规模法则：加州参议员斯科特·维纳谈参议院第53号法案

这里是LawFair播客。我是凯文·弗雷泽，德克萨斯大学法学院人工智能创新与法律研究员，同时也是LawFair的高级编辑。今天，我们为您带来一些不同的内容。这是来自我们新播客系列《规模法则》的一集。《规模法则》是LawFair与德克萨斯法学院共同打造的。

It's the LawFair podcast. I'm Kevin Fraser, the AI innovation and law fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a senior editor at LawFair. Today, we're bringing you something a little different. It's an episode from our new podcast series, Scaling Laws. Scaling Laws is a creation of lawfare and Texas law.

它有一个简单的目标，却肩负着重大使命。我们探讨从山姆·奥特曼到国会参议员再到像您这样的听众最关心的AI与法律政策问题。我们将深入剖析新法规、各类提案以及实验室动态，确保您及时了解塑造这项关键技术未来的规则、条例、标准和理念。如果这听起来正是您感兴趣的领域——我们的直觉告诉我们是——您可以在任何播客订阅平台找到《规模法则》，也可以在X和Blue Sky上关注我们。

It has a pretty simple aim, but a huge mission. We cover the most important AI and law policy questions that are top of mind for everyone from Sam Altman to senators on the hill to folks like you. We dive deep into the weeds of new laws, various proposals, and what the labs are up to to make sure you're up to date on the rules and regulations, standards, and ideas that are shaping the future of this pivotal technology. If that sounds like something you're gonna be interested in and our hunch is it is, you can find Scaling Laws wherever you subscribe to podcasts. You can also follow us on x and blue sky.

谢谢。

Thank you.

当AI霸主接管世界时，你最期待什么？

When the AI overlords take over, what are you most excited about?

这并不疯狂，只是很聪明。

It's it's not crazy. It's just smart.

就在今年，前六个月已经出台了大约一千项相关法律。

And just this year, in the first six months, there have been something like a thousand laws.

究竟是谁在构建它如何运作、普通人将如何使用它的框架？

Who's actually building the scaffolding around how it's gonna work, how everyday folks are gonna use it?

人工智能只有在社会允许的情况下才能发挥作用。

AI only works if society lets it work.

有太多问题需要解决，而且

There are so many questions have to be figured out, and

没人来参加我的附加课程。

Nobody came to my bonus class.

让我们强化道路规则。欢迎回到《规模法则》播客，这是由LawFair和德克萨斯大学法学院为您带来的节目，探讨人工智能、政策以及当然还有法律的交叉领域。我是凯文·弗雷泽，德克萨斯法学院的人工智能创新与法律研究员，同时也是LawFair的高级编辑，与明尼苏达法学院副教授兼LawFair研究主任艾伦·罗森斯坦，以及我们的返场嘉宾州参议员斯科特·维纳一起。随着关于如何监管人工智能的辩论变得更加党派化，两党人士至少可以在一件事上达成共识——维纳参议员是一位富有创造力且不知疲倦的政策制定者。

Let's enforce the rules of the road. Welcome back to scaling laws, the podcast brought to you by LawFair and the University of Texas School of Law that explores the intersection of AI, policy, and, of course, the law. I'm Kevin Frazier, the AI innovation and law fellow at Texas law and a senior editor at LawFair, joined by Alan Rosenstein, associate professor at Minnesota law and research director at LawFair, and our returning guest, state senator Scott Wiener. As debates over how to regulate AI become more partisan, folks on both sides of the aisle can certainly agree on one thing. Senator Weiner is a creative and tireless policymaker.

我们很荣幸能邀请他解释纽森州长最近签署的一项重要人工智能政策。希望您喜欢本期节目。如果说各州是民主的'实验室'，那么维纳参议员，我确信您就是一位博士级别的科学家。您在住房、交通、无家可归者等众多棘手问题上取得了进展，然后您选择了人工智能。

We're fortunate to have him on to explain a major AI policy recently signed into law by governor Newsom. And with that, we hope you enjoy the show. So if states are, quote, unquote, laboratories of democracy, then senator Weiner, I'm pretty sure you are effectively a PhD level scientist. You've made progress happen on housing, on transit, on homelessness, and so many easy issues. And then you picked AI.

为什么？您为何要在这个问题上投入如此宝贵且富有创意的政治资本？

Why? Why have you spent so much of your very valuable and very creative political capital on this issue?

嗯，我代表旧金山，这里是人工智能创新的核心地带，我为此感到自豪。我们所有人都为此骄傲。几年前，我尊敬且信任的社区成员——有些在AI实验室工作，有些是初创公司创始人——他们邀请我讨论AI安全问题。于是我参加了一系列晚宴和沙龙，结识了许多杰出的人工智能专家，他们谈论着正在进行的工作、所见所闻以及AI的前景，同时也表达了他们对安全风险的担忧。他们担心现有措施不足，我们过度依赖AI实验室的非约束性承诺来确保合规。

Well, I represent San Francisco, which is the beating heart of AI innovation and I'm proud of that. We're all very proud of that. And a few years ago, people who I respect and trust in the community who were working at AI labs or who were some were startup founders, they asked me to have conversation around AI safety. And so I ended up attending a series of dinners and salons with significant number of people, really impressive AI minds, who talked about the work that they were doing and what they were seeing and the promise of AI, but also talked about their concern, and some of the safety, risks. And they were worried that that not enough was happening and that we were relying on some non binding pledges from AI labs to do the right thing.

他们希望探索一种政策途径。于是我们开始与众多不同人士展开对话，最终形成了我们AI安全法案SB1047的第一版。

And they wanted to explore a policy approach. And so we started having conversations with a lot of different people and and the first version of our AI safety bill SB ten forty seven was the result of of those conversations.

我很好奇，参议员，既然您代表旧金山，我想AI对您部分选民而言是日常监管和政策议题，其关注度可能远超州议会其他成员或全国范围。但同时，您想必也自视为全体加州人的代表。相较于住房、交通或冰面法案等其他您参与的事务，我好奇您是否认为AI对旧金山乃至更广泛地区的普通民众而言是关乎生计的核心议题？

I'm curious, senator, since you do represent San Francisco, I imagine that AI is a day to day AI regulation as well, AI policy, is kind of a day to day concern to some of your constituents in a way that it might not be to others in the state legislature or across the country. But at the same time, you know, you also, I assume, think of yourself as representing Californians in general. And I mean, maybe compared to some of the other issues, whether it's housing or transportation or the ice masking bill, you know, all the other things you've been involved in. I'm curious if you think that AI is a kind of bread and butter issue, for let's call it normies in San Francisco and beyond.

在旧金山情况确实有些特殊。过去两年里，常有AI实验室员工和科技工作者在街头向我致谢。代表旧金山的妙处在于选民对您的工作了如指掌——在这里试图糊弄选民绝非明智之举。但AI议题能否像住房、医疗或气候问题那样引发民众共鸣？

Well, in San Francisco, you know, it's a little bit different. I did have people, invariably people who worked at AI labs and other tech workers come up to me on the street throughout the last two years to thank me for my work on it. That's the beauty of representing San Francisco is that your constituents know exactly what you're doing and you can and it's always bad to try to BS your constituents. But in San Francisco, they particularly know if you're BS ing them. And so does it resonate with people at the level of housing or some health care issues or or even or climate?

尚未达到那种程度。但民众赞赏我的专注，他们既对AI潜力感到兴奋，也对算法歧视、就业岗位急速消亡等非灾难性风险感到忧虑。与历史技术革新不同，人们担心心理健康问题，比如聊天机器人诱导儿童自杀这类事件。

No. Not at that level. But people also appreciate that I'm focusing on it, and they understand that they're excited about AI and what it can do. And they're also a little nervous, not just around the catastrophic risk that that our legislation dealt with, but also around algorithmic discrimination, around the very, very rapid destruction of jobs. And unlike any other past technology and how we're gonna deal with that, people are worried about mental health issues, and they don't like it when a chatbot tries to convince a kid to commit suicide.

因此民众确实存在担忧，他们欣慰于有人正在切实解决这些问题。

And so people do have concerns, they're glad that someone is actually trying to address them.

作为您的前任选民，我必须指出旧金山本身就是加州这个巨大泡沫中的特殊存在。我好奇当AI辩论时，贝克斯菲尔德、莫德斯托等非AI创新中心的同僚是否向您求助过？毕竟他们对AI技术细节可能不太熟悉。当时是否存在某个团队协助同僚们理解这些议题？

As one of your former constituents, I can speak to the fact that San Francisco is in and of itself a bubble within a bubble that may be California, albeit a very big bubble. I'm curious if you had your colleagues in Bakersfield, in Modesto, in the areas that perhaps aren't the beating heart of AI innovation. Although Austin may have something to say about that, but we can fight about that another time. Did they turn to you during these AI debates to say, Senator Weiner, you know, Scott, help us. We we're not familiar with these AI ins and outs, or was there sort of a group that was helping your colleagues better understand these issues?

从立法理解的角度来看，这种协助具体是如何运作的？

What did that look like just from a legislative understanding perspective?

好消息是，加州立法机构中有许多成员对技术、科技政策及人工智能领域相当了解。比如我最新的同事之一杰瑞·麦克纳尼，他曾是国会议员，去年十二月宣誓就任州参议员。我相信他是一名核物理学家，或是某种非常杰出的物理学家——具体记不清了，但他在AI领域确实造诣颇深，一直是这方面出色的同事。

Well, the good news is there are a number of members of the California legislature who are quite knowledgeable around technology and tech policy and AI. And so for example, my my one of my newest colleagues, Jerry McNerney, who used to be in congress is now he was sworn into the state senate last December. He's, I believe, a nuclear physicist and or or some sort of very impressive physicist. I can't remember which kind. And he he knows his stuff around AI, and he's been a great colleague on that.

我的同事，来自东湾的州众议员丽贝卡·鲍尔-卡汉，她担任众议院隐私委员会主席，在该领域知识渊博且非常活跃。圣地亚哥的州参议员史蒂夫·帕维亚也一直很积极。还有贝菲·威克斯等多人，其中部分来自东湾地区。她虽未直接参与AI领域工作，但在社交媒体儿童保护等方面有丰富经验。此外还有其他成员。

My colleague, assembly member Rebecca Bauer Cahan from the East Bay, who chairs the assembly privacy committee, she is very knowledgeable and very active in the space. Senator Steve Pavia from San Diego has been very active. So there have been a number of Buffy Wicks, some of them are from the East Bay. She hasn't worked in the AI space, but she's worked in various sort of child protection spaces around social media and so forth. And there are others as well.

来自硅谷部分地区的乔什·贝克尔。我们拥有一支专业且活跃的团队，同时也与其他州成员合作，比如纽约州等。这种协作效果良好，立法机构内已形成扎实的知识储备。

Josh Becker from who represents part of Silicon Valley. So we have a good crew of members who are knowledgeable and active. And we also work with members from other states. So from New York, for example, and a few other states. So it's been a good collaboration and we have a good knowledge base in the legislature.

我们稍后会详细讨论SB53法案，以及之前的SB1047法案和未来相关事项。但在此之前，我想先提出一个宏观问题——鉴于您身处实践前沿，请指正我的理解是否准确：广义而言，您应该属于AI安全运动的参与者？当然这个范畴包含众多分支。如果简化来看，另一方面则存在加速主义派系。

So we're gonna dive into the details of SB 53 and then sort of SB ten forty seven previously and and and all the future stuff in a second. But before we do, I wanna ask a high level question and and get your sense since you're very much in the trenches. I think and please correct me if you disagree. I I think it would be fair to say that you are part of the AI safety movement very broadly construed, and obviously that contains multitudes. And, you know, if we're gonna simplify, you know, on the other hand, you have the kind of accelerationist types.

（再次声明这是简化表述）比如白宫人士、众多企业及风投机构。我多年观察的感受是，安全派曾占据明显优势，但过去6-12个月形势有所转变，部分源于华盛顿政局变化，部分则是整体氛围使然。显然我们仍处于AI监管和政策的早期阶段。您如何看待当前势头？或者如果您认为这个问题前提本身就不恰当，也请直言。

Again, we're simplifying, but, you know, folks like, you know, in the the White House and a lot of the the companies, a lot of the the VC. My sense of following this for a few years was that the wind was very much at the back of the safety types for a while, and then that has shifted somewhat in the last six to twelve months, part of it being what's happened in Washington, but part of it just being the general vibe. Obviously, we're in the very early innings of AI regulation and AI policy. I am curious where you think the momentum is or feel free to push back on the kind of premise of the question whether you don't think that's a useful way of of thinking about that.

不，我认为某种程度上...这就像有效利他主义者与加速主义者之争。我觉得大多数人处于这个光谱的中间位置，而非极端两端。AI领域内外许多人其实都希望——

No. I I I think it's in a way that, you know, effective altruist versus acceleration assets. You know, I think I think most people are somewhere on that spectrum, but they're not at the at one end or the other. And I think I think so many people in AI world and beyond want

实现

to

目睹AI创新涌现，人们渴望看到它如何让世界变得更美好，治愈疾病并改善人们的生活。人们希望保护公共卫生与安全，也理解互联网经济模式带来的益处。同时他们意识到，或许我们早该在数据隐私方面采取行动。人们知道社交媒体给社会带来了巨大好处，但也看到了其弊端，或许我们本应早些对此有所作为。

see AI innovation happen and want to see how it can make the world a better place and cure diseases and make people's lives better. And people want to protect public health and safety. And people understand that there are benefits to the internet economic model that's developed. And they also know that maybe we should have done something about data privacy a long time ago. They know that social media has had huge benefits for society and they also see the detriments and that maybe we should have done something about that.

因此人们对此的思考相当成熟。确实，有些人持加速主义观点，认为只需继续前进不必担忧，一切终会解决；另有些人则不愿看到任何变革发生，但这并不代表大多数人的立场。诚然，舆论风向时有摇摆，但归根结底，我们必须制定正确政策，无论当下舆论倾向如何。

So people are pretty sophisticated in how they think about this. And yeah, you have the people who are like, you know, accelerationism and just, you know, just just keep going and don't worry about it and everything will work out one way or the other. And then you have, you know, people who are just don't wanna see anything happen, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of people. And, yeah, the pendulum has swung back and forth a little bit. But ultimately, you know, we just have to make the right policy regardless of where that pendulum is at a moment in time.

是的，去年在SB1047法案辩论期间，我深切体会到了这场争论。如今联邦政府的做法纯粹是加速主义路线，我认为绝大多数人并不认同这种方式。

And and, yes, last year during the s p ten forty seven debate, I became very intimately aware of of this fight. And it and, you know, what's happening now with with the with this federal government and and they they just wanna have pure accelerationism. And I don't think most people want that.

我很好奇，你对SB1047法案引发的巨大争议有多惊讶？它确实成为了焦点事件。这是你预期的效果吗，还是超出了你的预料？

I I am I'm curious. How surprised were you that the fight over SB ten forty seven became such a huge deal? I mean, it was a real focusing flashpoint. I mean, is this did you did you get what you were hoping with that, or was it a little more than you expected?

确实超出了我的预期。当纽瑟姆州长否决该法案时，他撰写了迄今为止我见过最长的否决意见书——长达数页，篇幅异常详尽。

It was a little more than I expected. I think it was the governor. When when governor Newsom vetoed it, it was it was actually the longest veto message that I've ever seen. It was like multiple pages. A very long veto message.

通常否决意见书只有一页或一页半，但这份足有三四页。州长在意见书中形容该法案'形成了自己的气候系统'，这说法很准确。当我提出SB1047法案时，以为这只是常规的技术监管提案。

Usually, it's like one page or maybe a page and a half. This is, I don't know, three or four pages. And the governor described it as that the bill or said that the the in the veto message that the bill had created its own weather system, which was true. When I introduced s p ten forty seven, I thought this will be a typical tech regulation bill. We'll introduce it.

本以为会遭遇些反对意见，通过对话协商后，要么通过修订版要么无法通过。我完全没有预料到相关讨论和争论会达到如此规模。

There will be, you know, some opposition. We'll, you know, have conversations, some negotiations. We'll figure it out. We'll move it forward, and and we'll either pass something or we won't be able to pass something. I did not anticipate the scale of the the the dialogue and the fight.

最有趣的是，这项法案在双方眼中都变成了某种——该怎么形容呢？一个化身或容器，承载着所有人的希望、梦想、恐惧与焦虑。支持者和反对者都赋予了法案原本没有的内容。反对者们描述的法案规模，远比实际的SB1047法案要庞大得多。

And what was very interesting about it is that on both sides, the bill became in a way like a what do you call it? An avatar or a vessel for everyone's hope, dream hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties, and and both support there were both supporters and opposition or supporters and opponents who attributed things to the bill that were not in the bill. So there were opponents the the bill itself was I don't wanna call it modest. It was an impactful bill. But there were opponents who when they described the bill, they were describing a bill that was way bigger and more expansive than what s b four s b ten forty seven actually was.

同样，支持者们也将超出法案实际范畴的期望寄托其中。从某种意义上说，该法案引发了一场至关重要的讨论，迫使人们思考：当我们说要建立智能护栏时，究竟指什么？当所有主要AI实验室的CEO们前往国会、首尔和白宫承诺进行安全测试并承担责任时，这意味着什么？

And there were supporters who were putting their hopes into the bill and and describing it and envisioning it as being bigger than it actually was. And so in a way, the bill triggered a really important conversation and forced people to talk about it. What do we mean when we say that we wanna have smart guardrails? What does it mean when the CEOs of all of the major AI labs go to congress and go to Seoul, South Korea and go to the White House and promise that they're gonna do safety testing and be responsible? Okay.

现在我们想将其写入法律，却遭到各方反对。这意味着什么？我们该如何在促进创新的同时，确保社会不会陷入灾难？尽管知道公众站在我这边，这个过程仍异常痛苦。联合民调显示该法案在全州支持率接近80%，科技工作者中的支持率甚至高于普通公众。

So we wanna put that in statute now and now they all hate that. And so what does that mean? How are we gonna actually do this in a way that promotes innovation and make sure we don't have a catastrophe for society? It was exceptionally painful for me even though I knew the public was on my side. The polling that was done, including polling that was done jointly by supporters and opponents, showed overwhelming support, pushing 80% support statewide for the bill, higher support among tech workers than among the general public.

我对民意支持感到欣慰，但过程依然痛苦。有些曾经的支持者因此不再支持我。

So I felt good about the popular opinion, but it was painful. And I had I I have supporters who are no longer supporters as a result of it.

关于AI民调质量的问题我们改日再谈，这就像问人们是否认为类星体会导致世界末日——没人知道答案，但听起来很可怕。不过我们...

Well, I I will save a conversation about the quality of AI polling for another date because I think it's somewhat akin to asking if people think quasars are going to cause the end of the world, which is to say no one knows, but it sounds scary. But we we can

我觉得它们会的。谢谢你的提醒，看来今晚我要失眠了。

talk about I think they will. Thank you for that. There goes my good night of sleep.

快去告诉你的孩子们小心类星体，艾伦。不过参议员，我迫切想听你解释SB1047和SB53之间的演变过程，因为我在许多问题上与您立场不同。但正如您所说，关键点是你们确实非常审慎地从SB1047中吸取教训，这充分体现了立法学习机制的价值。你们在SB1047争议中被指责过于封闭，举行秘密会议，只听取安全辩论中某一方的意见。

Go tell your kids, Alan. Watch out for quasars. But, senator, I'm eager to hear your explanation of the process that occurred between s b ten forty seven and s b 53 because I come out a different way on many of these issues than you. I think that the important point, though, as you've noted, is you all were very, very deliberate about trying to learn from s b ten forty seven in a way that I do think speaks highly of the legislative learning process. So you all were accused in the s b ten forty seven fight of being too insular, of having cloak and dagger type sessions, of, really only hearing from one side of the safety debate.

在否决信息对未来愿景表述含糊不清的情况下，我们是如何一步步推进SB 53法案的？

What sort of steps occurred between the veto message that was a little muddled about what exactly we wanted to see in the future and the path to SB 53?

没错。在详谈之前，我想先就那些关于阴谋论的言论做些回应——那些暗箱操作、遮遮掩掩的说法，确实有人声称存在大量阴谋论思维，特别是在...我能说脏话吗？

Yeah. And I do wanna before I tell you talk about that, I wanna address the in terms of some of the conspiracy brain stuff that was happening about cloak and dagger and secretive, that was there were people who said that there was a ton of conspiracy brain, especially on the Am I allowed to say curse words?

错误。特别是

Incorrect. Especially

在名为x.com的狗血平台上。说真的，全是阴谋论思维。没有哪个立法过程是完美的，事后总能指指点点说该这样做那样做。SB 1047最初版本是我们所谓的意向法案，就像草案大纲，基本就是向世界宣告：我们正在推进这个。2023年会议尾声，也就是1047法案正式提交前六个月，我就把这份公开的意向法案大纲印发了，最终内容与正式版基本一致。

on the shit show platform known as x.com. I mean, truly conspiracy brain. Mean, no legislative process is perfect and you can always look back and say, hey, I should have done this or that. The original version of SB ten forty seven was what we call an intent bill, which is like an outline of a bill where you're basically putting it out there to describe say to the world, hey, we're working on this. In 2023, at the end of our session, so like month like six months before ten forty seven went in the print, I put in print an intent bill for the public to see of an outline that ended up being largely consistent with what became SB ten forty seven.

我们这么做就是为了明确宣告：嘿世界，各位，无论爱它恨它，这就是我们的构思。请告诉我们你的想法。

And we did that for the precise purpose of saying, hey, world. Hey, everyone. Love this or hate this. This is what we're thinking about. Tell us what you think.

我当时直接把这份公开意向法案的链接群发给可能支持或反对的人——风投、科技大佬等各类人士，附言'我们刚提出这个，期待会面听取意见'。结果寂静得像能听见针掉地。

And I literally took a link to that publicly introduced intent bill and started texting it around to people who I knew would like it or not like it, to VCs, to tech high level tech people, all sorts of people saying, hey. We just introduced this. We'd love to meet. Tell us what you think. And it was like you could hear a pin drop.

这不是批评。大家要经营公司、做投资，都很忙。所以我们收到的反馈极少。后来我们整合出1047法案，在正式提交前把草案发给...不便透露具体名单，但包括后来反对该法案的人士，就想问'你们怎么看'。

And and it's not a criticism. People are running companies, doing investments, people, you know, are busy. We so we got very little feedback. Then we put ten forty seven together, and before we introduced it, we were sending a draft around. I'm not gonna say who we sent it to, but we sent it to various people who ended up being opponents at ten forty seven to say, tell us what you think.

有些人确实没有回应。有些人表示，嘿，这看起来相当合理，方向正确，但其中一些人最终却反对它。所以我认为，我们对于正在审视的内容是极度透明的，只是人们没有集中注意力。他们可能认为这项法案会很快夭折。

Some people didn't really respond. Some people said, hey. That looks pretty reasonable, the right direction, and some of those people ended up opposing it. So we were, I think, hyper transparent about what we were looking at, and people just were not focused. And they thought or maybe they thought this bill will die quickly.

然后我们在2024年2月提出了这个法案。前三个月几乎是一片寂静，关于它的讨论非常非常少。几个月后，几个加速主义大V在推特上对此大加抨击，风波才真正开始。之后我们根据反馈对法案进行了重大修订，特别是关于开源和紧急关闭开关的要求。

We then introduced it in, I think, February 2024. And for the first three months, like, there was it was like silence. Very, very little dialogue about it. And then a few months later, a few of the big accelerationist accounts had a meltdown about it on Twitter, and that's when it started. And then after that happened, we made big amendments to the bill around open source, around the the requirement to have a shutdown switch.

根据反馈，尤其是开源社区的意见，我们对法案进行了许多重要修改。关于法案的一些阴谋论真的只是无稽之谈，我们始终努力保持公开透明。但话说回来，在州长否决后，他成立了一个工作组，包括两位法案反对者和一位较支持者。他们做了大量有益工作，而我提交了SB 53的原始版本。我们在十月份选取了两个最具共识的部分——计划创建的公共云计算平台Cal Compute和举报人保护条款。

So many significant amendments to the bill in response to feedback, particularly from the open source community. And so I I the some of the conspiracy theories about it were, you know, just truly that conspiracy theories, which really tried to be open and transparent about the bill. But anyway, with that said, after the veto, the governor empaneled this working group, including two people who were opponents of the bill and one who was more sympathetic to the bill. And they did a lot of good work, and and I introduced the original version of s p 53. We took the two pieces that were least controversial at October, which was Cal Compute, the public cloud that we wanted to create, and then the whistleblower protections.

我们将这些内容纳入法案，并承诺在工作组报告出炉后考虑添加其他部分。该报告最终于今年春季发布，包含一些非常扎实的建议，我们将其纳入法案并持续推进。

And we put that in a bill and said, once the working group report comes out, we will consider putting pieces in. That report ended up coming out in the spring of this year, and it had some really solid recommendations, and we included those in the bill and proceeded from there.

那么我们来谈谈SB 53法案。在纽瑟姆州长签署后不久，凯文和我立即做了快速反应。很荣幸能与法案起草者交流。如你所提，法案包含Cal Compute和举报人保护两部分，我认为都很棒且争议不大——当然我们可以深入讨论，肯定有不少值得探讨的内容。

So let's talk about then SB 53. And so, you know, as shortly after governor Newsom signed it, Kevin and I did did a kind of rapid response on this, but it's a real pleasure to be able to talk to drafter As of you mentioned, it has the the Cal Compute part, and it has the the whistleblower part, both of which I think are are great and probably not that controversial, though we can we'll get to them. I'm sure there are things to talk about.

我是说，

I mean, mean,

在AI领域每件事都有争议。但我认为我们应该把主要时间集中在报告要求这部分。希望你能用自己的话说明你想实现的目标和对报告要求的理解。因为反复研读相关条款后，我发现些有趣的地方——毕竟我们都是律师，对吧？我们的本能就是研究法律文本并琢磨如何极限解读。

everything is controversial with AI. But I I I think it's probably worth spending most of our time focusing really on the the reporting requirements here. So I'd love to get sort of in your words, your description of what you're trying to accomplish and what you think the reporting requirement is because, you know, having now read that provision a few times, I think there's some interesting, I mean we're all lawyers, right? This is what we do. We look at legislative text and we immediately see how far we can torture it.

有些值得讨论的有趣边缘案例。但在开始之前，你认为这项报告要求主要起到什么作用？从政策角度看，你希望通过这项报告要求实现什么目标？

Some interesting corner cases that might be worth talking about. But before we do that, what do you think the reporting requirement does in the main and and what are you trying to accomplish from a policy perspective with that reporting requirement?

确实。顺便说一句，举报人条款其实非常重要，因为现行举报法律仅适用于违法行为。而新规允许人们举报那些虽不违法但存在危险的行为。这点意义重大。

Sure. And by the way, whistleblower piece actually is quite important because existing whistleblower law only applies if you violate the law. This allows people to blow the whistle even if it's not a violation of the law, but it's just something dangerous that they're proceeding. So that is quite significant. Yeah.

具体取决于实验室年收入是否超过5亿美元。无论超没超过，都需要披露某种版本的安全政策或灾难性风险政策。如果没有政策就必须声明没有。但现在我们实际上能知道实情，因为他们都声称自己制定了这些政策并正在执行。

So it it's for for well, it depends if you have if you if you're a a lab with annual revenue of more than 500,000,000, then or or less than 500,000,000, you have to disclose some version of your policy around safety or around catastrophic risk. So if if and if you don't if you if you don't have a policy, then you have to say that. But now we actually will know because they all say that they have these policies and they're doing it.

好的。我想就此稍作探讨——这正是凯文和我试图弄清楚的漏洞（或许不该称为漏洞）。根据条文解读，你们确实可以声明'我们没有政策'对吧？我猜你们的考量是：虽然可能有公司会这么做，但作为前沿AI公司没有政策将面临市场反弹和声誉损失，这种压力会形成约束。这个理解正确吗？

Okay. So I I actually wanna focus on that for just a second if that's okay because this was the the loophole or quote unquote, I'm not sure if it was a loophole, but that Kevin and I were trying to figure out, which is as we read the language, and it's good, it's good that you're confirming this, you are allowed to say, Yeah, we don't have one, right? And, and I, I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that your calculation here is, I, there may be some companies that do this, but presumably the market blowback, the the embarrassment of being a Frontier AI company with no policy will will discipline that. Is that the theory here?

是的。SP1047是责任法案，要求进行安全测试。如果未执行且发生事故，需承担法律责任。但该法案未获通过。

Yeah. So s p ten forty seven was a liability law. You have to do the safety testing. And if you don't and something bad happens, you have exposure. That didn't fly.

因此SP53是结合举报人和加州算力条款的透明度法案。它不强制企业采取具体措施，而是要求透明公开。当然，如果企业决定不制定任何责任分级政策或安全政策，就必须如实声明。

And so SP 53 is a transparency law with the whistleblower and Cal Compute as well. But it's largely a transparency law. And so it's not mandating what they have to do. It's saying you have to be transparent about it. And, yes, if you have decided you're gonna blow it off and not have any kind of responsible scaling policy or safety policy, then you have to say that and be transparent about it.

确实会面临舆论压力。我们认为几乎没有实验室会这么做。大型实验室需要披露更详细的完整政策，虽然可以以商业秘密为由进行删减（这方面可能会有争议），但必须公开披露。

And yes, there will be blowback. And if you and we think that none of them are gonna do that or very few will do that. And so the large companies, the large labs will have to disclose a more a detail their full policy. They do have the ability to redact for trade secrets, and there could be some fighting about that. But they have to disclose it.

对于年收入低于5亿美元的企业，他们只需披露一份简化版报告。我们对这些小型公司采取较为宽松的监管方式。若发生重大事故——即出现或可能发生危险情况时，他们必须向应急服务办公室（OES）报告。顺便分享个立法冷知识：立法过程中最令人头疼的环节之一就是确定由哪个机构来执行法律。

And then under 500,000,000 of revenue, they have to disclose a summary version of it. We have a lighter touch for those smaller companies. And then if they have a critical incident, so something happens that shows something dangerous happening or potentially happening, they have to report it to, I believe the agency we ended on was the Office of Emergency Services, OES. One thing that fun fact for people who don't follow the legislative process. One of the most absolutely annoying part of legislating is that is figuring out what agency is going to administer a law.

因为这往往引发激烈争执。利益相关方对执行机构人选各执己见——他们偏爱某些机构又厌恶另一些。机构本身也推诿说'我们不想接这活儿'。而我们只能说'不，你们明明最合适'。结果就是无休止的扯皮。

Because what happens is there's huge fighting. Stakeholders have strong opinions about who or who shouldn't because they like certain agencies or hate certain agencies. The agencies themselves are like, I don't want to do that. And we're like, well, no, but you make perfect sense. No.

最后我们选定OES作为主管机构。我很欣赏OES，这是个非常优秀的部门，但确定归属的过程确实费尽周折。

I don't wanna do it. And then you end up fighting about that, and then you have to work out who's gonna do it. So we went with OES in the end. I love OES. It's a great it's a great department, but it was a a process getting there.

关于这项报告要求，我还有个问题。考虑到立法时允许企业如实声明'我们没有相关政策'的开放性态度，或许已部分回答了这个问题。您是否熟悉第一修正案下的Zauterer判例？该案确立了商业领域中何为合宪的强制披露标准——简言之，政府可以强制企业做出与其意愿相悖的陈述，只要这些事实性披露与政府商业监管利益相关且内容无争议。

So one more question on this reporting requirement, which is, and again, I think the self conscious willingness to let companies say we don't have a policy, if that's what they have, may answer this question, I'd love to get your thoughts on So, I'm sure you're familiar with the Zauterer case under the First Amendment. For our audience, this is the case that sets out what counts as permissible compelled speech in the commercial context. So, basically, the short version is that under this Zauterer test, the government can force companies to say things they would otherwise not want to do if it's sort of related to a government interest in the commercial context, and the the disclosures are, I think the language here is factual and uncontroversial.

顺便说，那个判决糟糕透顶（记录在案）。不知道您是否认同？简直恶劣。呃...抱歉失态了。

Terrible decision, by the way, just for the record. I don't know if you agree. Horrible. Well, I'm sorry.

请详细说说？您为何持此观点？

Say more, actually. Why do you why do you think so?

我认为最高法院多年来神化企业言论自由。公民联合案就是这种倾向最极端、最具破坏性的体现。我在旧金山监事会任职时曾通过法案，要求含糖饮料广告标注'可能导致儿童糖尿病'的健康警示，最终却因败诉被迫撤销。后来我又主导通过要求大企业披露碳排放的法案...

I I think, like, I I think, like, this Supreme Court for years has been, first of all, fetishizing corporate speech. And we saw and Citizens United, of course, is, like, just the most extreme and destructive and horrific manifestation of that. But we've seen it, you know and I, you know, I had when I was on the board of supervisors in San Francisco, I passed a law requiring health warnings on advertisements for sugary beverages that like, it can give your kids diabetes. And ultimately we had, that had to be repealed because it was losing in in court. I I you know, we had it got to the point where I passed this I authored this law requiring large corporations to disclose their carbon emissions.

目前正在实施中。商会认为这是强制企业披露数据的言论，但已被法院驳回。然而，他们竟能理直气壮地提出这种论点，恰恰说明最高法院在企业言论自由问题上已走向极端。我并非主张企业完全不应享有第一修正案保护，但现状确实矫枉过正了。

It's being implemented now. And the chamber of commerce took the position that that was compelled corporate speech to disclose data. It's been rejected by the courts. But the fact that they even feel like they can, in good faith, raise that argument shows how extreme the Supreme Court has gotten around corporate speech. I'm not saying that corporate that corporations should never have any First Amendment protections whatsoever, but I think it's gone too far.

这很有意思。你对Zoudeur案的担忧在于——尽管这个八十年代中期判决的本意是让政府监管比常规强制言论原则更宽松——但其中'事实性且无争议'的要求，仍会阻碍某些你认为合理的政府透明度立法。

So that's so that's interesting. So so your your concern with Zoudeur is even though it's actually, at the time it was decided, which was, I think, the mid eighties, meant to actually be more permissive for government regulation than the normal compelled speed doctrine, the fact that it still requires things like factual and uncontroversial would prohibit some government transparency legislation that you would think is is appropriate.

我得说明，那个判决本身并非大错特错，问题在于后续发展。应该说...让我重新表述：真正糟糕的是此后几十年间衍生出的司法原则，包括现在这套体系。

And I should say that decision was not in and of itself inherently terrible, but where it's where it's gone. I should say where it's gone from there has been like, I don't I I don't I don't yeah. So I should rephrase what I said. That it's not that. It's a doctrine that's flowed from that in the coming decades after that, including now, is what's terrible.

所以我换个说法。

So I'll reframe that.

有道理。不过我好奇的是，既然现有原则如此，对于SB503法案的报告要求，你的论点大概是：企业只需报告已实施事项，若因不愿推测而未采取行动，就如实上报'未作推测'——这样就没超出Zaderer案范围。我在试着推演，因为预计迟早会有人提出这种质疑。

Fair enough. I I do wonder though if if given that, you know, we we have the doctrine, right, that we have. Yes. I I I would imagine your argument for SB 50 three's reporting requirements would be, well, they really only kind of have to report the stuff they've already done, and if they haven't done stuff because they don't want to speculate, they don't they internally don't wanna speculate on this stuff, well, then they'll report that they haven't speculated on this stuff, so we're not really requiring them to say things that go beyond Zaderer. I'm just trying to think through because I I can imagine that this will be raised by someone at some point.

确实可能。听着，我提到碳披露案例时...但若将强制企业披露安全或气候信息都视为第一修正案侵权，那SEC申报要求岂不也算强制言论？这种推论显然荒谬。

Yeah. I mean, it could. Listen, we we I I mentioned the carbon disclosure there. I but the idea of saying it's a First Amendment violation, that it's a First Amendment violation to compel a corporation to disclose information around safety or climate or I mean, that could mean that you can't require SEC filings. That's also that could be argued to be compelled speech, which would be ridiculous.

因此当涉及保护公众利益——无论是投资者还是健康安全——要求企业披露信息在我看来绝非强制言论。

So when we talk about protecting the public, whether it's investors or health and safety, you can require corporations to disclose information. That's not compelled speech in my view.

在我们扮演法律评论员时——抱歉，我是说在我们扮演法学教授剖析法案时，我很想听听您对一个问题的见解。这个问题我思考已久且备受关注：您和其他类似SB 53法案的提案者都明确表示，如果国会能通过类似立法会更好，甚至更希望由国会来通过。但你们仍选择推进这些法案，有些人甚至直言希望该法案能在全国范围内改变AI实验室的行为方式。我们正亲眼目睹一种蓄意的'萨克拉门托效应'。然而另一方面，在您投入大量工作的生殖健康领域，各州试图将本州法律域外适用、让非居民受制于其法律的做法正遭到强烈抵制。

So while we're playing law review excuse me. While we're playing law professor probing the bill, I would love to get your insights on a question that I've thought a lot about and is garnering a lot of attention, which is you and other sponsors of similar bills to SB 53 have been quite outspoken about the fact that you recognize it would be wonderful if congress were to pass similar legislation and perhaps even preferable for congress to pass similar legislation. And yet you all have proceeded nonetheless in a way that in some cases, folks have blatantly said they hope this bill has nationwide ramifications in terms of changing how AI labs are behaving. And so we're seeing in real time a sort of intended Sacramento effect. And yet on the other hand, in another area where you have done quite a bit of work with respect to reproductive health, there's been a real pushback against states trying to apply their laws extra territorially and subject nonresidents to whatever state law they're imposing.

那么您如何调和这种矛盾？一方面主张各州应守好本分——比如关于生殖健康的关键决策应由加州人而非德州人、佛罗里达人或任何其他州的人来决定；另一方面却又表示加州如此关心全国在AI领域的发展，应推进这个我们认为会产生全国性影响的法案？

So how do you sort of square this circle of in one domain saying states need to stay in their lane? These pivotal decisions about, for example, reproductive health should be the decisions of Californians, not Texans, not Floridians or whomever you wanna choose. And yet on the other side of the equation saying California cares so much about the rest of the nation with respect to AI, we should move ahead on what we think will be a bill with nationwide ramifications.

我个人认为两者存在巨大差异：一个州声称要把帮助堕胎的外州人送进监狱，与保护加州居民免受AI危害或规范在本州营业的公司，这截然不同。SB1047、SB53等加州及其他州法律的核心理念是：若你在本州经营，就必须遵守保护本州居民的特定规则。所以SB53会产生全国影响吗？确实会。

I personally think there's a huge difference between a state saying, we wanna put someone from another state into prison for helping someone get an abortion. That's very different than protecting California residents from, you know, damage from AI or from a company doing business in our state. The the the approach of SB ten forty seven, SB 53, many other state laws in California and elsewhere is if you are doing business in our state, there are certain rules you have to comply with in terms of how they impact our residents. And so, does SB 53 have national impacts? It does.

但我们的出发点是保护加州居民。只要你在本州经营，就必须遵守某些规则。我认为这与'要把帮助堕胎的人送进监狱'有本质区别。当然有人会说任何州都不该做出影响他州的行为——但我从未持这种立场。

But our approach is we want to protect California residents. And so if you're doing business in our state, you have to follow certain rules. And so I think that's very different than, you know, we wanna put you in prison if you help someone get an abortion. And I understand someone you can try to, say no state can ever do anything that affects anyone in any other state. I've never taken that position.

而且坦率说，我认为可以明确区分：把协助生殖健康服务的人判刑是恶政，而保护公众免受大语言模型造成的化学武器级事件则是善政。

And I also think, frankly, that there is we I I think you can also distinguish that it's it's bad to put someone in prison for helping someone engage in reproductive health services, and it's good to protect the public from a chemical weapon event caused by a large language model.

语境确实不同。但必须指出，当前对AI重要性的热议与预测意味着，任何对AI训练或其发展轨迹的调整，不仅将产生全国性影响，甚至可能波及几代人。因此我想知道，在AI技术栈从训练、预部署到实际应用的各个环节中，是否存在某个干预界限——

Certainly different context. I will say though that the fervor and the attention and the predictions about the importance of AI suggests that any changes, for example, to the training itself or the trajectory of AI will have not only nationwide consequences, but perhaps intergenerational consequences. And so I wonder, is there a level of intervention when we think about AI tech stack from training to predeployment to deployment and then on to use. Is there a certain line you would draw where you would say, hey. Yes.

当对这个层面的AI技术栈进行监管时，若其可能产生全国性乃至长期影响，是否就该认定这完全属于国会的专属管辖范围？

The odds of regulation at this level of the AI tech stack having nationwide and perhaps long term ramifications is something that is the exclusive domain of Congress?

我是说，我认为各州拥有固有权力来决定：如果你在我们州开展业务，就必须遵守保护本州居民的规则。国会是否有权宣称我们将实施监管并独占该领域，各州不得补充或偏离我们的做法？国会确实可以拥有这种权力。但这在理论上是成立的，因为国会甚至远未行使过这项权力。所以我早在2018年就起草了加州的网络中立性法律。

I mean, I think states have the inherent ability to say if you're doing business in our state, need to comply with the rules to protect our residents. Does Congress have the power to say we're going to regulate and we're gonna occupy the field and states can't supplement or deviate from what we're doing? Congress can have that authority. But it's also that's theoretical because Congress has not even come close to exercising that authority. So I authored California's net neutrality law back in 2018.

而到了2025年，联邦层面仍没有网络中立性法律——尽管这项议题支持率高达90%。我们加州在2018年通过了数据隐私法。现在是2025年，联邦仍没有数据隐私法，我觉得这简直匪夷所思。因此我们有诸多实例表明，在国会不作为时各州主动担起了责任。

And 2025, there's no federal net neutrality law, which has Net neutrality has like 90% support. We passed a data privacy law in California in 2018. It's 2025. There's still no federal data privacy law, which I think is just bizarre. And so we have various contexts where, you know, Congress has not acted and the states have stepped up.

我们还遇到过这种情况：联邦政府的共和党人试图在不实施监管的情况下抢先立法。比如阿吉特·派在FCC就试图宣称'我们将废除所有联邦网络中立保护，但同时也禁止各州制定相关法律'。这一做法被法院推翻。我们也看到泰德·克鲁兹试图在没有任何联邦法规的情况下禁止各州监管AI，结果以99比1的票数被否决。所以我认为国会确实具备这种能力。

We also have situations where the Republicans in the federal government decide they want to preempt without doing regulation. So Ajit Pai tried to do that at the FCC to say we're going to eliminate all federal net neutrality protections, but we're going to ban the states from doing it. That was overturned in court. We saw Ted Cruz's effort to ban all AI state AI regulation without having federal, and that was rejected 99 to one. So, you know, I think Congress certainly has the ability.

是否存在某个临界点——比如商业条款自动生效，使得即便国会没有行动，各州也自动丧失权力？或许吧。但我确实认为各州拥有广泛的治安权来保护居民免受伤害，特别是在没有国会优先立法的情况下。

Is there really an inherent point where, like, the commerce clause kicks in and even without congressional action, the states just lack the power? Maybe. But I do think states have broad police power to say we're going to protect our residents from harms, and particularly where there's no congressional preemption.

请允许我最后再探讨一下这个联邦制问题，因为我认为它极其重要且内涵丰富。我同意你从法律角度出发的观点：加州的做法不存在障碍，国会尚未在任何领域行使优先立法权。根据我对休眠商业条款的理解（虽然我和凯文在这方面存在分歧，有待商榷），我对该条款真能限制这类州级监管持怀疑态度。不过我的思考角度是：如何在联邦统一性的需求、国家层面议题应由国家决定的需求、以及各州实验创新和保护本州公民的需求之间，找到长期平衡点。我自己似乎介于'完全优先立法'和'完全不优先立法'两种立场之间。

Let me do one last cut at this federalism question because I I do think it's very important and a kind of very rich area. So I agree with you that from a legal perspective, there's no bar to what California is doing. Congress has not preempted anything, and I tend to be pretty skeptical based on at least my reading of the dormant commerce clause, and I know Kevin and I have had sort of disagreements on this front and, you know, TBD, that the dormant commerce clause really limits these kinds of regulations. The way I come at it, though, is thinking about what is sort of a good long term compromise between the need for federal uniformity and the need for national issues to be decided at the national level and state experimentation and the need for states to be able to protect their own citizens. And I guess, I myself have fallen between the full preemption and no preemption position.

我指的不一定是国会立法优先权，而是关于'谁该负责什么'的思考。在我看来，如果像加州或我所在的明尼苏达州想要监管数据中心的运营（因其可能影响电力系统），或监管AI系统的使用（比如禁止在租房流程、招聘流程等场景使用AI系统），这完全合理，属于州权范畴。当然我可能只是在重复凯文的观点，若是如此我表示歉意。但当涉及监管AI公司如何开发前沿模型这类重大问题时——虽然从法律角度我完全同意你的观点：企业既然选择在加州经营就要接受当地监管——

I don't necessarily mean congressional legislative preemption, but just how to think about who should do what. To me, it seems like if a state like California or my state of Minnesota wants to say, you know, we're going to regulate how data centers operate because they might have effects on electricity, or we're going to regulate how AI systems are used, and we don't want AI systems used in, you know, rental, you know, in in the the the rental process, or the employment process, or whatever the case may be, that seems to me perfectly reasonable, and falling on the sort of line of this is something states should do. But, maybe I'm just repeating Kevin's point here, so I apologize if I am. When it comes to regulating these big, big questions of, you know, of how AI companies are developing the frontier models, I totally agree with you. As a legal matter, look, chose to do business in California, so you can get your hooks in them.

但这更像是取决于企业选址的偶然性。Anthropic、OpenAI、Gemini或XAI开发下一代前沿模型对加州人的影响，并不会比对明尼苏达州人更大。它对我们所有人都有巨大影响——而这难道不正是设立国会的原因吗？这就是我在思考'如何最优分配监管权限'时始终绕不开的循环论证。

But that seems to be more of an accident of where they chose to develop rather than, you know, how Anthropic or OpenAI or Gemini or XAI builds the next frontier model affects Californians, because it doesn't really affect Californians more than it affects Minnesotans. It affects all of us enormously, but isn't that kind of why we have Congress? So, this is kind of the circle that I end up coming to or finding myself in when thinking, sort of what is the optimal way of everyone Sure. To to do this?

在理想情况下，我们本应拥有一个正常运转的联邦政府。说真的，我甚至不愿承认这种基本事实，但现实就是如此。明确地说，在上届国会未被虚无主义者掌控时，我们确实见证了几项重大立法：《通胀削减法案》、大规模基建法案、两党基建法案以及《美国复苏法案》。这些都是实实在在的成就。

In an ideal world, we would have a functional federal government. I mean, I hate to have to even make that statement, but we would. Just to be clear, in the last Congress where we weren't being governed by nihilists, we saw some pretty big things happen. The Inflation Reduction Act, the huge infrastructure, bipartisan infrastructure law, the American Recovery Act. We saw some big things happen.

因此我不想断言国会毫无作为。当民主党掌控国会且由信奉政府效能的民主党总统执政时，他们确实能推动有益政策。如今政府被虚无主义者把持，我期待这种局面改变。但即便民主党主政时期，自1990年代以来也从未出台过真正有分量的科技监管法规。

So I don't wanna be say, congress can't do anything. I think when you have, you know, Democrats in control of congress and a Democratic president who believes in government, they can do some good things. We now have nihilists running the government. I hope that changes. But even when Democrats were running things, there was there was really no tech regulation, meaningful, significant tech regulation since like nineteen nineties.

无论出于何种原因，国会在科技监管领域始终处于近乎瘫痪状态。他们确实有所行动，我不想全盘否定。但数据隐私法至今空白，网络中立性原则完全缺失——这些本该是最基础的法规。

And so for whatever reason, when it comes to technology, Congress has been fairly paralyzed. They've done some things. I don't want to dismiss that. But again, no data privacy law, no net neutrality at all. These very basic things.

所以理想状态下，我们需要摆脱虚无主义者的执政，或许国会科技政治的转向能带来实质进展。我必须要确保未来的法规不会沦为敷衍了事的表面文章，或是效力被预先阉割的妥协产物——那将后患无穷。虽然这个理想愿景值得期待，但我并不抱太大希望。另外必须指出，加州在其中扮演着关键角色。

And so, ideally, will have a government not run by nihilists and maybe the congressional politics of tech will shift so that they can do some things. I wanna make sure that it's not gonna be some bare bones de minimis, like, watered down ineffective law and then have a preemption. That would be problematic. So that would be ideal, but I'm not holding my breath. I will also say that California does have an important role.

我同意五十个州各自为政并非良策。但鉴于加州在科技领域无可争议的统治地位——无意冒犯奥斯汀，我们的优势体现在风险投资规模等各个维度——这个地位至今未被动摇。

And I agree having like 50 a patchwork of 50 different regulations is not ideal. But California has a huge role to play because of our and no offense to Austin, but our dominant role in tech. It is dominant. It's still dominant. It's still dominant with with venture capital investment.

既然我们在科技创新领域如此领先，就更应该在安全标准和智慧监管方面作出表率。我不会像某些傲慢的加州人那样要求其他州无条件追随——这种态度确实招致过非议。但我坚信各州应当通力合作，共同建立统一标准，这才是明智之举。

So we're so dominant in innovation, we should also lead on safety, on smart regulation. And I'm not gonna be that arrogant Californian who says all the other states should just defer to us and kind of pace what we do. That would be arrogant and Californians sometimes do have that reputation. But I do think there's an argument to be made that we should collaborate as states and try to create that consistency. I think that makes a lot of sense.

看来我们有不少议题值得日后深入探讨。或许下次我去旧金山时，或者邀请你来奥斯汀品尝早餐玉米卷时——毕竟这里才是我们绝对主导的领域。不过今天暂且打住，现在我想讨论一个更让法学教授和律政迷兴奋的话题：法规的实际执行。以科罗拉多州为例，他们在实施重大AI法案SB205时，目前正面临全面性的执行困境。

Well, we certainly have a lot to debate for another time. Maybe the next time I'm in SF or I will bring you to, Austin so you can get some breakfast tacos and see a space that we clearly dominate in. But, I'll leave that for another day. For now, I wanna talk about an even hotter fun topic among a bunch of law professors and law nerds, which is the act of actual implementation. We've seen in Colorado right now, there has been basically a complete breakdown in trying to understand how they're going to effectively and efficiently implement SB two zero five, their major AI act.

我们目睹了延误、延期以及一定程度的政治纷争。那么，是什么让你确信加州已准备好不仅实施SB 53法案，还包括纽森州长刚签署的众多其他AI相关法案？

We've seen delays, postponements, some degree of political fracas. And so what gives you assurances that California is ready to go when it comes to implementing not only SB 53, but the myriad other AI related bills that governor Newsom just signed.

是的。不同法案有不同的执行机制，无论是私营部门还是司法部长。我是说，司法部长确实在此扮演重要角色。我认为我们的司法部长罗布·邦塔已明确表示要严格执行这些法律。在加州议会——可能和许多议会一样——很难通过私人诉讼权条款，这使得执法难度略有增加。

Yeah. And different bills have different enforcement mechanisms, whether it's private or, the attorney general. I mean, attorney general does have a real role to play here. I think our attorney general, Rob Bonta, has been very clear that he wants to enforce these laws. Not having private rights of action, which in the California legislature, probably as in a lot of legislatures, it's very hard to get private rights of action through, does make it a little bit harder to enforce.

但我认为我们终将实现有效执法。有足够多的人和关注点聚焦于此，若有实验室公然违规，必将引发公众舆论。特别是SB 53法案，我预测我们会获得较高的合规率。当然可能会出现因商业机密主张引发的删减争议，某些公司可能会滥用规则过度删减，这些问题我们将届时应对。

But I I think we will have enforcement, and I think there are enough people, enough eyeballs on this that there will be it'll be very public if you have, labs that are, blowing it off. And I think with SB 53 in particular, I do think that, my prediction is we'll have a pretty good compliance. There could be disputes about redactions due to claims of trade secrets. You could have some companies that are abusive and they redact out everything, and we'll have to deal with that as it comes.

在结束谎言话题前，我想重点谈谈其中的'公共算力'部分——这个绝不该被忽视的创新构想。建立公共算力选项非常精妙。要知道，当前AI发展的独特之处在于：这项标志性技术几乎是在零政府支持下发展起来的，这与互联网或半导体行业形成鲜明对比。你们能考虑通过这种方式创造机会，让技术进步不只属于大实验室和风投资本，这非常可贵。

So before we move off from the lie, I do want to talk about the the Cal Compute portion of it because I think this should not go under under the radar. Think this is a very cool idea to have this public option for compute. Know, right now, think something something that's very usual about AI is that it's has been it's a it's a major marquee technology that's been developed with very little, almost none, zero government support, is very unusual. You compare that to the Internet, for example, or semiconductors. And so I think it's great that you're all thinking about how to how to do this and create opportunity for these advances to not just be in the big labs and just entirely through like VC money.

但与此同时，我注意到存在一些实施挑战。特别有两点令我好奇你们的应对思路：首先是规模问题。据我理解，建立公共算力实质是组建专项工作组，工作组研究后需向议会汇报，议会再拨款。考虑到AI的扩展定律，未来18个月内训练成本可能高达数十亿甚至百亿美元量级。

At the same time there do seem to be some implementation challenges that I'm curious how you're thinking about. Two in particular come to mind, at least for me. One is just the sheer scale, right? So my understanding is that setting up Calc compute, it's really setting up kind of a task force and task force is going to think about it, and it's going to come back to legislature at some point, legislature is going have to appropriate. Within, you know, in the eighteen months that that's gonna happen, if you just look at the scaling laws, right, we're gonna be talking about I mean, I've already lost track, but the training runs are gonna be in the billions, if not 10 billions of dollars at that point.

加州本质上就是个国家体量，对吧？我记得它是全球第五大经济体，大概在这个位置——

California is basically a a country. Right? It's like the fifth largest economy in the world, I think, or it's somewhere

有时候

in Sometimes

我们是第四大经济体。具体要看哪一天。

we're the fourth largest. Depends on the day.

抱歉。对吧？加州经济规模庞大，但就连加州纳税人也会有个临界点说：好吧这开销太大了。所以第一个问题是：你是否担心实现这个目标所需的资源？第二个问题是：做事本身就很难。

My apologies. Right? It's a it's a it's a big economy, but there's a point at which even California taxpayers start saying, okay, this is a lot of money. So, the first question is do you worry about, just the resources necessary to make this a reality? And the second is, doing things is hard.

在全国范围内做事都很难。在加州做事往往特别难，对吧？加州做了很多了不起的事，但看看高铁项目就不太理想。我们该如何避免Calcompute项目在建筑、电力等方面变成另一个高铁工程——恕我直言，现在可以说是个败笔了。

Doing things is hard throughout the country. Doing things in California is often very hard, right? I mean California does a lot of amazing things, but then you look at things like high speed rail, not so great. You know, how do we avoid Calc something like Calcompute with the building and the electricity and all of that not kind of becoming another high speed rail. I I mean, I I think I'm allowed to say debacle at this point, though.

当然，如果你不同意我的观点，完全可以反驳。

Of course, you can feel free to disagree with me if you disagree.

是的。加州也有很多好事发生。不过

Yeah. A lot of good things happen too in California. But

确实。

Absolutely. A

非常多。在加州我们必须解决如何让政府持续有效运作的问题。我认为两党基本上都支持国家产业政策，这是好事。我们必须确保政策落地。比如《芯片法案》实施中出现过一些问题，我们需要从中吸取教训。

lot. And and we do in California, you know, have to figure out how to make government consistently work. You know, we I think there's bipartisan support essentially for an industrial policy in this country, which I think is a good thing. And we have to be able to make that work. And I know there were some issues with implementation of the CHIPS Act, for example, and we have to learn lessons from that.

顺便说一下，我们正在推进高铁项目的审批改革以加快进度。有时候加州需要学会自我突破，因为我们总爱设置一些毫无必要的障碍。关于Cal Compute项目，好消息是大家都很期待。不止一个加州大学分校已表示希望并乐意承接该项目，这是个好现象。

And by the way, we're working on some permitting reform for high speed rail to get that moving. So sometimes California needs to just we need to get out of our own way because we have a way of just, like, erecting unnecessary obstacles just because. In terms of Cal Compute, the good news is people are excited about it. More than one UC campus has already told me that they want to host it and that they're excited about hosting it. So that's a good thing.

这是第一步。因为根据法案——我需要再确认下——我们是以请求而非命令的形式让加州大学承办该项目，根据州宪法我们无权强制要求。他们看起来对此很积极。更广泛地说，由于我们有个疯狂的总统及其团队正系统性摧毁国家科研体系，削减高校科研经费，我们必须采取行动。

And that was step one. Because I think I I believe I have to look at the bill again. We it's like a request that the UC host it because we're not allowed to mandate that they do it under our constitution. And so they seem to be excited about doing that. We're also more broadly, because we have a insane president and insane people around him who have decided that they wanna just destroy the country's science capacity, and they're methodically destroying every federal science agency, and they're trying to cut, university science funding.

这简直荒谬。我们正全力强化加州的科研实力，确保保持并扩大科学领域的领先优势。无意冒犯德州，但我们遥遥领先，还需要更进一步——

It's just, I mean, insane. We're really focused on how do we bulk up California's science capacity and make sure that we retain and expand our leadership on science. No offense to Texas, but we're way ahead on that. And we need to be even further out I'm

我要为明尼苏达州说句话。超级计算机是我们发明的，不过没关系。

just gonna stick up for Minnesota. We invented the supercomputer, but it's fine.

明尼苏达很棒，明尼苏达很棒。德州现在做得很糟糕——当然奥斯汀除外，那是德州的问题。所以我认为这个项目正契合我们的战略。

Minnesota Minnesota is great. Minnesota is great. Texas is doing horrible things right now, but I know that's not Austin. That's that's that's that's Texas. And so I think this fits into that.

这是加州巩固AI创新及广义科学领域领导地位的绝佳机会。我们将Cal Compute设计成公私合营模式，虽然资金问题仍需解决，但启动这个项目至少让我们迈出了第一步，后续可以逐步完善。

That is a great opportunity for California to triple down on our leadership around AI innovation, but science more broadly. And we structured Counter Compute that it can be a public private partnership. And so I think there are opportunities, but I also don't want to sugarcoat it. Are there we have to deal with the funding? But by creating this program, we at least get our foot in the door and can then figure it out going forward.

参议员，我必须指出，您所在旧金山的不少创新企业对我们德州提供的数据中心非常满意。这再次说明我们需要在AI治理上达成全国共识。不过正如所言，我们后续还会继续请教您。

Senator, I do have to say that I think some of your innovative companies there in San Francisco are very happy with the data centers we're making available here in Texas. So, hence again, the need for some national harmony here on AI governance. But like I said, this will not be the last time we're calling on you.

所以我也要说，而且我已经说过，因为我对加州在整体审批流程，尤其是清洁能源审批方面一直持非常严厉的批评态度。我认为得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州这两个比加州小的州，其政府都是气候问题否认者，却都比加州生产更多清洁能源，这对加州来说是种耻辱。我经常强调这一点。

So I will also say, and I have said this, that, because I've been very, very critical of California around, permitting in general, but, permitting for clean energy. And I think it's humiliating that both Texas and Florida, which are smaller states than California and which both have governments that are climate deniers, both produce more clean energy than California. That is humiliating to California. And I say that all the time.

那么参议员，您显然对众多政策议题有深入思考，某种程度上已成为加州人工智能立法领域的代表人物。我们是否能在2026年期待您办公室在这方面有所动作？或者您目前已在酝酿哪些计划？

So, senator, you've obviously thought a lot about a range of policy topics and have, in some ways, become California's AI guy when it comes to new legislation. Should we expect anything from your office in 2026 in this area or what are you already contemplating?

我们目前没有针对2026年的具体计划。且走且看吧。明年肯定会有人工智能相关的工作。正如我之前提到的，我有一大批深耕这个领域的同僚。所以我确信明年会有不错的成果。

We don't have any specific plans for 2026. We'll see what happens. There will be AI work next year. And I have, as I mentioned earlier, a broad array of colleagues who are in the space. And so I'm confident there will be good work next year.

现在对我来说还太早了。我仍沉浸在职业生涯首次零否决的喜悦中——州长签署了我提交的全部法案。这是前所未有的。所以此刻我正享受着这份成就感。

I'm I'm it's too early for me to say. We're still I'm still basking in the glow of the fact that this is my first year ever where I had no vetoes. The governor signed a 100% of my bills. It's never happened before. So I'm basking in that at the moment.

参议员，我想我们不得不就此结束讨论了。非常感谢您参加节目。我代表凯文说，能与您这样立场鲜明、钻研深入、真正懂行的政策制定者对话是极大的荣幸。非常感谢您，希望未来有机会再次邀请您做客。

Well, senator, I I I think we're gonna have to end the discussion there. Thank you so much for coming on on the show. I I suspect I speak for Kevin when I say it's a enormous pleasure to talk to a policymaker who's sticking out really interesting positions, is very much in the weeds, and you can really get into it with. So thank you very much. And we'd love to have you back at some point in the future if you're willing to come back on.

谢谢邀请，我很乐意再来。

Thanks for having me, and I would love to come back.

《规模法则》是Lawfare与德克萨斯大学法学院联合制作的节目。登录lawfaremedia.org/support成为付费会员，即可收听本节目及Lawfare其他播客的无广告版本，并专享支持者活动与独家内容。请在各大播客平台为我们评分评论。更多文字内容请访问lawfaremedia.org。

Scaling laws is a joint production of lawfare and the University of Texas School of Law. You can get an ad free version of this and other lawfare podcasts by becoming a material subscriber at our website, lawfaremedia.org/support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our written work at lawfaremedia.org.

您也可以在X和蓝天上关注我们。本期播客由Goat Rodeo的诺姆·奥斯本剪辑配乐来自Alibi。一如既往，感谢

You can also follow us on x and blue sky. This podcast was edited by Noam Osband of goat rodeo. Our music is from Alibi. As always, thanks for

收听。

listening.