California's AI Rulemaking: Is SB 53 the Goal of Regulation, or Just the Prologue?

Why Shift to "Transparency" —— Reflections from SB 1047

SB 1047 in 2024 included more in-depth testing and accountability provisions, even for models with training costs exceeding $100 million, which led to industry backlash and the governor's rejection. In response, Governor Newsom requested researchers to formulate alternative proposals, and SB 53 was reworked based on their report. In other words, SB 53 prioritizes "disclosure over supervision," aiming for consensus at an agreeable minimum level, marking it as a "second round."The Verge

What's "Not Included"

While supporters see it as an achievement, mandatory third-party evaluations and strong frameworks imposing direct liability on developers were omitted. As a result, there is a possibility that the frameworks presented by companies could remain as a collection of "optional best practices", and the limited penalties may lead to a lack of effectiveness.The Verge

Industry Division —— Who Supported and Who Opposed

A symbolic example is the clear support expressed by Anthropic. After negotiations, they evaluated the "disclosure of safety frameworks and whistleblower protection" as progress. Meanwhile, Meta launched a super PAC to counter state-level legislation, and OpenAI argued in a letter to the governor that companies participating in the EU's Code of Practice (CoP) or safety agreements with U.S. federal agencies should be treated as alternative compliance to state requirements. They seek to avoid state-by-state discrepancies and align with federal and international frameworks.The Verge

Industry groups also voiced opposition. **CTA (Consumer Technology Association)** submitted a letter of opposition during the legislative phase, and Chamber of Progress criticized it as "vague obligations that hinder innovation." Concerns about the patchwork of state regulations remain strong.cta.tech

Practical Impact —— "Visualization of Compliance" Becomes a KPI

SB 53 is not a law that directly controls the inherent dangers of models. However, it significantly enhances the accountability of suppliers and increases auditability as a side effect. From the perspective of CIOs and procurement departments,

• the contents and update history of a vendor's safety framework can be incorporated into purchasing conditions.

• The timeline for reporting major incidents becomes comparable, providing more materials for risk comparison.

• Protection of whistleblowers fosters the development of ethical reporting channels, creating such "use cases." On the other hand, fixed costs weigh heavily on startups. Preparing and revising disclosure materials, mapping to standards, defining risk classifications, and legal reviews may become quarterly rituals.ciodive.com

How Much Risk is Captured

Analyses from Vox and others convey the operational image of SB 53's threshold for "catastrophic risk" (e.g., mass casualties or significant financial loss) and reporting within 15 days. However, criticisms point out that more immediate harms, such as bias and mental health, tend to fall outside its scope. In other words, SB 53 is a law focused on **"thick-tailed risks,"** and everyday harm prevention needs to be supplemented on a separate track.Vox

Reactions on Social Media —— Deciphering "Expectations and Concerns" on X

• Support (Safety Advocates): Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic, clarified his support for SB 53 on X, welcoming the increase in data to understand the behavior of frontier AI.X (formerly Twitter)

• Concerns About System Design: OpenAI proposed in the aforementioned letter mutual recognition with the frameworks of the EU Code of Practice and U.S. federal agencies, hinting at a stance seeking cross-state consistency.OpenAI CDN

• Criticism of State Patchwork: CTA posted on X, stating "a unified national framework is necessary," arguing that state-specific regulations lead to fragmentation and increased costs.X (formerly Twitter)

• Political Exchanges: Proposer Senator Scott Wiener communicated on X that SB 53 aims to balance innovation and safety. The messaging battle continues.X (formerly Twitter)

• Criticism of Weakness: Some safety accounts and commentators harshly evaluated it as "weaker than SB 1047" and "reduced to paperwork."X (formerly Twitter)

What Will Happen Next —— Will the "Chain of Transparency" Expand?

SB 53 is neither a mandatory evaluation nor penalty-focused. However, as disclosed documents become comparable, media, researchers, investors, and customers may start **"side-by-side evaluations." Consequently, disclosure competition could cultivate a de facto standard. The state left room for annual revisions to add third-party evaluations or clarification of incident definitions. The largest tech state filled the federal void with a **"transparency scaffold"——that is the true value of SB 53.Governor of California