Hasta La Gadget!

Buyers that paid at least $93,990 to be among the first to own (and beta test) Tesla’s Cybertruck are finally getting a key, promised feature: Full Self-Driving (FSD). Several people on the Cybertruck Owners Club forum — including an Angeleno who posted a video — say that it has finally arrived in early access to select users, Electrek reported. 

After Tesla promised that FSD would arrive to Cybertrucks in September, the supervised version 12.5.5 v12 (the latest available) is shipping, but only to users in the early access program. That means the feature (included in the Tesla Cybertruck Foundation package) won’t be available to most buyers for at least another month, based on Tesla’s previous FSD history.

FSD worked smoothly for the short amount of time it was shown, according to the video above from Cybertruck Owner’s Club forum user espresso-drumbeat. It guided the vehicle through an urban area then onto a freeway ramp before arriving on the I5 toward LA, all in relatively light evening traffic.

According to the update description, FSD (Supervised) v12 includes vision-based attention monitoring with sunglasses and merges city and highway into a single software stack. In other words, it’s the first version to fully manage driving using end-to-end AI. 

Cybertruck deliveries first started 10 months ago, so FSD has been a long time coming. Recent testing by the independent automotive testing group AMCI determined that Tesla’s FSD can only go 13 miles on average before requiring human intervention. 

Elon Musk recently promised unsupervised self-driving by the end of 2025, but he has been making that same claim for nearly 10 years and it’s still not here. There’s more pressure now than ever, though, as the company is set to reveal its FSD-dependent robotaxi product on October 10th. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/evs/teslas-full-self-driving-is-now-available-for-some-cybertrucks-120055932.html?src=rss

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed bill SB 1047, which aims to prevent bad actors from using AI to cause “critical harm” to humans. The California state assembly passed the legislation by a margin of 41-9 on August 28, but several organizations including the Chamber of Commerce had urged Newsom to veto the bill. In his veto message on Sept. 29, Newsom said the bill is “well-intentioned” but “does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions – so long as a large system deploys it.” 

SB 1047 would have made the developers of AI models liable for adopting safety protocols that would stop catastrophic uses of their technology. That includes preventive measures such as testing and outside risk assessment, as well as an “emergency stop” that would completely shut down the AI model. A first violation would cost a minimum of $10 million and $30 million for subsequent infractions. However, the bill was revised to eliminate the state attorney general’s ability to sue AI companies with negligent practices if a catastrophic event does not occur. Companies would only be subject to injunctive relief and could be sued if their model caused critical harm.

This law would apply to AI models that cost at least $100 million to use and 10^26 FLOPS for training. It also would have covered derivative projects in instances where a third party has invested $10 million or more in developing or modifying the original model. Any company doing business in California would be subject to the rules if it meets the other requirements. Addressing the bill’s focus on large-scale systems, Newsom said, “I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” The veto message adds:

By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.

The earlier version of SB 1047 would have created a new department called the Frontier Model Division to oversee and enforce the rules. Instead, the bill was altered ahead of a committee vote to place governance at the hands of a Board of Frontier Models within the Government Operations Agency. The nine members would be appointed by the state’s governor and legislature.

The bill faced a complicated path to the final vote. SB 1047 was authored by California State Sen. Scott Wiener, who told TechCrunch: “We have a history with technology of waiting for harms to happen, and then wringing our hands. Let’s not wait for something bad to happen. Let’s just get out ahead of it.” Notable AI researchers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio backed the legislation, as did the Center for AI Safety, which has been raising the alarm about AI’s risks over the past year.

“Let me be clear – I agree with the author – we cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public,” Newsom said in the veto message. The statement continues:

California will not abandon its responsibility. Safety protocols must be adopted. Proactive guardrails should be implemented, and severe consequences for bad actors must be clear and enforceable. I do not agree, however, that to keep the public safe, we must settle for a solution that is not informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of AI systems and capabilities. Ultimately, any framework for effectively regulating AI needs to keep pace with the technology itself.

SB 1047 drew heavy-hitting opposition from across the tech space. Researcher Fei-Fei Li critiqued the bill, as did Meta Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun, for limiting the potential to explore new uses of AI. The trade group repping tech giants such as Amazon, Apple and Google said SB 1047 would limit new developments in the state’s tech sector. Venture capital firm Andreeson Horowitz and several startups also questioned whether the bill placed unnecessary financial burdens on AI innovators. Anthropic and other opponents of the original bill pushed for amendments that were adopted in the version of SB 1047 that passed California’s Appropriations Committee on August 15. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/california-gov-newsom-vetoes-bill-sb-1047-that-aims-to-prevent-ai-disasters-220826827.html?src=rss

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed bill SB 1047, which aims to prevent bad actors from using AI to cause “critical harm” to humans. The California state assembly passed the legislation by a margin of 41-9 on August 28, but several organizations including the Chamber of Commerce had urged Newsom to veto the bill. In his veto message on Sept. 29, Newsom said the bill is “well-intentioned” but “does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions – so long as a large system deploys it.” 

SB 1047 would have made the developers of AI models liable for adopting safety protocols that would stop catastrophic uses of their technology. That includes preventive measures such as testing and outside risk assessment, as well as an “emergency stop” that would completely shut down the AI model. A first violation would cost a minimum of $10 million and $30 million for subsequent infractions. However, the bill was revised to eliminate the state attorney general’s ability to sue AI companies with negligent practices if a catastrophic event does not occur. Companies would only be subject to injunctive relief and could be sued if their model caused critical harm.

This law would apply to AI models that cost at least $100 million to use and 10^26 FLOPS for training. It also would have covered derivative projects in instances where a third party has invested $10 million or more in developing or modifying the original model. Any company doing business in California would be subject to the rules if it meets the other requirements. Addressing the bill’s focus on large-scale systems, Newsom said, “I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” The veto message adds:

By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.

The earlier version of SB 1047 would have created a new department called the Frontier Model Division to oversee and enforce the rules. Instead, the bill was altered ahead of a committee vote to place governance at the hands of a Board of Frontier Models within the Government Operations Agency. The nine members would be appointed by the state’s governor and legislature.

The bill faced a complicated path to the final vote. SB 1047 was authored by California State Sen. Scott Wiener, who told TechCrunch: “We have a history with technology of waiting for harms to happen, and then wringing our hands. Let’s not wait for something bad to happen. Let’s just get out ahead of it.” Notable AI researchers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio backed the legislation, as did the Center for AI Safety, which has been raising the alarm about AI’s risks over the past year.

“Let me be clear – I agree with the author – we cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public,” Newsom said in the veto message. The statement continues:

California will not abandon its responsibility. Safety protocols must be adopted. Proactive guardrails should be implemented, and severe consequences for bad actors must be clear and enforceable. I do not agree, however, that to keep the public safe, we must settle for a solution that is not informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of AI systems and capabilities. Ultimately, any framework for effectively regulating AI needs to keep pace with the technology itself.

SB 1047 drew heavy-hitting opposition from across the tech space. Researcher Fei-Fei Li critiqued the bill, as did Meta Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun, for limiting the potential to explore new uses of AI. The trade group repping tech giants such as Amazon, Apple and Google said SB 1047 would limit new developments in the state’s tech sector. Venture capital firm Andreeson Horowitz and several startups also questioned whether the bill placed unnecessary financial burdens on AI innovators. Anthropic and other opponents of the original bill pushed for amendments that were adopted in the version of SB 1047 that passed California’s Appropriations Committee on August 15. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/california-gov-newsom-vetoes-bill-sb-1047-that-aims-to-prevent-ai-disasters-220826827.html?src=rss

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed bill SB 1047, which aims to prevent bad actors from using AI to cause “critical harm” to humans. The California state assembly passed the legislation by a margin of 41-9 on August 28, but several organizations including the Chamber of Commerce had urged Newsom to veto the bill. In his veto message on Sept. 29, Newsom said the bill is “well-intentioned” but “does not take into account whether an Al system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions – so long as a large system deploys it.” 

SB 1047 would have made the developers of AI models liable for adopting safety protocols that would stop catastrophic uses of their technology. That includes preventive measures such as testing and outside risk assessment, as well as an “emergency stop” that would completely shut down the AI model. A first violation would cost a minimum of $10 million and $30 million for subsequent infractions. However, the bill was revised to eliminate the state attorney general’s ability to sue AI companies with negligent practices if a catastrophic event does not occur. Companies would only be subject to injunctive relief and could be sued if their model caused critical harm.

This law would apply to AI models that cost at least $100 million to use and 10^26 FLOPS for training. It also would have covered derivative projects in instances where a third party has invested $10 million or more in developing or modifying the original model. Any company doing business in California would be subject to the rules if it meets the other requirements. Addressing the bill’s focus on large-scale systems, Newsom said, “I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” The veto message adds:

By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.

The earlier version of SB 1047 would have created a new department called the Frontier Model Division to oversee and enforce the rules. Instead, the bill was altered ahead of a committee vote to place governance at the hands of a Board of Frontier Models within the Government Operations Agency. The nine members would be appointed by the state’s governor and legislature.

The bill faced a complicated path to the final vote. SB 1047 was authored by California State Sen. Scott Wiener, who told TechCrunch: “We have a history with technology of waiting for harms to happen, and then wringing our hands. Let’s not wait for something bad to happen. Let’s just get out ahead of it.” Notable AI researchers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio backed the legislation, as did the Center for AI Safety, which has been raising the alarm about AI’s risks over the past year.

“Let me be clear – I agree with the author – we cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public,” Newsom said in the veto message. The statement continues:

California will not abandon its responsibility. Safety protocols must be adopted. Proactive guardrails should be implemented, and severe consequences for bad actors must be clear and enforceable. I do not agree, however, that to keep the public safe, we must settle for a solution that is not informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of Al systems and capabilities. Ultimately, any framework for effectively regulating Al needs to keep pace with the technology itself.

SB 1047 drew heavy-hitting opposition from across the tech space. Researcher Fei-Fei Li critiqued the bill, as did Meta Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun, for limiting the potential to explore new uses of AI. The trade group repping tech giants such as Amazon, Apple and Google said SB 1047 would limit new developments in the state’s tech sector. Venture capital firm Andreeson Horowitz and several startups also questioned whether the bill placed unnecessary financial burdens on AI innovators. Anthropic and other opponents of the original bill pushed for amendments that were adopted in the version of SB 1047 that passed California’s Appropriations Committee on August 15. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/california-gov-newsom-vetoes-bill-sb-1047-that-aims-to-prevent-ai-disasters-220826827.html?src=rss

Songs from popular artists have begun to disappear from YouTube as the platform’s deal with the performing rights organization SESAC (Society of European Stage Authors and Composers) approaches its expiration date. As reported by Variety, certain songs by Adele, Green Day, Bob Dylan, R.E.M., Burna Boy and other artists have been blocked in the US, though their entire catalogs aren’t necessarily affected. Videos that have been pulled, like Adele’s “Rolling in the Deep,” now just show a black screen with the message: “This video contains content from SESAC. It is not available in your country.”

In a statement to Engadget, a YouTube spokesperson said the platform has been in talks with SESAC to renew the deal, but “despite our best efforts, we were unable to reach an equitable agreement before its expiration. We take copyright very seriously and as a result, content represented by SESAC is no longer available on YouTube in the US. We are in active conversations with SESAC and are hoping to reach a new deal as soon as possible.” According to a source that spoke to Variety, however, the deal hasn’t even expired yet — it’ll reportedly terminate sometime next week — and the move on YouTube’s part may be a negotiation tactic. SESAC has not yet released a statement.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/youtube/youtube-blocks-songs-from-artists-including-adele-and-green-day-amid-licensing-negotiations-151741653.html?src=rss