[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
On Monday, Anthropic announced<\/a> an official endorsement of SB 53<\/a>, a California bill from state Senator Scott Wiener that would impose first-in-the-nation transparency requirements on the world\u2019s largest AI model developers. Anthropic\u2019s endorsement marks a rare and major win for SB 53, at a time when major tech groups like CTA<\/a> and Chamber for Progress<\/a> are lobbying against the bill.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile we believe that frontier AI safety is best addressed at the federal level instead of a patchwork of state regulations, powerful AI advancements won\u2019t wait for consensus in Washington.\u201d said Anthropic in a blog post. \u201cThe question isn\u2019t whether we need AI governance\u2014it\u2019s whether we\u2019ll develop it thoughtfully today or reactively tomorrow. SB 53 offers a solid path toward the former.\u201d<\/p>\n If passed, SB 53<\/a> would require frontier AI model developers like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI to develop safety frameworks, as well as release public safety and security reports before deploying powerful AI models. The bill would also establish whistleblower protections to employees that come forward with safety concerns.<\/p>\n Senator Wiener\u2019s bill specifically focuses on limiting AI models from contributing to \u201ccatastrophic risks,\u201d which the bill defines as the death of at least 50 people or more than a billion dollars in damages. SB 53 focuses on the extreme side of AI risk \u2014 limiting AI models from being used to provide expert-level assistance in the creation of biological weapons, or being used in cyberattacks \u2014 rather than more near-term concerns like AI deepfakes or sycophancy.<\/p>\n California\u2019s Senate approved a prior version of SB 53, but still needs to hold a final vote on the bill before it can advance to the governor\u2019s desk. Governor Gavin Newsom has stayed silent on the bill so far, although he vetoed Senator Weiner\u2019s last AI safety bill<\/a>, SB 1047.<\/p>\n Bills regulating frontier AI model developers have faced significant pushback<\/a> from both Silicon Valley and the Trump administration, which both argue that such efforts could limit America\u2019s innovation in the race against China. Investors like Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator led some of the pushback against SB 1047<\/a>, and in recent months, the Trump administration has repeatedly<\/a> threatened<\/a> to block states from passing AI regulation altogether.<\/p>\n One of the most common arguments against AI safety bills are that states should leave the matter up to federal governments. Andreessen Horowitz\u2019s Head of AI Policy, Matt Perault, and Chief Legal Officer, Jai Ramaswamy, published a blog post<\/a> last week arguing that many of today\u2019s state AI bills risk violating the Constitution\u2019s Commerce Clause \u2014 which limits state governments from passing laws that go beyond their borders and impair interstate commerce. <\/p>\n Techcrunch event<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSan Francisco<\/span> However, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark argues in a post on X<\/a> that the tech industry will build powerful AI systems in the coming years, and can\u2019t wait for the federal government to act. <\/p>\n \u201cWe have long said we would prefer a federal standard,\u201d said Clark. \u201cBut in the absence of that this creates a solid blueprint for AI governance that cannot be ignored.\u201d<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s Chief Global Affairs Officer, Chris Lehane, sent a letter<\/a> to Governor Newsom in August arguing that he should not pass any AI regulation that would push startups out of California \u2014 although the letter did not mention SB 53 by name.<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s former Head of Policy Research, Miles Brundage, said in a post<\/a> on X that Lehane\u2019s letter was \u201cfilled with misleading garbage about SB 53 and AI policy generally.\u201d Notably, SB 53 aims to solely regulate the world\u2019s largest AI companies \u2014 particularly ones that generated a gross revenue of more than $500 million.<\/p>\n Despite the criticism, policy experts say SB 53 is a more modest approach than previous AI safety bills. Dean Ball, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and former White House AI policy advisor, said in an August blog post<\/a> that he believes SB 53 has a good chance now of becoming law. Ball, who criticized SB 1047, said SB 53\u2019s drafters have \u201cshown respect for technical reality,\u201d as well as a \u201cmeasure of legislative restraint.\u201d<\/p>\n Senator Wiener previously said<\/a> that SB 53 was heavily influenced by an expert policy panel <\/a>Governor Newsom convened \u2014 co-led by\u00a0leading Stanford researcher and co-founder of World Labs, Fei-Fei Li\u00a0\u2014 to advise California on how to regulate AI.<\/p>\n Most AI labs already have some version of the internal safety policy that SB 53 requires. OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic regularly publish safety reports for their models. However, these companies are not bound by anyone but themselves do so, and sometimes they fall behind<\/a> their self-imposed safety commitments<\/a>. SB 53 aims to set these requirements as state law, with financial repercussions if an AI lab fails to comply.<\/p>\n Earlier in September, California lawmakers amended<\/a> SB 53 to remove a section of the bill which would have required AI model developers to be audited by third parties. Tech companies have fought these types of third party audits in other AI policy battles previously, arguing that they\u2019re overly burdensome.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 27-29, 2025<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n