California’s new AI safety law shows regulation and innovation don’t have to clash 

SB 53, the AI ​​safety and transparency law that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed the law this week, is proof that the State Regulation does not have to hinder the AI ​​preliminary output.

That is what Adam Billen, vice-president of public policy, says at the youth-led Advocacy Group and Codert AI, in today’s Equity episode.

“The reality is that policy makers themselves know that we have to do something, and they know from working on a million other issues that there is a way to adopt legislation that really protects innovation – what I care about – while making these products are safe,” buttocks told techcrunch.

In the core, SB 53 is a first-in-the-nation bill where large AI laboratories are transparent about their safety and security protocols-specific about how they prevent their models from being used catastrophic risks, as used to commit cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or bio-altopons. The law also obliges companies to adhere to those protocols, which will be enforced by the Office of Emergency Services.

“Companies do all the stuff that we ask them to do in this account,” Billen told WAN. “They do safety tests on their models. They spend model cards. They start to skimp in some companies in some companies? Yes. And that’s why these types of accounts are important.”

Butts also noted that some AI companies have a policy on relaxing safety standards under competitive pressure. For example, OpenAi has publicly stated that it can “adjust” its safety requirements if a rival AI-LAB releases a risky system without comparable guarantees. Billen states that policy can force the existing safety promises of companies, so that they cannot cut corners under competitive or financial pressure.

While public opposition against SB 53 was filled in compared to its predecessor SB 1047, which Newsom spends last year Veto, the rhetoric in Silicon Valley and under most AI labs has been that almost every AI regulation is anathema to make progress in its race in its race.

It is why companies such as Meta, VCs such as Andreessen Horowitz and powerful individuals such as OpenAi President Greg Brockman collectively pump hundreds of millions in super PACs to support pro-AIs politicians in elections. And that is why the same forces have urged an AI moratorium earlier this year that States would have forbidden to regulate AI for 10 years.

Code AI has run a coalition of more than 200 organizations to work to lower the proposal, but buttocks says that the fight is not over. Senator Ted Cruz, who defended the moratorium, tries a new strategy to achieve the same goal of the federal priority of the laws of state. In September, Cruz introduced the Sandbox ActAs a result of which AI companies would enable exemptions to temporarily bypass certain federal regulations for up to 10 years. Butts also anticipate an upcoming bill that draws up a federal AI standard that would be placed as a medium-sized solution, but in reality would overwrite state laws.

He warned that the narrow of federal AI legislation could remove “federalism for the most important technology of our time”.

“If you told me that SB 53 was the bill that would replace all state accounts on everything related to AI and all potential risks, I would tell you that this is probably not a very good idea and that this bill was designed for a certain subset of things,” said buttocks.

Although he agrees that the AI ​​race with China matters, and that policymakers must establish a regulation that will support American progress, he says that the killing of state notes – which are mainly focused on deepfakes, transparency, algorithmic discrimination, safety of children and government use – is not the way to do that.

“His accounts like SB 53 are the thing that will prevent us from beating China? No,” he said. “I think it is just really intellectual unfair to say that it is the thing that will put us in the race.”

He added: “If the thing you care about is to defeat China in the race on AI – and I will care – then the things you would insist are, things like export controls in the congress,” said buttocks. “You would ensure that American companies have the chips. But that is not what the industry insists.”

Legislative proposals such as the Chip Security Act Try to prevent the distraction from advanced AI chips to China via export controls and tracking devices, and the existing chips and science act wants to stimulate domestic chip production. However, some major technology companies, including OpenAI and NVIDIA, have expressed restraint or opposition against certain aspects of these efforts, where they are concerned about concern about effectivenesscompetitive capacity and security vulnerabilities.

NVIDIA has its reasons – it has a strong financial incentive to keep selling chips to China, what historical represented a significant part of his worldwide income. Butti speculated that OpenAi could stop the advocacy of chip exports to stay in the good grazages of crucial suppliers such as Nvidia.

There have also been inconsistent messages from the Trump administration. Three months after expanding an export ban on advanced AI chips to China in April 2025, the administration reversed the course, allowing Nvidia and AMD to sell some chips to China in exchange for 15% of the income.

“You see people on the hill on their way to accounts such as the Chip Security Act who would put export checks on China,” said buttocks. “In the meantime, this will continue to deal with the story of the story to kill state accounts that are actually quite light.”

Butts added that SB 53 is an example of democracy in action – from industry and policy makers who work together to reach a version of a bill that everyone can agree on. It is “very ugly and messy”, but “that process of democracy and federalism is the entire basis of our country and our economic system, and I hope we will continue to do so successfully.”

“I think SB 53 is one of the best proofs that can still work,” he said.