7 ms·
Behind Silicon Valley and the GOP’s campaign to ban state AI laws
- latentcall 1y agoStarting to think software engineers and business executives are just about the worst thing to happen to this planet in a long time!
- 8note 1y agoai doesnt have to, and is trying to avoid carbon emissions. the oil companies are still doing the worst, along with the oil burners like car and plane operators. ai on nuclear or solar isnt doing much bad for the planet
- Hikikomori 1y agoWe getting ai on coal though.
- treyd 1y agoWe're getting AI on whatever form of energy is cheapest at the largest scales.
- Hikikomori 1y agoDoesn't matter to this administration, only coal and oil.
- watwut 1y agoAll the while trying to harm environmentally friendly energy via new regulations, to own the libs.
- sph 1y agoHow could you forget about career politicians?
- Spivak 1y ago2025 has shown that there are things much worse than people whose entire career is decided to public service. I'll take 1000 career politician over one "business guy" any day. The combination of being sure they know how the world works (like a business of course), surrounding themselves with sycophants, and being smart enough to convince themselves of anything which makes them get high off the smell of their own farts, leads to terrible garbage like our current administration.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y agoI’d argue the career politicians’ thoughtless rhetoric reinforces the shortage of critical thinking across the country, which was taken advantage of in 2016 and again in 2024. This lack of critical thinking is nationwide: two-thirds of eligible voters either did not vote or voted for Trump in 2024. The business guy could leave office in 2029 and I’d still have low hopes for the future of the country. The damage has been caused by media and career politicians’ use of such. You’re right that they’re not overtly dangerous in office (doing crazy things means you don’t get re-elected) but that just makes the negative effects of their actions less obvious, not less severe. > people whose entire career is [dedicated] to public service I accept this framing for the career administrators who have (or had) a job to do. A person who makes a career out of repeatedly being elected to public leadership positions might fall under that umbrella but seems to have a higher propensity for dishonest behavior. Put another way: a career politician is not necessarily a career civil servant, there just happens to be some overlap.
- whyenot 1y agoWhataboutism like this is a rhetorical tactic to deflect uncomfortable or difficult conversations. I'm not sure I agree with OP about software engineers and business executives being the "worst thing for the planet," but it does feel like there is a growing distrust of both groups. It's something to pay attention to, especially if AI begins to really take away people's jobs or cause social upheaval. There is already a lot of anger directed at some business executives right now.
- 1y ago
- danaris 1y agoAh, yes; it's the software engineers who are the problem. The ones making a decent paycheck to actually write the code. Not the tech company executives making billions, with a b. Not Wall Street, that demands infinite, ever-increasing growth. Software engineers. Right.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> Not the tech company executives making billions, with a b. To be fair, they did include this group. I’m also not sure the number-goes-up investors are “the” problem (perhaps “a” problem) or if they’re just acting rationally in an inflationary economy, which does seem to be a problem with far-reaching consequences. But I agree that the problem is pretty far removed from the workers working for a paycheck, regardless of what they do; someone is paying them to do it, maybe criticize that first.
- danaris 1y agoThey said "business executives", which is a much broader group.
- rcpt 1y agoGuys like OP have been frothing at the opportunity to scream "nerds" at engineers for decades but, because tech is solidly on the left, have been struggling to find an outlet. Now Elon gave them a chance and they are thrilled.
- 52-6F-62 1y agoSolidly on the left? Last startup (as an SWE) I worked for the SWE’s worshipped the ground Elon and Bezos walked on… and their morality in their practices, even within their own teams, matched their faith. It soured me on all of it in a big way.
- wellUc 1y ago[flagged]
- rcpt 1y agoWhat does the article say about engineers?
- mindslight 1y agoIt feels like these types of fundamental dynamics are the real underlying playing field here, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Everyone keeps wondering what the Republicans' plan is for midterms, or in four years, for the obvious backlash when Trump's severe damage to our country becomes undeniable. As if we're merely going to have a "blue wave" that restores sanity [0], overcoming straightforward tactics like voter repression. I think the actual goal is to destroy and sell off as much as possible of the government before then, turning what remains of democratic accountability into a noop - converting much of our society into foreign-owned "private property", making what core government functions remain effectively just hooks into unaccountable corporate services, and effectively cementing the corporate-authoritarian dystopia that we all thought we might have a chance of avoiding. We've been suffering the ratchet dynamic nibbling away at individual liberty for decades (alternating back and forth between corporate and government pushes), but I think "AI", cryptocurrencies, and filter bubbles have finally given these looters the gall to try kicking over the whole apple cart to divide amongst themselves. [0] putting aside the whole Democrats talk a good game about chasing the corporate Road Runner but somehow never quite get him dynamic
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoIt looks like they will be successful. Democrats in Congress are a bunch of losers who aren't able to deal with this. I am not even sure if they want to.
- maeil 1y agoThey don't want to, and that's been clear for at least a decade.
- sethammons 1y agoThey wore pink that one time, so there is that
- _theraven 1y agoHey Hiro...you want to try some Snow Crash?
- beej71 1y agoDoes the federal government have the authority to enforce this?
- nradov 1y agoYes. This falls within the Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
- LocalH 1y agoThe Commerce Clause has been abused to control plenty of things that the states should have power over. Wickard v Filburn was one of the worst judicial decisions ever made.
- Terr_ 1y agoIt's worth remembering that when it was written, all land transport involved animal muscle power and interstate stuff was comparatively rare. Not saying the hacks and patches are ideal, but we've come a long way without changing the underlying Constitutional code.
- glial 1y agoCan you help me understand? If state A decides to ban tobacco product B in their state, would that also fall under this clause, and therefore be subject to federal law on the matter?
- lightedman 1y agoYes, and you can bet that the current admin is likely to use that to overturn things like California's ban on flavored tobacco products and similar things.
- jimt1234 1y agoThe previous Trump administration sued California for having the audacity to create its own environmental regulations, specifically vehicle smog standards. Not sure how this all ended, but yeah, states rights, except when we don't like what other states are doing.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoThat's what you get when you run the government "like a business". Whoever pays, gets to play. The only exception are Christian churches who are also being listened to. Everybody else gets ignored.
- rcpt 1y agoThe source of this article is a seriously anti-tech luddite. "Silicon Valley" isn't aligned with the GOP on any issue but these guys just love it when a few VCs brains break because it gives them a chance to lump every engineer in with the maga chuds.
- Jolter 1y agoThe thing is the people backing this proposed rule are not exactly marginal players in SV. You can argue that most software engineers don’t agree with it, but you have to accept that who calls the shots in a big business venture is the leadership, not the software engineers.
- rcpt 1y agoWho? Elon? Sure he's not a "marginal player" but the recent stream of attacks from publications like this to generalize his actions and beliefs out to the general "Silicon Valley" is straight up disinformation.
- Jolter 1y agoThe article is a lot more specific, if you read it. I quote who they say is behind the new budget amendment: “This amendment is the direct result of a campaign by Google, Meta, OpenAI, and venture capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz—and their dozens of trade associations […]” They are hardly saying that all of SV, or all software engineers, espouse trumpism or are otherwise on the same page politically. They don’t have to make up nebulous accusations if those mentioned by name are indeed behind it. I do think the article could have been better edited for clarity. I can see how someone could struggle to see exactly what allegations they are leveling, given the amount of quite sweeping criticism of AI firms.
- Jolter 1y agoWhile a a trade organization represents the interests and opinions of its member corporations, a corporation does not represent their employees. A company espouses and represents the opinions of its owners. I encourage anyone working in tech to do some soul searching here. Are you comfortable putting your effort into a venture that acts the way they allegedly do according to the article? If not, the only sensible way is to look for other employment. As an employee, you will never convince a corporation to act in opposition to the interests of its shareholders. It’s a fool’s errand to try to fix Google’s ethics from within.
- mixologist 1y agoLet me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states. Weird priorities.
- baq 1y agoFollow the money. Once you realize nothing makes sense, everything suddenly makes sense.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y agoParaphrasing - Their one principle is that laws should protect them and bind everyone else, and not bind them, and not protect anyone else. Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie
- jaoane 1y ago[flagged]
- moomin 1y agoAccurate way of phrasing it. Even Dobbs vs JWHO accepted that this is the point.
- bayarearefugee 1y agoGrammatically incorrect way of phrasing it, though I'm not sure if that's the problem the person you are responding to was raising. "that woman's health" (which woman are we talking about?) is quite different from "that women's health".
- Gigachad 1y ago[flagged]
- Thorrez 1y ago[flagged]
- firesteelrain 1y agoThis really should be regulated by the Federal Government level (FTC, NIST, etc) to ensure uniformity and some of California’s laws could be used as a model. Since AI represents a strategic economic and security frontier, putting a ban on states laws would allow the technology to innovate freely without having to navigate a patchwork of state laws. Finally, GOP actually favors limited government and deregulation so this doesn’t conflict with States rights concerns brought up in this thread. One thing to note is that this may also be a way to block progressive policies before they end up in the Federal government. Putting a ten year ban would effectively do that.
- tyleo 1y ago> Finally, GOP actually favors limited government and deregulation This feels like a weak argument these days. It can be trivially played both ways, “GOP actually favors limited government, look at abortion,” vs “GOP actually favors powerful government, look at immigration crackdown” There isn’t consistency on this one way or the other. I don’t think there needs to be but we shouldn’t pretend that there is for the sake of argument.
- firesteelrain 1y agoYou’re right, limited government is a throwback to a Reaganesque political identity that doesn’t map to real practice. But both parties are like this - it’s not just Republicans. It’s all about who gets power? who gets protection? who gets punished?
- conartist6 1y agoSo if people aren't responsible when AI does things, and AI and the people who make it can't be held accountable to the law, I can build an indiscriminate murder drone right and set it loose to start killing people without fear of consequence. As long as "it's AI" I'm covered
- xg15 1y agoThere was an article about "accountability sinks" a few weeks ago, i.e. org chart designs that magically result in no one being accountable for some category of problems. This feels like exactly such a thing.
- xg15 1y agoWeren't they all about "states' rights" and "federal government overreach" during Biden's turn?
- Mountain_Skies 1y agoPeople, especially here on Hacker News, have been warned for the past two decades that merging the tech sector with the government would eventually have negative consequences for them but most laughed this off because they were sure this combination would forever share their ideology and only do bad things to their ideological foes. The reality is that the monster has its own agenda that doesn't match up with any political party but it is willing to align with them from time to time if it means more power for the monster. Should have smothered it when it first appeared instead of fattening it up. And no amount of emotion mashing on that down arrow will make any of this less true. Maybe knowing it can and will turn on its current partners at some point will be of some consolation.
- jwitthuhn 1y agoThis seems like purely a good thing to me. As established when Phil Zimmerman published PGP, software is speech and any restrictions on that speech must be enacted in a way consistent with the first ammendment. State governments ignoring the constitution to prevent ai-related speech seems like a problem worth solving.