, transforming industries and reshaping the nature of work itself.

In light of this reality, policymakers and leaders in government and philanthropy would be wise to start planning for a future in which the skills demanded by the job market are in a constant state of flux. Rather than clinging to the status quo, we must embrace the disruptive potential of AI and invest in education and training programs that will equip workers with the adaptability and resilience needed to thrive in an era of rapid technological change.

To ignore the lessons of Clayton Christensen's theory would be to court disaster. The question is not whether AI will disrupt our world, but rather how we will rise to meet the challenges and opportunities it presents. By proactively preparing for this future, we can ensure that the benefits of AI are widely shared and that no one is left behind in the great transformations to come. 

Hackers vs. Handlers: The Battle for Equity in the Generative AI Revolution

In the dizzying whirlwind of the generative AI revolution, an age-old skirmish is resurfacing, casting long shadows over the digital landscape. On one side stand the "handlers," the gatekeepers of technology who seek to control and commercialize AI advancements. On the other, the "hackers" champion open access, striving to dismantle barriers and democratize innovation. This conflict, well-documented in the field of Science and Technology Studies, is more than a mere power struggle; it is a pivotal battle that will determine the trajectory of AI's societal impact.

Handlers, often backed by deep pockets and corporate interests, are the architects of proprietary systems. They package, distribute, and regulate access to AI technologies, aiming to create comprehensive solutions that cater to market demands. Their approach, while fostering innovation and ensuring quality, often leads to restricted access and a consolidation of power, raising concerns about equity and inclusivity in the technological realm. The curious fact is that many handlers are former hackers, who made it in the startup world. 

Hackers, in contrast, are the rebels of the digital age. They advocate for a more open and collaborative approach to AI development, believing that technology should be a public good, accessible to all. They prefer the do-it-yourself, scrappy solutions. Their efforts are not driven by profit but by a conviction that broader access to AI tools can level the playing field, enabling a more diverse set of voices to contribute to and benefit from technological advancements.

The clash between hackers and handlers is emblematic of a larger debate about the future of technology and its role in society. While handlers bring structure and scalability, hackers inject diversity, creativity, and a sense of community. The balance between these forces is crucial. An overemphasis on control and commercialization risks stifling innovation and perpetuating inequalities, while unchecked openness may lead to issues of quality and security.

The generative AI revolution presents an opportunity to recalibrate this balance. Supporting hackers and their open-access ethos can foster a more equitable technological landscape, where innovation is not the exclusive domain of the well-funded. This means championing open-source projects, recognizing community-driven initiatives, and creating legal frameworks that protect the principles of openness and collaboration.

As we stand at the precipice of this AI revolution, the choices the societies make will have far-reaching implications. Supporting the hacker ethos without alienating the handlers, and promoting broader access to AI technologies can ensure that the benefits of this revolution are shared by all, not just the privileged few. It is time to shift the balance in favor of equity, inclusivity, and the collective advancement of society.

Advice for Entrepreneurs Developing AI Products for Educators

Hundreds if not thousands of start-ups have emerged to leverage the potential of generative AI, which is a good thing. This surge in innovation is crucial for ensuring a fair and beneficial transition to this new technology. Among these companies, many focus on the education sector. It's not just start-ups that are diving into this arena; established companies are also adopting an entrepreneurial approach.

First, let's talk about products that are likely to fail. A common pitfall is exploiting the current lack of AI expertise among teachers and professors. These models act as basic intermediaries, providing minimal assistance in crafting better AI prompts. However, generative AI's true allure lies in its democratic nature and ease of use. It lowers barriers by understanding natural language, eliminating the need for coding or complex interface navigation. Businesses that merely enhance prompt writing and inflate the concept of "prompt engineering" to promote their services are not just unethical but also unsustainable. Their low-value proposition is a short-term strategy at best; users will eventually see through it.

Another error is developing solutions without a deep understanding of educational practices. Merely interviewing a few educators doesn't suffice. To genuinely grasp the needs of the sector, companies should either include experienced educators in their teams or seek continuous, in-depth feedback on their product prototypes. This approach prevents creating solutions that lack a real problem to solve. Unfortunately, few outsiders truly understand the core challenges AI poses in education, with only a handful of products like Khanmigo addressing these issues effectively. One of the core problems for educators is the inability to calibrate AI tools for the Zone of Proximal Development.

Despite these pitfalls, the field of AI in education is ripe for innovation. Instead of creating superficial aids, there's a need for specialized, high-value tools. Each academic discipline has foundational skills critical for further learning, and some aspects of these disciplines can be aided by AI without compromising the development of higher skills. Developing numerous, level-specific assignments that integrate AI use while safeguarding these essential skills is vital. Another significant area for innovation is enhancing student experiences. Many educational institutions, particularly large universities, struggle to provide consistent advising and support in understanding academic regulations, schedule planning, and general wellbeing. Moreover, both K-12 and higher education systems face inefficiencies in their operations. Addressing these real issues and contributing meaningful, high-value solutions is where the true opportunity lies.