5 ms·

Any lawyers on HN - Is this even legal in the first place? Surely this is a 10th Amendment violation?

by cmeacham98 1y ago

pfdietz 1y ago
AI regulation arguably falls under the Commerce Clause.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  The 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 ago
    We're talking about AI use by corporations, right? That's pretty directly a commerce issue.
    - xboxnolifes 1y ago
      That'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 ago
        Establishing 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 ago
The 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.
- cmdli 1y ago
  That system depends on pulling funding for roads if they don’t follow the rules. Technically any state can opt out if they don’t receive any highway funding. Given the government isn’t giving large AI funding to states, they can’t do the same here.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  The interstate system is not exclusively under Federal control. For example, states can allow people to drink under age 21, on the interstate highways they own. But the Feds can refuse to pay for the highways if they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
- myko 1y ago
  > AI development doesn't seem to be less relevant to defense than roads. Seems much less relevant to me but maybe my thinking is too small minded (probably because I don't believe LLMs are a path to AGI).
arrozconcosas 1y ago
It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent. Why is this wrong? States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit. If they want federal funding, then they must cooperate with federal rules. Seems logical.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent. This is an outright lie. The relevant bit of legislation is cited in the article: "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" > States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit. The language above very clearly forbids them from spending said tax revenue on regulating AI. The same folks have long been salty that California sets higher standards for vehicle emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard#State-level_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard#State-level_...) and are looking to kneecap that sort of action here.
spencerflem 1y ago
That sorta thing doesn't really matter anymore

Any lawyers on HN - Is this even legal in the first place? Surely this is a 10th Amendment violation?

pfdietz 1y ago

AI regulation arguably falls under the Commerce Clause.

jandrewrogers 1y ago
The 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 ago
  We're talking about AI use by corporations, right? That's pretty directly a commerce issue.
  - xboxnolifes 1y ago
    That'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 ago
      Establishing 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 ago

The 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.

cmdli 1y ago
That system depends on pulling funding for roads if they don’t follow the rules. Technically any state can opt out if they don’t receive any highway funding. Given the government isn’t giving large AI funding to states, they can’t do the same here.
ceejayoz 1y ago
The interstate system is not exclusively under Federal control. For example, states can allow people to drink under age 21, on the interstate highways they own. But the Feds can refuse to pay for the highways if they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
myko 1y ago
> AI development doesn't seem to be less relevant to defense than roads. Seems much less relevant to me but maybe my thinking is too small minded (probably because I don't believe LLMs are a path to AGI).

arrozconcosas 1y ago

It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent. Why is this wrong? States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit. If they want federal funding, then they must cooperate with federal rules. Seems logical.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent. This is an outright lie. The relevant bit of legislation is cited in the article: "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" > States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit. The language above very clearly forbids them from spending said tax revenue on regulating AI. The same folks have long been salty that California sets higher standards for vehicle emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard#State-level_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard#State-level_...) and are looking to kneecap that sort of action here.

spencerflem 1y ago

That sorta thing doesn't really matter anymore