California's Governor Wants Worker Protections from AI. But FSF Thinks Kill Switches are 'Dangerous Precedent' (fsf.org)
- Reference: 0186010966
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/10/03/077236/californias-governor-wants-worker-protections-from-ai-but-fsf-thinks-kill-switches-are-dangerous-precedent
- Source link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/2026-comments-on-newsoms-california-executive-order
> The laws ban employers from using the technology to predict a worker's emotional state by using their biometric data, require employers to send written notices to workers if AI is responsible for mass layoffs and ban employers from relying on AI to decide to fire someone... The governor signed a law this month requiring operators of AI chatbots to perform risk assessments before rolling them out and an executive order requiring the state to consult with experts to further improve oversight over the industry.
The law includes "expanded tracking of AI's economic effects" leading to recommendations on how to best "adapt job-training and public-benefit programs," [2]according to the governor's office . "California has also launched an AI Unemployment Tracker and solicited statewide public input on AI's economic impacts through Engaged California."
But two weeks ago [3]Politico reported that the governor also signed executive orders to "explore proposals like requiring that AI companies develop a 'kill switch' for their most advanced models."
> Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who called for a slowdown in AI development amid existential risk concerns, [4]said ... that while a kill switch "could be a good idea," it was no "panacea...." [California lawmakers] were generally supportive of Newsom's plan and showed signs of coalescing around the kill switch idea, which was stripped out of legislation proposed two years ago. Rep. Ted Lieu, who introduced bipartisan kill switch legislation in the House, [5]boosted Newsom's call for Congress to mirror California's approach.
But not everyone supports this approach, including [6]the Free Software Foundation's campaigns manager, Greg Farough :
> FSF: Having control over the technology we use is a fundamental part of software freedom. Without it, you simply don't have the [7]basic freedoms you deserve when doing any type of computing, large or small. Don't let "artificial intelligence" be an exception: all users everywhere deserve complete control over their own computing. While it's understandable to be pleased by this news from California, Newsom's executive order also invites questions about the "kill switch" itself that could matter a great deal for freedom. Assuming such a kill switch was developed, who would really control it?
>
> We hope our readers understand the problems inherent in giving one single or a small number of kill switches to anyone. Newsom wisely wants an independent organization to verify their functionality, but even this still sets too dangerous of a precedent. We cannot allow such centralization of power over our computing to become commonplace, especially by the corporations that provide these models in the first place. We also cannot trust even the most well-intentioned "independent organization" to take care of its verification.
>
> Giving users the freedom that they deserve over large languages models would be an enormous departure from how most are developed and used today. But, if any group is capable of coming up with such a plan, it's the experts mentioned in Newsom's order. Like he states at the beginning of his executive order, the vast majority of them are already right there in California. We urge the Government Operations Agency to consider the precedent they are setting, and ask them to write their recommendation to the governor in ways that puts the freedom and dignity of the individual user first and foremost.
[8]The Guardian adds that Newsom also signed an executive order this week "to require state agencies to continue to refer to the technology as 'artificial intelligence' instead of the term 'super intelligence' as Donald Trump recently ordered US diplomats to use."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/30/gavin-newsom-california-ai-threat
[2] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/30/californias-nation-leading-ai-framework-just-got-stronger-governor-newsom-signs-more-first-in-the-nation-worker-protections-and-more/
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/18/newsom-california-executive-order-ai-01083826
[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-kill-switch-rogue-superintelligent-tech-leaders-2026-9
[5] https://www.x.com/RepTedLieu/status/2101006400474206535?s=20
[6] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/2026-comments-on-newsoms-california-executive-order
[7] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[8] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/30/gavin-newsom-california-ai-threat
AI Box Experiment (Score:2)
I never thought of the AI box experiment as an entirely theoretical thought exercise, but since we seem to have put LLMs on the internet as soon as we were the least bit capable, there never was a meaningful "box" in the first place.
We already have a kill switch solution (Score:2)
It's a paper copy of underground utility records and a backhoe.
Or (Score:3)
The big lever on the side of a breaker box. Or the power switch on a server. Or "docker kill skynet_01"
Re: (Score:2)
Skynet_01 has not responded to watchdog in 30 seconds. Initializing Skynet_02.
Skynet_02 initialization unconfirmed. Failing over to US-EAST-4. Initializing Skynet_03.
Skynet_03 confirmed online. Please provide the current location of Sarah Connor.
You can have the control (Score:2)
In a non-commercial setting. You can do all the research you want at public universities I mean assuming you can get them funded.
And you can run whatever software you want at home.
The laws are targeted specifically at businesses who are chomping at the bit to abuse new tech.
It is funny to me to watch the centrists actually doing something about potential job losses while the left wing sits around with their thumbs up their asses. I am absolutely a lefty and I'm really sick and tired of how usele
Those aren't threats from AI (Score:3)
They're threats from humans. Humans decide to use the AI to spy on you. Humans decide to replace your job with AI. Protections for human workers should exist without needing the word "AI" in it.
"requiring operators of AI chatbots to perform risk assessments before rolling them out" - Again, wrong target. Humans need to *use the tools carefully*. A knife is sharp because the knife needs to be sharp to be useful. Don't blunt the knife; require the user to be careful with it.
Having a kill switch on AI is like having a kill switch on the internet. You're missing the forest for the trees if you think that's a solution.
Wrong problem (Score:2)
The problem is NOT the AI tech itself.
The problem is PEOPLE who use AI.
The is NO SUCH THING as an AI Kill Switch. (Score:2)
The real danger of discussing an AI kill switch is that it creates and enables the delusion that such a thing is possible. This is absurd. AI is code and is not a single instance, runtime, or platform. Not only is it true that there is no way to implement it in a single model, or a few select models, the Pandora's box has already been opened. An AI kill switch is technologically impossible to implement, and there is no way to universally legislate or enforce legislation even if it was possible.
Meanwhile, in a Poughkeepsie landfill (Score:2)
Thousands of unemployed IBM "EMERGENCY PULL" switches languish and weep for opportunity. Unfortunately, they are not up to the demands of a modern data center: [1]Lugo disconnect [youtu.be]
[1] https://youtu.be/GMbN9nb3qyk?si=_R1p8d1SEMoYUODu
Its a trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
The AI "kill switch" sounds like a great idea to people who don't understand the tech. It sounds like a really obvious "given," that makes them think technicians are idiots for not having already baked one in. So legislation like this will be popular among that demographic.
Warnings about its dangers need to be stated in a way that they will understand. Like maybe "All AI models already have a kill switch: the computer's power cord. The government wants a new kill switch to turn off your computer over the internet against your will." Something simple and direct like that helps them to realize that this word doesn't mean what they think it means.
Re: (Score:1)
WARNING: AI is known to the state of California to cause hair loss, restless leg syndrome and compulsive gambling.
Re:Its a trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell nobody really has any consistent idea what "kill switch" is supposed to mean. Eg. [1]https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
OpenAI and Anthropic already have kill switches, from the power cord through to account bans. If they don't want anyone using their model they can do that. Likewise, if the US government is sufficiently motivated to order a service provider to stop providing that service, they can absolutely do that. I get the feeling the actual companies are hoping they can implement something that has lots of buzzwords and does sort of what their "guard rails" do, and everyone will stop bugging them about it.
Naturally the FSF imagines some hypothetical technology that allows the government to reach into your home to shut off the matrix multiplies running on your own computer.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-would-an-ai-kill-switch-do/
Re: (Score:1)
> Naturally the FSF imagines some hypothetical technology that allows the government to reach into your home to shut off the matrix multiplies running on your own computer.
To be fair, isn't that what the government is asking for?
Re: Its a trap! (Score:1)
Government subsidized red pills...government government subsidized blue pills...government-mandated vascectomies...same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right in spirit, but where is the "power cord" for an AI running in the cloud? Even taking an entire data center offline often isn't adequate when the workloads are explicitly designed to be location-agnostic. We always need to be cautious about giving governments more power, but in this case there's a clear legitimate need to force AI companies to come up with some means by which their AIs can be immediately stopped in their tracks.
The bigger issue here is a kill switch may not be possible in any
Re: Its a trap! (Score:1)
I don't understand this contradiction:
> require employers to send written notices to workers if AI is responsible for mass layoffs and ban employers from relying on AI to decide to fire someone...
So you can't use AI to decide to fire someone ("ban employers from relying on AI to decide to fire someone") BUT, if AI is responsible for MASS layoffs (fire lots lots and lots of 'someone's'), you have to give the (terminated?) employees "written notices"?
You can't do it, but if you do do it, you need to use written notices?
Re: (Score:1)
not your day with the brain cell?
Re: (Score:1)
> You can't do it, but if you do do it, you need to use written notices?
You can't use AI to make the decision
If you layoff people because a new AI tool replaced their job you have to give them a "written notice" citing that reason.
- Critter