Will the top chatbot on the LMSys leaderboard be covered by, and compliant with, SB 1047?
Covered by: SB 1047 must have been enacted. It must apply to the model in question, including any requirements about operating locales and compute thresholds.
Compliant with: Appears to be meeting the requirements based on news reporting and company statements, with no ongoing lawsuits or other legal action brought by the state of California alleging noncompliance.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ504 | |
| 2 | Ṁ145 | |
| 3 | Ṁ113 | |
| 4 | Ṁ85 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1 |
People are also trading
"Covered by: SB 1047 must have been enacted."
I read this as meaning it is not covered by SB-1047, because it didn't happen, and this can resolve NO early? @EvanDaniel
@HenriThunberg I think that's correct. The legislative session is over, so they can't override the veto, right? And if it gets reintroduced it would be next session with a new number?
@EvanDaniel Yeah people seem to be very consistently saying there is no overriding the veto in California, and I agree on it not reappearing in the same shape and number next session.
Just wanted to understand you wouldn't N/A or do something else, in case the bill didn't pass.
@HenriThunberg Nope, this won't N/A. I'll do a little more hunting to make sure I have a complete understanding of how things work in CA before I resolve, but if in fact there's no way for it to reappear as the same bill, this will resolve No.