[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.

[xg15]

OK, that may be a "valid" reason in the realm of power politics and partisan warfare, but it's definitely not "public-interest".

[firesteelrain]

It depends who you talk to. When Democrats enact policy they certainly think it’s in the public interest and conversely so do Republicans. It goes both ways