Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
onlyrealcuzzo 24 seconds ago [-]
Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.
zdragnar 38 minutes ago [-]
Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.
Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
Retric 21 minutes ago [-]
Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.
yieldcrv 15 minutes ago [-]
amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
voidfunc 55 minutes ago [-]
Sarcasm right?
bigyabai 54 minutes ago [-]
It's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.
smallmancontrov 29 minutes ago [-]
Well, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
shermantanktop 9 minutes ago [-]
Such “beliefs” are cooked up by people who are mostly self-serving and insincere. We’d call them “political operatives” today I guess.
Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
analognoise 53 minutes ago [-]
Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
jwitthuhn 6 minutes ago [-]
Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
pasttense01 14 minutes ago [-]
The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
amazingamazing 32 minutes ago [-]
Would people have the same reaction if it were solar tech, nuclear?
Retric 20 minutes ago [-]
States do restrict those things quite heavily without much comment from the general public.
Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar in the state for example.
gradientsrneat 1 hours ago [-]
> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
Sure sign that we are not dealing with a coercive situation! :)
panny 2 hours ago [-]
Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
chris_money202 5 minutes ago [-]
Congress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
they often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
pfdietz 1 hours ago [-]
Yes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause.
1 hours ago [-]
tristanj 1 hours ago [-]
It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.
tootie 58 minutes ago [-]
It's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
toast0 18 minutes ago [-]
My understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
CamperBob2 6 minutes ago [-]
And you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"
dosisking 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sameers 37 minutes ago [-]
You still have the PAC part to work out.
27 minutes ago [-]
1 hours ago [-]
Rendered at 16:37:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar in the state for example.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-pr...
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-pr...
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause