Posted on 07/04/2025 9:16:27 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
For a decade, a controversial bid to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence seemed on its way to passing as the Republican tax cut and spending bill championed by President Trump worked its way through the U.S. Senate. But as the bill neared a final vote, a relentless campaign against it by a constellation of conservatives — including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks and social groups — had been eroding support. Conservative activist Mike Davis, for example, appeared on the show of right-wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon, urging viewers to call their senators to reject this “AI amnesty” for “trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.” He said he also texted with Trump directly, advising the president to stay neutral on the issue despite what Davis characterized as significant pressure from White House AI advisor David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others. Conservatives passionate about getting rid of the provision had spent weeks fighting others in the party who favored the legislative moratorium because they saw it as essential for the country to compete against China in the race for AI dominance. The schism marked the latest and perhaps most noticeable split within the GOP about whether to let states continue to put guardrails on emerging technologies or minimize such interference. In the end, the advocates for guardrails won, revealing the enormous influence of a segment of the Republican Party that has come to distrust Big Tech. They believe states must remain free to protect their residents against potential harms of the industry, whether from AI, social media or emerging technologies. “Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,” said Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer first proposed the idea of the AI moratorium last year. He noted “the animus surrounding Big Tech”...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I forgot to format. I have asked for it to be deleted.
You can’t trust them at all.
Thanks for posting.
How on Earth in Dyson supposed to build SkyNet with all that state regulation?
We know the problem with the Federal process, but have 50 states create 50 different laws for the same product is crazy! Could you image 50 different State versions of cars? Unable use in another state if you move. Crazy.
The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is independent of federal creation. It works. Much better than shortcut federal laws.
look u the history.
So the alternative is to grant AI companies exemption from all liability for harm caused by their product?
FORMATTED VERSION
For a decade, a controversial bid to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence seemed on its way to passing as the Republican tax cut and spending bill championed by President Trump worked its way through the U.S. Senate.
But as the bill neared a final vote, a relentless campaign against it by a constellation of conservatives — including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks and social groups — had been eroding support. Conservative activist Mike Davis, for example, appeared on the show of right-wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon, urging viewers to call their senators to reject this “AI amnesty” for “trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.”
He said he also texted with Trump directly, advising the president to stay neutral on the issue despite what Davis characterized as significant pressure from White House AI advisor David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others.
Conservatives passionate about getting rid of the provision had spent weeks fighting others in the party who favored the legislative moratorium because they saw it as essential for the country to compete against China in the race for AI dominance. The schism marked the latest and perhaps most noticeable split within the GOP about whether to let states continue to put guardrails on emerging technologies or minimize such interference.
In the end, the advocates for guardrails won, revealing the enormous influence of a segment of the Republican Party that has come to distrust Big Tech. They believe states must remain free to protect their residents against potential harms of the industry, whether from AI, social media or emerging technologies.
“Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,” said Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer first proposed the idea of the AI moratorium last year. He noted “the animus surrounding Big Tech”...
“This site uses cookies...accept all”
“Proposition 65...cancer”
Why would Californians need an AI law but most residents of the USA not?
Ever hear of "federalism?"
There is the matter of international trade.
Many US companies would like to sell around the globe.
If every jurisdiction in Littlestan could throw up regulatory barriers at will, then US companies would get locked out of markets due to actual or merely possible law. How’s your Welsh?
We can’t have Rhode Island acting like a Littlestan if we want US companies to have practical worldwide market access.
We know the problem with the Global process, but have 200 countries create 200 different laws for the same product is crazy! Could you image 200 different national versions of cars? Unable use in another state if you move. Crazy.
You see, without boundaries with which to respect local preferences and conditions, one creates no alternative to a global monster from which humanity may not extricate itself.
Now, I'm not telling you what I think should be done, but am illustrating a fallacy in your proposition, as it does bear significant risks. Who is to be in charge of AI? AI itself, or people? If people organize into communities reflecting their values, who are we to say how they are to live? Communities do associate, come to agreements, and/or disassociate. Yet with a global system, there is no alternative.
It's a complicated problem, but at least Federalism does give us the chance to run competing experiments with limited risk.
“Ever hear of ‘federalism?’”
Business scope in George Washington’s day might be as great as a plantation, a wagon and its horses, a ship and its sails, or a workshop in a town or small city.
As for the ship and wagon, Article I, Sections 9 and 10 included provisions minimizing possible state interference.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce...among the several states”.
By the 1920s, businesses quite often operated in dozens of states.
In the 2020s, businesses quite often operate in over 100 countries.
Exactly why does a state need to regulate AI?
Do you have any “needful and proper” text written that might become a federal law regulating AI-based commerce among the several states?
I grew up near Albany, New York. The New York State Legislature was never generally well-regarded in my youth, nor thereafter.
AI, craft a Russian/Ukrainian peace agreement document.
AI, craft a federal budget.
AI, what’s the best way to get the mullahs to hand over the U-235 & centrifuges?
What they call AI is simply copied intelligence at best.
Good point on Globalization
“The Uniform Law Commission was formed in 1892 in part to create uniform commercial laws. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law was approved in 1896, and soon enacted in every state. More commercial laws soon followed: the Uniform Sales Act and Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act in 1906; the Uniform Bills of Lading Act and Uniform Stock Transfer Act in 1909; and the Uniform Conditional Sales Act in 1918. The ULC officially took on the task of drafting a comprehensive code to provide guidelines for all commercial transactions in 1940. In 1942, the ULC and the American Law Institute joined in a partnership that put all the component commercial laws together in a comprehensive Uniform Commercial Code that was offered to the states for their consideration in 1951. Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt the UCC in 1953, and every other state followed suit over the next twenty years.”
https://www.uniformlaws.org/acts/ucc
There are those who have no interest in any of it, say for example, hunter gatherer tribes, of which some still exist. I'd bet that among them are those who think agro-urban "humanity" will flame out eventually.
And "the meek shall inherit the earth."
Big victory, congrats!
Anyone pushing or ignoring this needs negative political attention! (Do you hear me, Ted?)
WIKI
The uniform law movement began in the latter half of the 19th century. The Alabama State Bar Association recognized as early as 1881 that wide variations in law between separate states often created confusion. In 1889, the New York Bar Association appointed a special committee on uniformity of laws. In 1890 the New York Legislature authorized the then-Governor of New York, Roswell Flower, to appoint three commissioners “to examine certain subjects of national importance that seemed to show conflict among the laws of the several commonwealths, to ascertain the best means to effect an assimilation or uniformity in the laws of the states and territories, and especially whether it would be advisable for the State of New York to invite the other states of the Union to send representatives to a convention to draft uniform laws to be submitted for approval and adoption by the several states.” The American Bar Association held its 12th Annual Meeting the same year and adopted a resolution recommending each state provide for commissioners to confer with the commissioners of other states on the uniformity of legislation on certain subjects.
In August 1892, the first session of the organization that became the Uniform Law Commission was held at the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga Springs, New York. The gathering took place before the annual summer meeting of the American Bar Association, a tradition that continues. The gathering brought together delegates from seven states: Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. They titled themselves the “Conference of the State Boards of Commissioners on Promoting Uniformity of Law in the U.S.” By 1912, every state was participating in the Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Law_Commission
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.