Nancy Pelosi issues a statement in opposition to California's AI safety bill, saying it's “well-intentioned but ill-informed” and “more harmful than helpful”

San Francisco - Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi issued this statement in opposition to California Senate Bill 1047:

Representative Nancy Pelosi 2024-08-17

Context & Ripple Effects

Pelosi’s intervention adds a prominent political voice to an already organized opposition campaign around SB 1047. It follows lawmakers’ amendments that narrowed the attorney general’s enforcement power and public objections centered on impacts to developers, open-source work, public bodies, and academia.

The dispute is not simply over whether AI safety matters, but over the mechanism and level of government that should set enforceable rules. Anthropic’s call to shift from pre-harm enforcement to outcome-based deterrence and OpenAI’s subsequent federal-regulation argument show opponents converging on alternative governance approaches.

First-order effects

Pelosi’s opposition gives SB 1047 critics added political cover as the bill moves through California’s legislative process.
Supporters of the bill face greater pressure to defend why its remaining enforcement structure is necessary after the recent revisions.

Second-order effects

Companies and institutions opposing the measure can point to Pelosi’s statement alongside the broader coalition of researcher, business, and academic objections, increasing pressure for further amendments or a different bill design.
The debate shifts competitive attention toward whether state-level requirements could shape where and how developers, especially open-source and public-sector users, deploy advanced AI systems.

Third-order effects

If influential California figures continue to reject model-focused, pre-harm obligations, AI policy may tilt toward narrower liability and post-incident enforcement rather than broad ex ante safety mandates.
The episode underscores a durable federalism question: states may become testing grounds for AI rules, while major developers argue for a federal framework; which approach prevails remains unsettled.

The trend: AI-safety regulation is increasingly being contested through the design of enforcement powers, with political and industry opponents pressing for lighter state rules or federal coordination.

Discussion

@ylecun Yann LeCun on x
Nancy Pelosi states her opposition to California Senate Bill 1047. Reasonable people being reasonable.
@zeffmax Max Zeff on x
Nancy pelosi opposes SB 1047, per a press release. This is the most influential name yet to comment on @Scott_Wiener and California's highly controversial bill to prevent AI models from committing catastrophic harms. https://pelosi.house.gov/...
@martin_casado @martin_casado on x
Again, Nancy Pelosi's letter gives the situation the nuance and pragmatism it deserves. Everyone agrees AI policy is important. However there are decades of software safety policy to draw from that @Scott_Wiener has ignored. Aligning with doomers is a terrible policy strategy.
@andersonbcdefg Ben on x
i've seen enough, the bill is dead
@jvnixon Jeremy Nixon on x
Nancy Pelosi just wrote an extensive statement in opposition to SB 1047: San Francisco - Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi issued this statement in opposition to California Senate Bill 1047: “AI has been a central policy focus of the President and the Congress for the past few [image]
@martin_casado @martin_casado on x
!! @TeamPelosi issues a public statement against SB 1047! Enormous! The sensible tech policy posture of Ca. policymakers is coming through! @Scott_Wiener continues to make a mockery of Ca. tech policy. Delighted others are taking notice. https://pelosi.house.gov/...
@vishalmisra Vishal Misra on x
The road to hell is paved with good intentions... @TeamPelosi writes a nuanced and important note pointing out what is right with the intention but wrong with the execution of SB-1047.
@mark_k Mark Kretschmann on x
Nancy Pelosi speaks out against AI bill SB 1047 A step in the right direction
@deanwball Dean W. Ball on x
“The view of many of us in Congress is that SB 1047 is well-intentioned but ill informed,” says Nancy Pelosi. Precisely. DC went through a deliberate process, hearing from many, and backed away from most model-based AI regulations like 1047. Sacramento didn't, and it shows.
@garrisonlovely Garrison Lovely on x
There are basically no arguments in this statement against SB 1047 from Pelosi, just appeals to authority, who themselves have been parroting industry talking points and disinformation, which I and others have extensively documented... [image]

Chronicles