So now Anthropic has, depending on your perspective, three or four choices.
Anthropic can publicly support the bill. In this case, I will on net update positively on Anthropic from their involvement in SB 1047. It will be clear their involvement has been in good faith, even if I disagree with some of their concerns.
Anthropic can privately support the bill, while being publicly neutral. This would be disappointing even if known, but understandable, and if their private support were substantive and impactful I would privately find this acceptable. If this happens, I might not find out, and if I did find out I would not be able to say.
In our assessment the new SB 1047 is substantially improved, to the point where we
believe its benefits likely outweigh its costs. However, we are not certain of this, and there
are still some aspects of the bill which seem concerning or ambiguous to us.
So, what we’ve got is not quite 1, but more than 2. Here is what has happened. Via https://x.com/jackclarkSF/status/1826743366652232083 who says
But it’s not quite neutral (I have boldfaced their form of very mild support):
https://cdn.sanity.io/files/4zrzovbb/website/6a3b14a98a781a6b69b9a3c5b65da26a44ecddc6.pdf