California lawmakers weaken the AI safety bill with amendments proposed by Anthropic and other opponents, including giving the AG less power to sue AI companies
California's bill to prevent AI disasters, SB 1047, has faced significant opposition from many parties in Silicon Valley.
TechCrunchMaxwell Zeff
Context & Ripple Effects
SB 1047 had already become a test of whether frontier-model safeguards could coexist with Silicon Valley's deployment concerns. Anthropic's earlier call to move from pre-harm enforcement toward outcome-based deterrence foreshadowed the amendments now under discussion.
The compromise did not end the fight: the Assembly later passed the revised bill, while Governor Newsom ultimately vetoed it over its focus on large models rather than deployment risk. That sequence makes the enforcement changes consequential, not merely procedural.
First-order effects
Reduced Attorney General authority narrows the state's direct enforcement leverage against AI companies under the amended proposal.
Anthropic and other opponents gain a concrete policy concession: the bill's compliance and liability exposure would be less stringent than under a stronger pre-harm enforcement model.
Second-order effects
The amendment process gives other AI developers a precedent for pressing lawmakers to trade enforceability for rules framed around demonstrated harms or outcomes.
Safety advocates must rely more on the remaining obligations and political oversight, because a weaker state litigation backstop makes compliance disputes harder to escalate.
Third-order effects
If this pattern holds, AI regulation may increasingly turn on the divide later highlighted in the SB 1047 veto: regulating model size and capability versus regulating the risk of particular deployments.
The durable policy contest is likely to be less about whether AI safety rules exist than about who can enforce them and whether liability attaches before or after harm occurs.
The trend: SB 1047 is part of a broader shift from broad frontier-AI guardrails toward narrower, deployment- and outcome-focused enforcement frameworks.
“the bill no longer allows California's attorney general to sue AI companies for negligent safety practices before a catastrophic event has occurred. This was a suggestion from Anthropic.” [embedded post]
1️⃣ Eliminates the FMD The FMD has been removed. Its top duties - evolving the compute threshold, issuing safety guidance,m & regulations for auditors - have moved to the Government Operations Agency. This streamlines the compliance process, while preserving safety standards.
2️⃣ Simplifies penalties Civil penalties will only be assessed for violations that actually cause harm, imminent risk, or threats to public safety. Compliance statements won't be delivered under penalty of perjury. This narrows scope of liability while protecting public safety
3️⃣ Reasonable care Acknowledging not all risks are foreseeable, we updated uses of “reasonable assurance” to “reasonable care,” a term that already applies to all developers. This shows the bill is focused on good-faith testing and risk mitigation, further reassuring developers
We've received valuable feedback from AI developers, startups, and academics on SB 1047. Based on these conversations—& in addition prior big amendments—we've made new amendments to help improve the bill as it heads to a full vote in the Assembly. Here are the key changes:🧵 [imag…
Have been watching @martin_casado and many others push back against SB 1047. One dishonest take from the backers of SB 1047 is to *pretend* that the AI and startup ecosystem are for this as well as others in gov. That's not true. This and the recent flurry of statements and
One day, the AI safety community will see how broad the coalition of SB 1047 critics is, and realize that their support is thin. I welcome that day, because AI policy as a whole will be stronger when the safety community is less myopic. But that day does not seem to be today.
Huge! Multiple democratic California members of congress have submitted a letter to @GavinNewsom against SB 1047! Signatories including @RepZoeLofgren, @RepAnnaEshoo, @RoKhanna, @RepScottPeters, @RepCardenas, @RepBera, @Nanette4CA and @RepLouCorrea Please help amplify! [image]
Thread on California's weakening of a bill to prevent AI disasters: 1/3: California's decision to weaken a bill to prevent AI disasters is concerning. It's crucial to prioritize safety and ethical use of AI technologies. #AIsafety #ethicsinAI 2/3: It's... https://techcrunch.com/.…
At the time, it was fair game for journalists to repeat @Scott_Wiener's claims that SB 1047 was divided along partisan lines. But now that elected Democrats publicly oppose the bill, it's time for journalists to update their readers that it was clearly a false claim.
The SB 1047 amendments introduced today do not fix its core flaw: California lawmakers should not be regulating AI at the foundational model level as this bill would do This core flaw is why @RepZoeLofgren @RepAnnaEshoo and others called for Gov @GavinNewsom to veto it today [ima…
Huge: eight members of Congress representing various California districts are encouraging Governor @GavinNewsom to veto CA bill SB1047. Their letter emphasizes my main concerns about the bill: it would make it too risky to release open source AI systems and would essentially kill
Big news: California's Congressional representatives support a veto (if it comes to that) of SB 1047. SB1047 is a misguided bill from @Scott_Wiener that thinks it's trying to improve AI safety. Criminalizing linear algebra is not the right approach.
California's AI Safety Bill Is a Mask-Off Moment for the Industry | AI's top industrialists say they want regulation—until someone tries to regulate them.