This is so short sighted... autonomous vehicles including buses and trucks are on their way to our streets. We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads? It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans?
We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... there are many options for setting rules that autonomous vehicles must follow which is in the best interests of the public not just the rider.
> We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads?
Correct, the Republican Party does not want anyone to be able to regulate that.
> It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans?
The vehicles will follow whatever rules are in the best interest of the corporations that made them.
I think the simplest, clearest way to interpret this legislation is that it's a straight transfer of power from individual citizens to AI corporations.
Individual citizens get screwed over without adequate regulation, as we've witnessed over and over again. Deregulation has brought you crappy internet access, broken healthcare, airplane crashes, and lack of meaningful consumer protection. And now you want what, an "intelligent" robot that comes up with a bunch of bullshit reasons to auto-reject your health insurance claims faster than a human can? How in the world can you call that "good"?
My internet access is great, healthcare is one of the most regulated and special-interest/union (AMA) captured industries in the USA and that is why it's broken, airplane crashes are extremely unlikely and in any case are more likely to increase due to the proactive gutting of dispatcher schools by govt for DEI reasons [1], not deregulation.
Consumer protection in the US seems excessive in most areas to me, and perhaps about right in some (notably industries not suffering from crazy costs, like restaurants). By far not the most important but illustrative issue - I may believe we have removed enough dumb regulations once I can buy proper kinder eggs.
Oh, so you're from that other universe. In America that the rest of us know, telecoms are among the most hated companies in the country [1]. Private equity are wrecking hospitals [2]. Drug prices are allowed to spiral out of control [3].
And oh my, you even went with the "airplane crashes are caused by DEI" racist BS. The FAA allowed Boeing to conduct safety inspections for their own planes [4], and that's supposed to be a "DEI problem" instead of a spectacular lack of real regulation?
You can't even cancel your gym without sending a certified mail [5], and that to you is "excessive consumer protection."
"Oh, so you're from that other universe." yeah, the reality-based one, not "random outrage machine" one. It is characteristic how random (and tangentially related to your assertions in the previous post) your sources are; what they do have in common is outrage potential without any numerical context.
1) This link is from 2013. The most recent article that I can find based on the same source (ACSI report) lists Anheuser-Busch as the most hated company for partnering with trans influencer [1]. Not what I expected (I barely heard of this before)! Do you still want to use this vibe thing as an argument for which companies should be considered bad?
2) What percentage increase of healthcare costs does that contribute, and when did it become a major issue? Healthcare costs were high for a long time. Typically people complain about insurance, but we know insurance is not really a major problem [2][3]. Americans actually pay lower fraction of the cost of healthcare out of pocket.
The reason healthcare is expensive is because provider prices are high, and the reason prices are high is because there's shortage. There's a residency position shortage causing a physician shortage, caused by AMA - the union of doctors. Doctors fight tooth and nail to not allow nurses to do more procedures. To open a hospital you need a "certificate of need" issues by governmental health agencies. But no, let's latch on some random piece from an outrage cycle.
3) High drug prices (again aside from a couple of edge cases like Shkerli or whatever his name is) are a well-known thing - US subsidizes drug discovery for the rest of the world. [4] and many more can be found.
4a) I gave you a source for the FAA dispatcher schools thing, did you read it? It documents the specifics. It's not from a right wing source, in fact they keep griping how they hate it that it took Trump to notice it. And of course it's definitionally racist - but not the way you imply. From the intent itself, to outright giving explicitly race-based organizations hints on how to cheat the screening test.
4b) As for FAA/Boeing thing, "The Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program was established by FAA Order 8100.15()". It was done by regulators themselves, not some act by politicians. But yes if we add more regulators it will solve this problem.
4c) And of course the design defect that caused MAX crashes had nothing to do with self-inspection. Sure, FAA dropped the ball, but it's funny that your link is for some unrelated issue that caused "minor injuries" when you were initially talking about plane crashes. I guess this self-inspection thing is much more of an outrage generator!
5a) That's literally not what it says. It says "recommends" and provides alternatives, so yes, you can. Also you, of course, picked one extremely rare and local example.
5b) Is looks like a rare edge case and a problem I never had. I cancelled Comcast twice (as far as I recall) and didn't have any issues. My gym membership can be cancelled or paused online without any human interaction. Even given that there's some small consumer protection problem here, I want proper Kinder eggs far more often than I cancel services, so I'd take turning FDA into advisory-label type of thing even if it means I'd have to send Comcast a letter when I move.
Well, how do you feel about the aggregated will of citizens currently being enacted federally? Even on major issues, current govts are imperfect proxies at best. Bureaucracies are even worse and less accountable. On minor (in the eyes of the voters), both can do whatever they want with no impact from voters
> how do you feel about the aggregated will of citizens currently being enacted federally?
It's certainly not perfect, but it seems to work fairly well. I certainly haven't received any ballots to select, say, the next CEO of Meta, so I'll take it over ceding all authority to corporations.
> Bureaucracies are even worse and less accountable.
Less accountable than a corporation that is beholden only to faceless shareholders? Seems unlikely to me.
You are a forced customer of a bureaucracy, so the standards are a little bit different. Corporations are accountable to their paying customers. Not perfectly. However, your ability to hold Meta or Amazon or whatever to account for things you paid for, and the ability to not pay/use them anymore is, while not as extensive as ideal, a lot more extensive than the same for FDA or ICE.
That to me seems like amazing mental gymnastics. It would eliminate the right of distant citizen proxies to take away the actual rights from actual individual citizens. The proxies who, especially in single party states, can do whatever they or the loudest groups of nimbys and activists want, with impunity.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like either party. But in this case they are doing a good thing even if for questionable reasons. Although also, I do think that fear of having California regulate ai innovation known to the state of California to cause cancer, combined with the large market "veto power", causing harm vs e.g. China with regard to ai progress, is pretty credible.
> We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc...
I can only see this working if we jump straight to 100% self-driving. Otherwise, you'll have to make transitory guidelines for drivers without driverless tech, such as "yield in x situation when you see the rapid transit public bus." But if you do this, you're making the driving rules more complex and less predictable. That means you're creating more dangerous situations for drivers.
But of course, we're not going to go straight to 100% driverless. We're going to have some portion of people driving their own cars for a long time, especially in the USA.
This is not an accurate depiction of the law. This doesn’t mean you can slap AI on something and completely ignore existing right of way laws or discrimination laws (which are generally Federal anyways).
It simply means that Federal law will take priority in terms of specific AI laws and they can’t pass a patchwork of restrictions on the technology so that in Podunk, Flyoverstate the technology is illegal and that impacts the whole country.
The reason this is important is that in the United States there is 1 Federal government, there are 50 states, roughly 3,000 counties, 19,500 municipalities, and 16,500 townships. They don’t want startups to face roughly 40,000 law making bodies with varying laws while the technology is in it’s infancy.
The Feds have pre-empted many other technologies including: air travel, railroads, auto safety, banking, environmental regulations, medical devices, maritime law, labor relations, nuclear energy, taxation on internet communications, etc etc.
It didn’t create a dystopian world where rules don’t exist.
I don't even necessarily agree with them, but what's so terrible about that opinion that you'd say it's awful and should be flagged and legislated against?
So if a bank has an automated loan approval system that consists of a series of IF-THEN statements, and one of those statements amounts to IF (applicant.race != "White"), loan.reject; this ban would forbid a state from taking action?
How could you prove discrimination if you can't audit the decision making system? The article mentions NY regulations regarding bias audits in systems used to make hiring decisions as one casualty of this new law.
> New York's 2021 law mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions would also be affected, 404 Media notes.
Wouldn't that changed law encompass the automated software as well, thereby being in violation? I am not a lawyer, but the ridiculously broad language in the spending bill doesn't seem to leave much room for that sort of thing.
The spending bill thing says the law can't target X, so you target a superset of X instead.
Suppose the bill said "no laws about horses!". Okay then if you want to make a law regulating the manufacture of horse shoes, you target the law to "odd-toed ungulates" instead.
Is this constitutional? It sounds like a pretty clear breach of the anti-commandeering doctrine. The federal government can't simply issue commands to state legislatures.
Federal law might supersede state law in areas where the federal government has express powers, e.g. interstate commerce, but if a state is adding AI-related provisions to existing policy in an area it already has authority over, I can't imagine how Congress could attempt to suppress that.
Sure, federal law could likely supersede state law if a state is trying to restrict AI as a commercial service in itself, as that would cross into interstate commerce territory. But if a state already has regulatory authority over e.g. how insurance companies operate within their jurisdiction, adding provisions that relate to how AI is used in the process of providing insurance coverage doesn't seem like something the Congress could legitimately intervene in.
This is going to be disastrous for hospitals and doctors, because they're facing a massive surge of (likely AI powered) denials and individual states are regulating it - this would ban that.
It's not like the laws prohibit any use of AI, it's literally basic safeguards and human in the loop provisions but the text of the bill as written would make those laws illegal.
Which is not surpsing considering it comes coupled with massive cuts in Medicaid - private Medicaid plans are some of the most egregious players in terms of denials.
I think it's good to realize that many people's commitment to "American" values is weak at best. Things like state's rights, equal representation in government, and even "freedom of speech" are often political tools rather than actual values.
Reading basic history shows it's always been this way. As a simple historical example the soon to be Confederate states complained about "state's rights" for slavery but when they seceded they enshrined slavery in their constitution and notably didn't leave it up to their states (so clearly that institution was more important to them than state autonomy). It's always been a convenient veneer over policy.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know).
Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority:
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
There are some differences between the Constitutions and I'm not convinced, partially because the vice president of the Confederacy himself seemed to think that it was "unmistakably" protected in the Constitution:
"I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying).
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves.
Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."
Huh, it never got tested in the Confederacy but it's interesting their Constitution might not have protected it. I'm very curious what the Confederate Supreme Court would have said if it ever had existed.
I wonder if that it's not clearly protected based on US jurisprudence is an oversight because apparently the Barron v Baltimore decision wasn't well known at the time according to the wiki article you linked on it and the VP was so adamant that it is.
> In thus constructing the fundamental law, of course, a struggle has occurred in the secret sessions of the Montgomery Congress, in which those refusing to close the door against the reception of anti-slavery States have achieved a victory.
They were hypocrites even before they succeeded, since one of their main grievances was that free states did not enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws, which were a case of the feds overriding the states on that matter to begin with. No surprise that, once they had their own government, they took those same laws to 11 by mandating slavery throughout.
The point they are making is that for decades GOP would cry states' rights whenever Democrats did something at the federal level but whenever they are in power, states' rights suddenly don't matter.
That's not possible. The Republican propaganda machine is very effective and there are many supporters who will vote with the GOP because "states' rights" but will simultaneously vote for all these policies. I don't think the fiercely logical part of HN understands politics and thinks you can just out debate someone into changing their mind but if it was that simple, the GOP would've died out decades ago.
People who love dunking on conservatives on twitter don’t realize that saying absurd stuff and then watching liberals wind themselves into a tizzy is like 95% of the GOP’s media strategy.
You're being downvoted but you're right and if people spent any time in conservative spaces they would know this. "Owning the libs" has become a meme but this is the point to a lot of what Republicans do.
This is far too sweeping, but when you have California seemingly intent on smothering our AI industry in its crib it makes sense that they’re scared.
That said, I think it’d be smarter of the GOP to let California do just that. It’s a chance to move that tech money out of California and into another more regulation friendly state.
Waymo seems to be operating smoothly in San Francisco. OpenAI's headquarters are also there. Many AI startups are also based in San Francisco, California.
Right, but you might want to look at the regulations their lawmakers have been proposing. If put in place it would put a stop to that pretty much immediately.
It is trivial to find examples of market-destroying bills introduced to legislatures in any time period in history. What makes bills newsworthy is when they have meaningful support.
If you could get the whole world on board, sure. However, many other countries aren't going to play ball. When there's a chance (even if it's tiny) that AGI is coming that becomes a huge matter of national security, nevermind economic dominance.
California is not a reliable entity to entrust with such lofty ambitions.
This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! They allowed plastic bags to be replaced with... Super thick plastic bags! Which I assure you, stores go through at least 80% as many as before because people usually don't bring bags, but now they're 4-5x the plastic.
And they added a ton of regulation on straws based on that literal child's insane napkin math that went viral, that claimed that America uses 7 or 8 straws per man, woman, and child, per day. Now we get to use multiple paper straws that dissolve in your cup immediately.
California is awash in best-intentions, but utterly useless and counterproductive, regulation. Just another downside to one-party rule. Neither party does a good job with zero counterbalance to their power and ideas.
> This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No!
"When the UK Environment Agency did a life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags (PDF) they found that non-woven polypropylene bags needed to be re-used at least 11 times to have lower global warming potential than single-use HDPE, or High-Density Poly-Ethylene, bags. Cotton shopping bags need to be used at least 131 times. Paper bags were the big losers. They aren't likely to survive the 4 uses needed to reach the same global warming potential, but are much more toxic to produce than plastic."
11 uses out of a reusable bag is not a tough threshold to hit. I've got one I know is from 2018 in daily use still and has crossed the Pacific several times.
For every one of you, there are 10,000 suburban shoppers who go through 15 super thick plastic bags a week and discard them after a single use. It would still be better if they were using the flimsy old bags. The law was stupid.
"States's rights" has always been coded language. Lee Atwater's post Nixon interview gave away the playbook. The hypocrisy is easy to see in that lens. First it started with racial slurs, then welfare queens, racial slurs, big government, states rights, occasional "liberty and freedom" thrown in for good measure. Currently it's DEI and trans.
> no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
States never got to control Federal spending, AI or otherwise.
But the Tenth Amendment pretty strictly limits how much the Feds can control state spending and legislation, too.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does).
This is a straightforward declaration of Commerce Clause authority. This SCOTUS has made it clear the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is not stirring awake, so if Congress wants to preempt state regulation of interstate commerce they have to do so explicitly.
The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They can apply "reasonable conditions" along the lines of "if you do x we will take away related funding y" but the entire point of the Tenth Amendment is that states have more rights than the Feds unless otherwise stated.
Federalism as protected by the Tenth means California can require things like "may contain lead" on labels, even though some of those products may be sold outside of California.
The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states.
They absolutely can when it comes to interstate commerce, which by precedent has a rather broad definition under which this kind of regulation easily fits.
Dole was about using spending power to constrain vaguely related state legislative powers. Not the same thing at all.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is much more relevant:
If Congress had spoken on pork labeling requirements, California would have been out of luck under the Commerce Clause. But because they hadn’t, California was free to regulate.
The court system is responsible for interpreting law so playing semantic games doesn't work very well unless you have a corrupt judge who sides with you and is willing to interpret it in this way
I don't think it'd be difficult to blur the lines in terms of implementation details in order to "AI launder" desired functionality in such a manner where the "AI" distinction becomes a philosophical debate between SMEs.
I think you can blur the lines to an extent and if the judge isn't very capable, pull one over on them, but to say an LLM or ML model is not artificial intelligence to a capable judge with a prosecution who points out there is an LLM, it would be hard to get around imo
The people that are championing this sort of stuff, what's your take on social credit systems (like in China), or just total surveillance?
I'm asking, because my take is that totally unregulated AI will sooner or later lead to such applications. And you can't really advocate that privacy laws will stop that - after, that would hinder the progress of things like "automated decision systems".
if you ever wanted to obliterate any consumer confidence in a market thats already routinely mocked, loathed and derided...i can think of no better way than to ensure it is fecklessly unaccountable to any sort of regulation.
What could possibly go wrong? is no longer an exclusion but an enumeration I guess. Everything you can think of probably will. Could things like this be repealed when someone who knows what they’re doing steps in?
Since it's a reconciliation bill, is this likely to make it past the "Byrd bath"? It's looped in with a $500M AI modernization fund but my simplified understanding is that items not related to budget can be challenged and removed. Couldn't find reference to this in any of a few news articles.
Queue the usual remarks about "automated decision systems": is the PID controller in an espresso machine an automated decision system, is a pacemaker, Cochlear implant, fuzzy logic controller in a rice cooker, etc.
> Queue the usual remarks about "automated decision systems": is the PID controller in an espresso machine an automated decision system, is a pacemaker, Cochlear implant, fuzzy logic controller in a rice cooker, etc.
Almost certainly yes. The provision defines it as
> The term "automated decision system" means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, to materially influence or replace human decision making.
The big difference here is that leading AI companies are primarily data companies. If Amazon, Meta, Google, what have you decides they want to develop AI products for that insurance market, and they get to do so with zero oversight - in the name of "but we have to beat China!" - I can foresee a number of ways it will end up badly for the consumer.
State and local governments cannot regulate. This means that the leader still can issue executive orders, e.g., against AI wokeness. Republicans very much wanted to regulate just one year ago:
If the GOP successfully passes the ban, it would preempt state bills regulating content moderation systems, automated age gates, and automated privacy law compliance systems. California Consumer Privacy Act? Unenforceable. Think of the children? Unenforceable. (Sorry, Jonathan Haidt.) Social media should stop targeting political viewpoints? Unenforceable. (To be clear, non-government organizations have a First Amendment right to refuse to host certain viewpoints. And also, pre-2022 Twitter and Facebook targeted misinformation rather than political viewpoints [1].)
The interstate highway system was considered to be allowed under the power to legislate for national defense. AI development doesn't seem to be less relevant to defense than roads.
That system depends on pulling funding for roads if they don’t follow the rules. Technically any state can opt out if they don’t receive any highway funding. Given the government isn’t giving large AI funding to states, they can’t do the same here.
The Commerce Clause has been read so broadly thanks to Wickard v Filburn that almost everything falls under it by default. The current Supreme Court seems at least skeptical of that interpretation but it is difficult to say if they will ever change it.
That's the broad interpretation they are talking about. The Commerce Clause isn't just "is it commerce". The federal government doesn't (didn't) have control of all commerce by default.
Establishing uniform standards for regulation of commerce is squarely within the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause. It's not the stretch you're trying to portray it as.
It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent. Why is this wrong? States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit. If they want federal funding, then they must cooperate with federal rules. Seems logical.
> It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent.
This is an outright lie. The relevant bit of legislation is cited in the article:
"no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act"
> States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit.
The language above very clearly forbids them from spending said tax revenue on regulating AI.
You’re saying the same thing twice. One just more blatantly than the other. The point of calling someone a lunatic is to undermine their opinion. It’s ad hominem either way even if one is more subtle.
> The point of calling someone a lunatic is to undermine their opinion.
I don't see that as the point. I think they were just opining. There doesn't seem to be an argument they are making or refuting so this cannot, by definition, be an "argument ad hominem" (argument to the person).
The parent comment to yours nails it with the given examples. The first is the conclusion to arguments -- which they did not expound on -- "this opinion is lunacy"; and the second is specific argument that "you are a lunatic" and conclusion that therefore "your opinion is lunacy". That is an argument to the person.
(Not to speak to the quality of OP's comment for this message board. A comment explaining why they think it's crazy would be preferred.)
"anyone who arrives at the conclusion you have arrived at is a lunatic" is functionally the same as "you're a lunatic so your opinion is invalid". Nitpick all you want.
"you are a lunatic BECAUSE you're opinion is invalid" (translates to: you are being unreasonable). Not ad hominen.
is different from
"you are a lunatic THEREFORE your opinion is invalid" (translates to: I think your conclusions came from your mental condition). Ad hominen.
It's quite easy to understand.
Fallacy lists are known to be vulnerable to sophists that take it apart literally instead of seeing the broader perspective of having them.
The introduction of a disruptive discussion (such as: is this a fallacy or not?) is a common technique for diversion.
You should have acknowledged that the other guy didn't meant to insult when he tried to explain. But you did the opposite, you doubled down on making it an insult. It's a sign of a bad conversation, in which one or more participants are not interested in the discussion.
Idk what Libertarian dreamland you people live in. Go try and live in a country with no regulations for things like pollution, hazardous waste, aviation safety, etc, etc and let us know how long you last. Powerful technologies necessarily can be dangerous. AI is going to be a major change driver and honestly if you deny that it's an incredibly powerful technology then I don't know what else to say.
On the contrary, I often mention here just how transformative I expect it to be. I think AI is still being underestimated by a lot of people here.
That's exactly why I want more people to have it and more smaller companies to be able to build things with it.
50 different regulatory regimes will make that much harder and lead to more centralization. This isn't even libertarian. I don't care if the government has good regulations, but diffuse local regulations for national companies is not the answer.
> Do you really think having 50 completely different regulatory regimes is somehow better?
Yes, that is a less bad problem than a law that bans any enforcement of such regulations. 50 different sets of regulation just means that companies will change policy to adhere to the most strict of them (presumably California's) and be done with it.
If you read the article, it is clear that it doesn't block any and all regulation of AI. It says states cannot make federal funding follow non-federal rules around AI. The federal government may actually have more regulations than states, and this would require states to do a better job.
IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence sys-tems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
> The federal government may actually have more regulations than states
There would be a chance of this being true if the language didn't bar states from enforcing their own regulation; there's no point to that except for a worry that some states' regulation will be more strict.
> "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act."
This seems like a really good thing. I would have been more inclined to mock any heavy-handed attempts at regulating AI, anyway.
The states are supposed to be "laboratories of democracy". If people in some states want to regulate AI there, why shouldn't they be able to? And if it's too heavy-handed in practice, let the other states use their lack of such regulation as a carrot to lure companies in. Why do the feds need to be involved here at all?
I don't love heavy-handed approaches like this, but it does seem very in line with small government politics.
Essentially, this is saying that the executive can't create regulations that add regulations that limit what businesses can do (which would be relevant when the party in power of the executive changes)
The executive doesn't care what the law says. This law constrains the states. The opposite of what the GOP believes in almost every other things where the states are sufficiently -ist/-phobic.
We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... there are many options for setting rules that autonomous vehicles must follow which is in the best interests of the public not just the rider.