Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?

Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?

The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.

The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.

Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.

Amazon is still at 5 9's availability, they just shifted the decimal point left once.

Reading the comments, this is both a "nothing burger" and a reason to geoblock California.

It does too much, and too little. The costs are too high, and too low. It's an example of corruption, but also a good first start at regulations. It will drive AI companies out of California, but also attract more companies with a lower bar for edge innovation.

Can anyone link to an actual informed and nuanced discussion of this bill? Because if it exists here, I haven't found it.

Same can be said for search. And your statement is provably correct, depending on the definition of "good tool."

But it's not only money's influence on the company, it's also money's influence on the /data/ underlying the platform that undermines the tool.

Once financial incentives are in place, what will be the AI equivalent of review bombing, SEO, linkjacking, google bombing, and similar bad behaviors that undermine the quality of the source data?

Isn't the Iocaine developer from Australia?