4 ms·

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for te

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

rakete 1y ago
Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy. So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a friend.
- OgsyedIE 1y ago
  The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties. (§70302, p.562)
  - alwa 1y ago
    > 70302. Restriction of funds No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section. Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the injunction or order has to post a bond as security?
    - OgsyedIE 1y ago
      Yes, the required security is proportional to the costs and damages of all parties the court may find wrongfully impacted.
      - alwa 1y ago
        Ah, so it would need to be so steep as to be prohibitive for most small plaintiffs?
        OgsyedIE 1y ago
        Prosecutors, too. They're also movants.
sandworm101 1y ago
It is almost as if the tech bros have gotten what they paid for. This will soon be settled once the Butlerian forces get organize.
CalRobert 1y ago
""" ... IN GENERAL .—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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... """ (It goes on)
baggy_trough 1y ago
That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.
- drewser42 1y ago
  So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    The strong federal government that bans regulation?
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      They're not banning regulation, they want total control over it.
      - baggy_trough 1y ago
        They in fact are banning regulation at the state and local level.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, which is a big fat regulation on what states and local governments can do.
        baggy_trough 1y ago
        Would removing their regulation to ban regulation be banning regulation or not?
SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
Right, because more regulation makes things so much better. I’d rather have unrestricted AI than moated regulatory capture paid for by the largest existing players.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  This is "more regulation" on the states (from the "states' rights" party, no less), and concentrates the potential for regulatory capture into the largest player, the Feds. Who just accepted a $400M gift from Qatar and have a Trump cryptocurrency that gets you access to the President.
  - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      You cannot possibly be that uninformed. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/qatar-plane-trump-air-force-one.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/qatar-plane-t...
      - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Who is Mullin? A blowhard who shouldn't be in the Senate. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/stand-your-butt-up-gop-sen-mullin-challenges-teamsters-boss-to-fight-at-senate-hearing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/stand-your-butt-up-gop-sen-m... > When did Qatar start the process of gifting that jet from Boeing? As far as anyone can determine, very recently. There's no evidence backing Mullin's transparent effort at redirecting blame. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics/trump-adminstration-approached-qatar-jet https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics/trump-adminstration-... "The Trump administration, however, wanted a replacement plane much faster, and the Air Force was exploring different options for doing so. At the same time, Trump tasked his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff with finding a list of viable planes, a senior White House official told CNN." Trump publicly bragged about being the one to decide to accept it, as well. > Cancel your NYT sub. I don't have one.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rixed 1y ago
« (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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. » Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state passing their own laws on that topic.
yoyohello13 1y ago
It's unsurprising this stuff gets flagged. Half of the Americans on this site voted for this because "regulation bad" or some such. As if mega corps have our best interest at heart and will never do anything blatantly harmful to make a buck.

rakete 1y ago

Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy. So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a friend.

OgsyedIE 1y ago
The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties. (§70302, p.562)
- alwa 1y ago
  > 70302. Restriction of funds No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section. Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the injunction or order has to post a bond as security?
  - OgsyedIE 1y ago
    Yes, the required security is proportional to the costs and damages of all parties the court may find wrongfully impacted.
    - alwa 1y ago
      Ah, so it would need to be so steep as to be prohibitive for most small plaintiffs?
      - OgsyedIE 1y ago
        Prosecutors, too. They're also movants.

sandworm101 1y ago

It is almost as if the tech bros have gotten what they paid for. This will soon be settled once the Butlerian forces get organize.

CalRobert 1y ago

""" ... IN GENERAL .—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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... """ (It goes on)

baggy_trough 1y ago

That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.
drewser42 1y ago
So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  The strong federal government that bans regulation?
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    They're not banning regulation, they want total control over it.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      They in fact are banning regulation at the state and local level.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, which is a big fat regulation on what states and local governments can do.
        baggy_trough 1y ago
        Would removing their regulation to ban regulation be banning regulation or not?

SV_BubbleTime 1y ago

Right, because more regulation makes things so much better. I’d rather have unrestricted AI than moated regulatory capture paid for by the largest existing players.

ceejayoz 1y ago
This is "more regulation" on the states (from the "states' rights" party, no less), and concentrates the potential for regulatory capture into the largest player, the Feds. Who just accepted a $400M gift from Qatar and have a Trump cryptocurrency that gets you access to the President.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    You cannot possibly be that uninformed. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/qatar-plane-trump-air-force-one.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/qatar-plane-t...
    - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Who is Mullin? A blowhard who shouldn't be in the Senate. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/stand-your-butt-up-gop-sen-mullin-challenges-teamsters-boss-to-fight-at-senate-hearing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/stand-your-butt-up-gop-sen-m... > When did Qatar start the process of gifting that jet from Boeing? As far as anyone can determine, very recently. There's no evidence backing Mullin's transparent effort at redirecting blame. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics/trump-adminstration-approached-qatar-jet https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics/trump-adminstration-... "The Trump administration, however, wanted a replacement plane much faster, and the Air Force was exploring different options for doing so. At the same time, Trump tasked his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff with finding a list of viable planes, a senior White House official told CNN." Trump publicly bragged about being the one to decide to accept it, as well. > Cancel your NYT sub. I don't have one.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rixed 1y ago

« (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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. » Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state passing their own laws on that topic.

yoyohello13 1y ago

It's unsurprising this stuff gets flagged. Half of the Americans on this site voted for this because "regulation bad" or some such. As if mega corps have our best interest at heart and will never do anything blatantly harmful to make a buck.