'under Tremendous Pressure': Newsom Vetoes Long-Awaited AI Chatbot Bill

Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago

voxadam

12 points

5 comments

sfgate.comOtherstory

skepticalmixed

Debate

40/100

AI RegulationCalifornia PoliticsTechnology Governance

Key topics

AI Regulation

California Politics

Technology Governance

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aimed at regulating AI chatbots, sparking debate among commenters about the implications for technology governance and the role of government in regulating emerging technologies.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Light discussion

First comment

15m

Peak period

0-1h

Avg / period

1.7

Key moments

01Story posted
Oct 14, 2025 at 6:40 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Oct 14, 2025 at 6:55 PM EDT
15m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Oct 14, 2025 at 10:28 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (5 comments)

Showing 5 comments

delichon

3 months ago

1 reply

> he said he was concerned the law could “unintentionally” impose a total ban on the use of AI chatbots by minors.

To a lot of people here that's a feature. I don't think so. It would put California minors at a huge economic disadvantage to kids in other places. One state can't put AI back in the box. I think California has the right to run that experiment, but Newsom made a wise choice in stopping it.

bigyabai

3 months ago

1 reply

> It would put California minors at a huge economic disadvantage to kids in other places.

This feels like conjecture. Can't we just as easily reason that kids with access to AI become complacent and reliant on non-authoritative sources?

I think we need a proper A/B test before we conclude these things for certain.

more_corn

3 months ago

1 reply

From my speaking to teachers banning children from AI would result in a massive gain for them. Kids are phoning it in and having ai do all their thinking. They’re not learning to think and write and communicate.

Nasrudith

3 months ago

Have you heard the maxim that unenforceable laws only breed contempt for the law? Do you remember your days as a minor and how well forbidding the fruit worked?

This "for the children" law would be widely flouted.

Terr_

3 months ago

OK, so this one bill (AB 1064) is an exception among a bunch of other related bills that are being signed into law, let's take a look at the text [0]... Huh, pleasingly shorter than expected, I'm not noticing any obvious "that'll backfire horribly" stuff...

> is not foreseeably capable

I'm not sure how much consistency there is in "foreseeably" when it comes to LLMs these days. Even among programmers, let alone the general public.

> 22757.22.(a)(5) [It may not foreseeably be capable of:] Prioritizing validation of the user’s beliefs, preferences, or desires over factual accuracy or the child’s safety.

So if a kid says "I like chocolate", and it says "Everybody does, it's yummy", isn't that technically a violation? How should a court rule if a lawsuit occurs?

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45585901Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 4:02:13 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN