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.

> 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?

the GOP is very wise and were well counseled by Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen that Elon's personal judgement is flawless and should not be held back by the woke mind virus of "regulations". Humanity will never reach Mars (and therefore be saved from the sun exploding, which only affects Earth, not any other planets) unless this is done.

I suppose favoring "state's rights" over federal regulation is only a concern for the GOP when they're not getting big tech lobbyist money.

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.

"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.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...

its most about where they have and don't have power. the goal is acquisition of power, not some kind of principled stand.

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.

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.

Or California could trailblaze proper regulation! Thanks for posting about the efforts! I'm going to see if I can support them in any way.

States rights don't include control over federal spending, even for someone in the GOP

I mean, obviously. But the provision says:

> 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.

> automated decision systems

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?

No because there are other laws that have nothing to do with "automated decision systems" which prohibit discrimination based on protected class.

> regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems

Seems trivial to work around since there is no legal definition of AI.

Instead of making your law specific to AI system, you can simply make it slightly broader in scope so it includes AI systems in practice.

For example, prohibition on AI facial recognition in public spaces -> prohibition on any computerized facial recognition

“Automated decision systems” seems pretty broad to me. It would potentially also include a lot of non-AI systems. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_decision-making.

If you think blocking ANY AND ALL regulation on AI for 10 years is a good idea you are a complete lunatic.

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.

There's no indication the Feds are going to take any initiative on this at all. They lap up Altman's pandering at Senate Hearings and will do nothing.

It's also very clear this doesn't pass Tenth Amendment muster.

(Or shouldn't, at least.)

Any lawyers on HN - Is this even legal in the first place? Surely this is a 10th Amendment violation?

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.

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.

AI regulation arguably falls under the Commerce Clause.

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.

If a company has the ability to say some magic words and remove all regulation, those words are gonna be said in every possible case.

Startup idea #34932: AI-enabled espresso-machine which adjusts caffeine levels based on biometrics (heart rate, dark circles under eyes, jitters, etc)

> "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 GOP, the party of small government. Telling everybody what they can and cannot do.

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)

it specifically targets the states - the executive seems free to create those regulations by my reading?