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.

  • 366 Stimmen
    169 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    F
    They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal. OK, so you only stop short of making a thought crime because you can't prove it. That's... consistent but extremely concerning. You have no business policing what people think about. Freedom of thought is a fundamental right and what goes on inside other people's heads is no-one's business but their own unless they choose otherwise. This ought to be the trigger to realise that you've got something wrong in this worldview. Even if not, it's my trigger to know that I'm not going to get anywhere, so this will be my last reply. If someone thinks that the only issue with thought crimes is in gathering evidence, our views on morality and the limits of authority are diametrically opposed and there is no point trying, but at least I understand. If it's the thought you really want to control, then you wouldn't have any issue with the person who makes something harmful by accident. Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized Disturbing that you can't recognise how disturbing this language is. But sure: threaten people with being locked up for unchangeable yet not harmful aspects of their selves, just to make sure that they never seek help to keep from causing harm. Morality aside this can't have any negative consequences. Everything I have read suggests that paedophiles have no control over their attraction, only over their actions. Here's a thought experiment which I doubt you'll bother trying: could you decide to be attracted to children? I couldn't. It seems to be exactly like a sexual orientation in that respect. Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation. Your inability to engage with points of view different from your own is problematic. The victims in your narratives are always female, the perpetrators always male. Those who disagree with you are always evil perpetrators. I only say this now that I'm disengaging because there's no point in being drawn on provocative nonsense while trying to sustain a conversation.
  • Microsoft is moving antivirus providers out of the Windows kernel

    Technology technology
    26
    1
    247 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    M
    I could see some exception for windows 11 IoT being made, but I honestly don’t know.
  • Sierpinski triangle programs by 5 AI models

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    15 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    M
    oh, wow! that's so cool!
  • I Counted All of the Yurts in Mongolia Using Machine Learning

    Technology technology
    9
    17 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    G
    I'd say, when there's a policy and its goals aren't reached, that's a policy failure. If people don't like the policy, that's an issue but it's a separate issue. It doesn't seem likely that people prefer living in tents, though. But to be fair, the government may be doing the best it can. It's ranked "Flawed Democracy" by The Economist Democracy Index. That's really good, I'd say, considering the circumstances. They are placed slightly ahead of Argentina and Hungary. OP has this to say: Due to the large number of people moving to urban locations, it has been difficult for the government to build the infrastructure needed for them. The informal settlements that grew from this difficulty are now known as ger districts. There have been many efforts to formalize and develop these areas. The Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership, passed in 2002, allowed for existing ger district residents to formalize the land they settled, and allowed for others to receive land from the government into the future. Along with the privatization of land, the Mongolian government has been pushing for the development of ger districts into areas with housing blocks connected to utilities. The plan for this was published in 2014 as Ulaanbaatar 2020 Master Plan and Development Approaches for 2030. Although progress has been slow (Choi and Enkhbat 7), they have been making progress in building housing blocks in ger distrcts. Residents of ger districts sell or exchange their plots to developers who then build housing blocks on them. Often this is in exchange for an apartment in the building, and often the value of the apartment is less than the land they originally had (Choi and Enkhbat 15). Based on what I’ve read about the ger districts, they have been around since at least the 1970s, and progress on developing them has been slow. When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure. Choi, Mack Joong, and Urandulguun Enkhbat. “Distributional Effects of Ger Area Redevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” International Journal of Urban Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 50–68. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1571433.
  • Diego

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 118 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    S
    A fairer comparison would be Eliza vs ChatGPT.
  • ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows

    Technology technology
    80
    1
    486 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    Z
    Their problem with China is the supposed atheism, and that they're not christian fundamentalists.
  • 588 Stimmen
    77 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    F
    When a Lemmy instance owner gets a legal request from a foreign countries government to take down content, after they’re done shitting themselves they’ll take the content down or they’ll have to implement a country wide block on that country, along with not allowing any citizens of that country to use their instance no matter where they are located. Block me, I don’t care. You’re just proving that you can’t handle the truth and being challenged with it.