3 ms·
> "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or au
by 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.
- spencerflem 1y ago[flagged]
- int_19h 1y agoThe states are supposed to be "laboratories of democracy". If people in some states want to regulate AI there, why shouldn't they be able to? And if it's too heavy-handed in practice, let the other states use their lack of such regulation as a carrot to lure companies in. Why do the feds need to be involved here at all?