6 ms·
GOP sneaks decade-long AI regulation ban into spending bill
- henning 1y agoQueue the usual remarks about "automated decision systems": is the PID controller in an espresso machine an automated decision system, is a pacemaker, Cochlear implant, fuzzy logic controller in a rice cooker, etc.
- unsnap_biceps 1y agoIf a company has the ability to say some magic words and remove all regulation, those words are gonna be said in every possible case.
- dudeinjapan 1y agoStartup idea #34932: AI-enabled espresso-machine which adjusts caffeine levels based on biometrics (heart rate, dark circles under eyes, jitters, etc)
- magicalist 1y ago> Queue the usual remarks about "automated decision systems": is the PID controller in an espresso machine an automated decision system, is a pacemaker, Cochlear implant, fuzzy logic controller in a rice cooker, etc. Almost certainly yes. The provision defines it as > The term "automated decision system" means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, to materially influence or replace human decision making. https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Subtitle_C_Communications_4e3fbcc3bc.pdf https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Subtitle_C_Communicati...
- TrackerFF 1y agoThe big difference here is that leading AI companies are primarily data companies. If Amazon, Meta, Google, what have you decides they want to develop AI products for that insurance market, and they get to do so with zero oversight - in the name of "but we have to beat China!" - I can foresee a number of ways it will end up badly for the consumer.
- ndiddy 1y agoI suppose favoring "state's rights" over federal regulation is only a concern for the GOP when they're not getting big tech lobbyist money.
- notfromhere 1y agoits most about where they have and don't have power. the goal is acquisition of power, not some kind of principled stand.
- 9283409232 1y agoThe point they are making is that for decades GOP would cry states' rights whenever Democrats did something at the federal level but whenever they are in power, states' rights suddenly don't matter.
- spencerflem 1y agoAnd we should ignore those cries and not discuss them like there is anything deeper.
- vrosas 1y agoPeople who love dunking on conservatives on twitter don’t realize that saying absurd stuff and then watching liberals wind themselves into a tizzy is like 95% of the GOP’s media strategy.
- 9283409232 1y agoYou're being downvoted but you're right and if people spent any time in conservative spaces they would know this. "Owning the libs" has become a meme but this is the point to a lot of what Republicans do.
- 9283409232 1y agoThat's not possible. The Republican propaganda machine is very effective and there are many supporters who will vote with the GOP because "states' rights" but will simultaneously vote for all these policies. I don't think the fiercely logical part of HN understands politics and thinks you can just out debate someone into changing their mind but if it was that simple, the GOP would've died out decades ago.
- cmeacham98 1y agoAny lawyers on HN - Is this even legal in the first place? Surely this is a 10th Amendment violation?
- pfdietz 1y agoAI regulation arguably falls under the Commerce Clause.
- jandrewrogers 1y agoThe Commerce Clause has been read so broadly thanks to Wickard v Filburn that almost everything falls under it by default. The current Supreme Court seems at least skeptical of that interpretation but it is difficult to say if they will ever change it.
- pfdietz 1y agoWe're talking about AI use by corporations, right? That's pretty directly a commerce issue.
- xboxnolifes 1y agoThat's the broad interpretation they are talking about. The Commerce Clause isn't just "is it commerce". The federal government doesn't (didn't) have control of all commerce by default.
- pfdietz 1y agoEstablishing uniform standards for regulation of commerce is squarely within the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause. It's not the stretch you're trying to portray it as.
- delichon 1y agoThe interstate highway system was considered to be allowed under the power to legislate for national defense. AI development doesn't seem to be less relevant to defense than roads.
- generalizations 1y ago> "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act." This seems like a really good thing. I would have been more inclined to mock any heavy-handed attempts at regulating AI, anyway.
- vonneumannstan 1y ago[flagged]
- exe34 1y ago[flagged]
- gameman144 1y agoI don't love heavy-handed approaches like this, but it does seem very in line with small government politics. Essentially, this is saying that the executive can't create regulations that add regulations that limit what businesses can do (which would be relevant when the party in power of the executive changes)
- nemomarx 1y agoit specifically targets the states - the executive seems free to create those regulations by my reading?
- gameman144 1y agoWhoops, yep you are completely right and I was totally wrong! Bad day for my reading comprehension!
- exe34 1y agoThe executive doesn't care what the law says. This law constrains the states. The opposite of what the GOP believes in almost every other things where the states are sufficiently -ist/-phobic.
- mikeweiss 1y agoThis is so short sighted... autonomous vehicles including buses and trucks are on their way to our streets. We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads? It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans? We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... there are many options for setting rules that autonomous vehicles must follow which is in the best interests of the public not just the rider.
- zzzeek 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- newZWhoDis 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y agoWhat about fire engines?
- rocketpastsix 1y agowhy not?
- mostlysimilar 1y agoBecause the average American is pathologically selfish.
- DebtDeflation 1y ago> automated decision systems So if a bank has an automated loan approval system that consists of a series of IF-THEN statements, and one of those statements amounts to IF (applicant.race != "White"), loan.reject; this ban would forbid a state from taking action?
- tantalor 1y agoNo because there are other laws that have nothing to do with "automated decision systems" which prohibit discrimination based on protected class.
- hiatus 1y agoHow could you prove discrimination if you can't audit the decision making system? The article mentions NY regulations regarding bias audits in systems used to make hiring decisions as one casualty of this new law. > New York's 2021 law mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions would also be affected, 404 Media notes.
- AbrahamParangi 1y agoYou sue them and can find out in discovery.
- dymk 1y agoOh cool all I have to do is go sue a giant bank, I’ll let you know how that goes
- tantalor 1y agoJust change the law to mandate bias audits for all hiring decision software, whether it is automated or not.
- Smeevy 1y agoWouldn't that changed law encompass the automated software as well, thereby being in violation? I am not a lawyer, but the ridiculously broad language in the spending bill doesn't seem to leave much room for that sort of thing.
- vonneumannstan 1y ago[flagged]
- arrozconcosas 1y agoIf you read the article, it is clear that it doesn't block any and all regulation of AI. It says states cannot make federal funding follow non-federal rules around AI. The federal government may actually have more regulations than states, and this would require states to do a better job.
- vonneumannstan 1y agoThere's no indication the Feds are going to take any initiative on this at all. They lap up Altman's pandering at Senate Hearings and will do nothing.
- ceejayoz 1y agoIt's also very clear this doesn't pass Tenth Amendment muster. (Or shouldn't, at least.)
- hiatus 1y agoAI has significant impacts on interstate commerce, which the feds have basically carte blanche to regulate.
- resist_futility 1y agoNow you get a grey area when AI is being added to everything to use as an excuse to avoid state laws
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> The federal government may actually have more regulations than states There would be a chance of this being true if the language didn't bar states from enforcing their own regulation; there's no point to that except for a worry that some states' regulation will be more strict.
- 1y ago
- tantalor 1y ago> regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems Seems trivial to work around since there is no legal definition of AI. Instead of making your law specific to AI system, you can simply make it slightly broader in scope so it includes AI systems in practice. For example, prohibition on AI facial recognition in public spaces -> prohibition on any computerized facial recognition
- layer8 1y ago“Automated decision systems” seems pretty broad to me. It would potentially also include a lot of non-AI systems. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_decision-making.
- nabakin 1y agoThe court system is responsible for interpreting law so playing semantic games doesn't work very well unless you have a corrupt judge who sides with you and is willing to interpret it in this way
- tantalor 1y ago"playing semantic games" is a euphemism for the entire practice of law.
- root_axis 1y agoI don't think it'd be difficult to blur the lines in terms of implementation details in order to "AI launder" desired functionality in such a manner where the "AI" distinction becomes a philosophical debate between SMEs.
- nabakin 1y agoI think you can blur the lines to an extent and if the judge isn't very capable, pull one over on them, but to say an LLM or ML model is not artificial intelligence to a capable judge with a prosecution who points out there is an LLM, it would be hard to get around imo
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- parliament32 1y agoI like how this is the exact opposite of what the EU's doing: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
- nimbius 1y agoif you ever wanted to obliterate any consumer confidence in a market thats already routinely mocked, loathed and derided...i can think of no better way than to ensure it is fecklessly unaccountable to any sort of regulation.
- agentultra 1y agoWhat could possibly go wrong? is no longer an exclusion but an enumeration I guess. Everything you can think of probably will. Could things like this be repealed when someone who knows what they’re doing steps in?
- bgwalter 1y agoState and local governments cannot regulate. This means that the leader still can issue executive orders, e.g., against AI wokeness. Republicans very much wanted to regulate just one year ago: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/21/artificial-intelligence-culture-war-woke-far-right https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/21/artificial-i...
- xqcgrek2 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y agoGo on, give us the correct framing.
- Smeevy 1y agoYou're going to be waiting a while, I think.
- 9283409232 1y agoI will echo the sibling comment here. What's the correct way of looking at this then?
- juansebastianl 1y agoThis is going to be disastrous for hospitals and doctors, because they're facing a massive surge of (likely AI powered) denials and individual states are regulating it - this would ban that. It's not like the laws prohibit any use of AI, it's literally basic safeguards and human in the loop provisions but the text of the bill as written would make those laws illegal. Which is not surpsing considering it comes coupled with massive cuts in Medicaid - private Medicaid plans are some of the most egregious players in terms of denials.
- juansebastianl 1y agoHere is a link to some info about what states have been doing: https://stateline.org/2025/03/25/states-try-to-rein-in-health-insurers-claim-denials-with-mixed-results/ https://stateline.org/2025/03/25/states-try-to-rein-in-healt... Here is a simple website which uses the 5calls API to get your reps and gives you a script to talk to them about this https://www.deny-ai.com/call-your-representatives https://www.deny-ai.com/call-your-representatives
- TrackerFF 1y agoThe people that are championing this sort of stuff, what's your take on social credit systems (like in China), or just total surveillance? I'm asking, because my take is that totally unregulated AI will sooner or later lead to such applications. And you can't really advocate that privacy laws will stop that - after, that would hinder the progress of things like "automated decision systems".
- rickydroll 1y agoThe GOP is trying anyway they can to bring about the end times
- 9283409232 1y agoThey don't realize they're all going to hell.
- BXlnt2EachOther 1y agoSince it's a reconciliation bill, is this likely to make it past the "Byrd bath"? It's looped in with a $500M AI modernization fund but my simplified understanding is that items not related to budget can be challenged and removed. Couldn't find reference to this in any of a few news articles.
- Gormo 1y agoIs this constitutional? It sounds like a pretty clear breach of the anti-commandeering doctrine. The federal government can't simply issue commands to state legislatures. Federal law might supersede state law in areas where the federal government has express powers, e.g. interstate commerce, but if a state is adding AI-related provisions to existing policy in an area it already has authority over, I can't imagine how Congress could attempt to suppress that. Sure, federal law could likely supersede state law if a state is trying to restrict AI as a commercial service in itself, as that would cross into interstate commerce territory. But if a state already has regulatory authority over e.g. how insurance companies operate within their jurisdiction, adding provisions that relate to how AI is used in the process of providing insurance coverage doesn't seem like something the Congress could legitimately intervene in.
- int_19h 1y ago"Interstate commerce" has been interpreted so broadly, this almost certainly falls under it.
- hn_acker 1y agoIf the GOP successfully passes the ban, it would preempt state bills regulating content moderation systems, automated age gates, and automated privacy law compliance systems. California Consumer Privacy Act? Unenforceable. Think of the children? Unenforceable. (Sorry, Jonathan Haidt.) Social media should stop targeting political viewpoints? Unenforceable. (To be clear, non-government organizations have a First Amendment right to refuse to host certain viewpoints. And also, pre-2022 Twitter and Facebook targeted misinformation rather than political viewpoints [1].) [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8