Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.
Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.
“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.
haven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?
Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.
The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.
I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.
To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.
If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...
amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
They are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.
Well, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
The whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too.
I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.
> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
they often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
Congress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
It's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
My understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
I'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality.
California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].
At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.
We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).
There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".
Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.
Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.
Not really. The only reason California was able to do this is because it got waivers for the federal law preemption rule (in the Clean Air Act).
“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.
haven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?
Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.
The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.
I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.
To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.
If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...
The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA
Why do you say this? Going by MAGA types online, they seem extremely willing to rely on it for opinions and to generate political 'art'.
>The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA,
It seems to me that meme usage tells a decidedly different story.
amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
They are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.
Sarcasm right?
It's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.
Well, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
Such “beliefs” are cooked up by people who are mostly self-serving and insincere. We’d call them “political operatives” today I guess.
Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
Just call them racist. They don't like that
Don’t think they care that much about that anymore.
Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
The whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too.
I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.
Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.
Big government for agendas that we're pushing.
(and when we say 'pushing' we mean 'planning to profit from').
Not sure I follow. What happened to student attainment after the DoEd was introduced?
Would people have the same reaction if it were solar tech, nuclear?
States do restrict those things quite heavily without much comment from the general public.
Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.
> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-pr...
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-pr...
Sure sign that we are not dealing with a coercive situation! :)
Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
Probably the Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
So then wouldn’t cover open source
they often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
Yes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause.
I don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause.
Congress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.
It's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
My understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
And you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"
I'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality.
California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].
At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.
We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).
There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-f...