Skip to content

A ban on state AI laws could smash Big Tech’s legal guardrails

Technology
10 7 20
  • Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump’s massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block.

    Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” say it will help ensure AI companies aren’t bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place.

    Not to mention, if/when federal standards are created, the standards will be determined by a federal government that is being run by the broligarchs. These are the people we need to be protected from. They've had the idea of federal "regulations" that will allow them to do whatever they need to succeed planned since at least 2019.

    Relying only on federal AI regulations to protect Americans in 2025, would be like the federal government relying on George Wallace to create the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

    Sam Altman, 2025:

    Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

    “It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

    Peter Thiel protege, Michael Kratsios regarding AI regulation in 2019

    “A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

  • Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump’s massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block.

    Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” say it will help ensure AI companies aren’t bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place.

    Not to mention, if/when federal standards are created, the standards will be determined by a federal government that is being run by the broligarchs. These are the people we need to be protected from. They've had the idea of federal "regulations" that will allow them to do whatever they need to succeed planned since at least 2019.

    Relying only on federal AI regulations to protect Americans in 2025, would be like the federal government relying on George Wallace to create the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

    Sam Altman, 2025:

    Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

    “It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

    Peter Thiel protege, Michael Kratsios regarding AI regulation in 2019

    “A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

    These two raging assholes just want easier monopolies.

    Anything either of those two says, the rest of us can be sure it's not to our benefit.

  • Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump’s massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block.

    Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” say it will help ensure AI companies aren’t bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place.

    Not to mention, if/when federal standards are created, the standards will be determined by a federal government that is being run by the broligarchs. These are the people we need to be protected from. They've had the idea of federal "regulations" that will allow them to do whatever they need to succeed planned since at least 2019.

    Relying only on federal AI regulations to protect Americans in 2025, would be like the federal government relying on George Wallace to create the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

    Sam Altman, 2025:

    Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

    “It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

    Peter Thiel protege, Michael Kratsios regarding AI regulation in 2019

    “A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

    Do it! Regulate these fuckers out of existence!

  • Do it! Regulate these fuckers out of existence!

    Exactly!

    Oh regulations would cut into your profits? Boo fucking hoo

  • These two raging assholes just want easier monopolies.

    Anything either of those two says, the rest of us can be sure it's not to our benefit.

    Exactly, they created this nightmare dystopia, sunk all their money into AI and if we don't allow them to just invade our privacy like it's their personal kingdom, and we exist to feed their data centers, they're fucked.

    The entire economy is fucked, but that's 100% on them.

    They wanted to just dive in head first, cut a bunch of jobs and replace everyone with AI. Who in their right mind would think that we should allow these people fewer regulations now, so they can make more money via exploitation of humans?

  • Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump’s massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block.

    Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” say it will help ensure AI companies aren’t bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place.

    Not to mention, if/when federal standards are created, the standards will be determined by a federal government that is being run by the broligarchs. These are the people we need to be protected from. They've had the idea of federal "regulations" that will allow them to do whatever they need to succeed planned since at least 2019.

    Relying only on federal AI regulations to protect Americans in 2025, would be like the federal government relying on George Wallace to create the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

    Sam Altman, 2025:

    Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

    “It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

    Peter Thiel protege, Michael Kratsios regarding AI regulation in 2019

    “A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

    What ever happened to "state's rights"?

    I guess that was just a convenient excuse to keep people as slaves, huh? 🤷

  • Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump’s massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block.

    Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” say it will help ensure AI companies aren’t bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place.

    Not to mention, if/when federal standards are created, the standards will be determined by a federal government that is being run by the broligarchs. These are the people we need to be protected from. They've had the idea of federal "regulations" that will allow them to do whatever they need to succeed planned since at least 2019.

    Relying only on federal AI regulations to protect Americans in 2025, would be like the federal government relying on George Wallace to create the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

    Sam Altman, 2025:

    Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

    “It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

    Peter Thiel protege, Michael Kratsios regarding AI regulation in 2019

    “A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

    I thought they cared about states rights?

    How are they able to even ban states from passing laws

  • I thought they cared about states rights?

    How are they able to even ban states from passing laws

    I'm not 100% sure about actually preventing states from creating laws, but given what's happening in my city rn I would imagine, if this passes, it gives federal agencies and private companies the ability to legally ignore any city and state regulations that might be passed.

    My city used to have a complete ban on facial recognition and predictive policing tech after they were caught secretly working with Palantir. In 2022, the mayor requested the ban be lifted and replaced with an ordinance.

    Police in my city got caught violating the very weak ordinance that regulates how facial recognition is supposed to be used.

    Since WaPo exposed them, they've allegedly paused using the tech. However, the tech is provided by a private company, and the city can't enforce their regulations on the state police and ICE agents that are still using the tech with zero oversight.

    Given how we know states like TX have already signed up to have their national guard invade other states in order to enforce Trump's immigration policy, this could provide legal protection for the Texas national guard to come into a state like California and use it however they deem necessary.

    They could start out by saying it's necessary to enforce immigration (which would be fucked up enough). Very quickly it becomes necessary to protect ICE agents from protestors, and they begin using facial recognition to track protestors and anyone loosely associated with protestors.

    There's no way for the city or state laws to do anything about this bc the Texas National Guard have essentially been given blanket protection by a federal law to use AI to enforce federal immigration policy. Essentially, instead of the national guard being sent to southern states to enforce civil rights like what happened in the 1960s, the national guard from a red state would be sent into a blue state to enforce a dystopian cyber-surveillance nightmare created by the federal government.

    Keep in mind this is just one possibility. Even without all that happening, the best case scenario of allowing a ban on state regulations, is you're providing legal protection for private corporations to collect data however they want and do whatever they want with it once it's collected.

  • What ever happened to "state's rights"?

    I guess that was just a convenient excuse to keep people as slaves, huh? 🤷

    Look, I don't understand whether they want states' rights or not. Because one moment they're in favor of the federal government having power, and the next they're in favor of the states having power.

    Because if they want states to have power, they should only be concerned with things that affect their state. If another state makes bad decisions, we can only hope that its population corrects those mistakes as quickly as possible.

    Or if they want the federal government to have power, everyone should be informed of changes, both the population and the states. These laws should benefit the majority.

    There is also a third option: there should be a balance between state and federal power.

  • What ever happened to "state's rights"?

    I guess that was just a convenient excuse to keep people as slaves, huh? 🤷

    It's always been "states rights" to enrich rulers at the expense of everyone else.

  • Cloudflare to AI Crawlers: Pay or be blocked

    Technology technology
    15
    1
    179 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    F
    Make a dummy Google Account, and log into it when on the VPN. Having an ad history avoids the blocks usually. (Note: only do this if your browsing is not activist related/etc) Also, if it's image captchas that never end, switch to the accessibility option for the captcha.
  • Google kills the fact-checking snippet

    Technology technology
    13
    149 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    L
    Remember when that useless bot was around here, objectively wrong, and getting downvoted all the time? Good times.
  • Comment utiliser ChatGPT : le guide complet - BDM

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • How LLMs could be insider threats

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    105 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    patatahooligan@lemmy.worldP
    Of course they're not "three laws safe". They're black boxes that spit out text. We don't have enough understanding and control over how they work to force them to comply with the three laws of robotics, and the LLMs themselves do not have the reasoning capability or the consistency to enforce them even if we prompt them to.
  • Brain activity lower when using AI chatbots: MIT research

    Technology technology
    15
    1
    128 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Z
    Depends how much clutch is left ‍
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    52 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • OpenAI plans massive UAE data center project

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    V
    TD Cowen (which is basically the US arm of one of the largest Canadian investment banks) did an extensive report on the state of AI investment. What they found was that despite all their big claims about the future of AI, Microsoft were quietly allowing letters of intent for billions of dollars worth of new compute capacity to expire. Basically, scrapping future plans for expansion, but in a way that's not showy and doesn't require any kind of big announcement. The equivalent of promising to be at the party and then just not showing up. Not long after this reporting came out, it got confirmed by Microsoft, and not long after it came out that Amazon was doing the same thing. Ed Zitron has a really good write up on it; https://www.wheresyoured.at/power-cut/ Amazon isn't the big surprise, they've always been the most cautious of the big players on the whole AI thing. Microsoft on the other hand are very much trying to play things both ways. They know AI is fucked, which is why they're scaling back, but they've also invested a lot of money into their OpenAI partnership so now they have to justify that expenditure which means convincing investors that consumers absolutely love their AI products and are desparate for more. As always, follow the money. Stuff like the three mile island thing is mostly just applying for permits and so on at this point. Relatively small investments. As soon as it comes to big money hitting the table, they're pulling back. That's how you know how they really feel.
  • How to delete your Twitter (or X) account

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    R
    I also need to know the way to delete twitter account of my brand : https://stylo.pk/ .