[firesteelrain]

In practice, "states’ rights" is sometimes used strategically, not ideologically. AI though is viewed as as a technological and economic issue, requiring national coordination to maintain US competitiveness and adding a patchwork of States laws impedes that goal

That’s the reason it is different for the GOP

[lantastic]

My cynical take is this is regulatory capture on part of the most lucrative tech sector in the next few years, in return for campaign contributions.

[firesteelrain]

Someone might still commit to campaign contributions if it aligns with their philosophy or goals. But I don’t think that’s what is going on here

[danaris]

IMO, you're almost there.

"States' rights" has only ever been used as a smokescreen. The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery. More recently, it's been a cover for other far-right reactionary positions specifically during center-left administrations that would otherwise seek to impose regulations preventing them from oppressing people at the state level.

AI is not being "protected" this way because it's Just Too Important To Leave To The States; it's being protected because Musk and other mega-wealthy Silicon Valley types have pushed to exempt it from all regulation. (Notice that this bill does nothing to regulate AI at the federal level, nor is there any particular proposal to do so from the people pushing for this clause!)

[firesteelrain]

You are probably right.

Let’s look at it differently though: even if the federal preemption push is cynical, is there still a valid, public-interest reason to avoid fragmented AI regulation?

That’s the only place your argument could be stress-tested: not in exposing the hypocrisy.

But there isn’t an introduction of like AI ethics rules or policy or directing a federal agency to establish any so that’s a valid criticism. What if we take the viewpoint that they are trying to get there?

[paulryanrogers]

> What if we take the viewpoint that they are trying to get there?

Because if they were trying to harmonize AI regulations then they would do it federally instead of just banning states from doing anything. (Federal regulations generally trump state regulations, at least wherever the state regulation is weaker or absent.)

[firesteelrain]

I think my point is they are trying to stop the patchwork then step 2 is put the right federal agency in charge to set the standards rather than states.

[paulryanrogers]

I didn't think this administration deserves the benefit of the doubt. They're most often doing the most transparently corrupt thing that they think they'll get away with, and let the lawyers sort out the details

[firesteelrain]

I'm going to try to reach out to that Congressman's office to understand the vision for adding that rider to the budget bill for AI. Will report back if they respond

[xg15]

> is there still a valid, public-interest reason to avoid fragmented AI regulation?

I don't see why there would be any more pressing reasons than for other fields, say climate or energy regulation (looking at you, Texas) or of course the classic: personal choices of sexuality and reproduction. Yet no one is trying to ban state laws there, on the contrary.

[firesteelrain]

That’s because it’s about preempting progressive governance in places like California, New York, or Illinois

[xg15]

And that's a valid reason?

[firesteelrain]

Sure for the GOP it is just like Democrats do the same to Conservatives. GOP is in power and they are setting the policy now.

[Terr_]

> The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery.

Notably, it was a hypocritical dishonest mess from the very beginning. For example, slavers used federal power to force other states to allow violent crimes inside their territory, and later the Confederacy's Constitution forever banned member states' rights to not have slavery.