19 ms·
Montana becomes first state to enshrine 'right to compute' into law
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- montroser 1y agoI guess this is like the second amendment, except for computers and GPUs? I'm with it -- but is this actually addressing a real threat? Maybe I'm naive, and I am definitely uncertain about how all this AI craziness is going to break -- whether empowering everyone or advancing ultra corporate dystopia. But do we think our government is gearing up to take our laptops away?
- lmeyerov 1y agoThere is a big push to limit what kind of models can be OSS'd, which in turn means yes, a limit to what AI you are allowed to run. The California laws the article references make OSS AI model makers liable for whatever developers & users do. That chills the enthusiasm for someone like Facebook or a university to release a better llama. So I'm curious if this law removes that liability..
- ranger_danger 1y agoMaybe they are trying to lure in more money.
- theoldgreybeard 1y agoThe federalist wing of the drafters of the US Constitution didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary because they believed that a government of only enumerated powers was enough. So they didn't even think things like the First and Second Amendment were even necessary. Fastfoward 250 years and now maybe the idea of a "right of the people to own and self host their own software, shall not be infringed" doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
- montroser 1y agoTrue -- I like this take on it. I wonder where we will be 250 years from now.
- dehugger 1y agoOur current form of government doesn't seem likely to last 25 years, let alone 250.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoThere's an oft-repeated factoid that recognizable organized civilizations last about 10 generations or 250 years on average. And then there's Strauss–Howe generational theory. There's no magic formula or universal fate except it's risky to have lots of corrupt, stupid leaders, injustice, inequality, and/or bad circumstances that do everything to avoid rare, effective leadership with integrity and labor wealth growing faster than capital wealth. Late stage capitalism is omnicidal and suicidal because the greedy fools involved tend not to care about or plan for the future, including a cognitive dissonance to deny anticipation of domination by externalities like changes in youth public sentiment, demographic shifts, geopolitical balances, and climate change. The current richest people in the world are drug addicts, warlords, pedophiles, and those who erroneously believe public beaches belong to them personally.
- anikom15 1y agoLaws generally continue across governments anyway.
- queuebert 1y ago"The law is antiquated and should be repealed. The framers could never have envisioned Our Supreme Lord AI and how irrelevant individual compute is today when writing that law."
- salawat 1y agoHa. You reach for the 2nd but fail to realize that of all the Amendments, there is more legal precedent torture to sidestep that prohibition than any other amendment save maybe the 4th, 5th, and 10th.
- lostmsu 1y agoIt's not like second amendment due to "limited to those demonstrably necessary"
- bongodongobob 1y agoMaybe you've forgotten that the US at one time tried to ban encryption. They will try again too, I'm sure.
- bhauer 1y ago> but is this actually addressing a real threat? US Executive Orders 14110 and 14141 did create fairly onerous regulatory regimes that could have constrained the dynamism of the marketplace. However, my understanding is that both have been rescinded, so they do not currently post a real threat.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoA state law wouldn't have any effect on those anyway.
- TheRealPomax 1y agoYou're thinking about your own situation - that's normal, but not enough: there are still loads of folks who don't have a computer but are expected to interface with their governments (municipal, county, state) using a computer, and have had to pay disproportionately more being in the least affluent and/or most vulnerable demographic. It's not about losing access to laptops, it's about guaranteeing the right to even have access to the same tools that folks like us think everyone already has access to.
- montroser 1y agoThat seems like something different though. My understanding is that this is not about the government handing out free laptops, the same way the second amendment is not about the government handing out free guns. Rather, this is saying people have the right to own general purpose computers. As far as government expecting you to interface with them using a computer, I loathe this trend. And of course it's infinitely worse if they require a specific proprietary platform like iOS or Android. But I don't think this is about that.
- terminalshort 1y agoI'm totally with you as far as requiring a proprietary platform, but at some point we do just have to cut off obsolete methods of communication. We can't just keep supporting them forever.
- throwaway290 1y agoMethods of communication like "face to face" or "mail" are not obsolete. Yes you can support them forever if that's literally your job as the government. And it should be.
- terminalshort 1y agoMail is completely obsolete and we shouldn't spend money to support it. I can't think of anything stupider than writing a message down on paper and physically transporting it to its destination. Not one cent of my taxes should be spent on maintaining it as a standard means of communication.
- gspr 1y ago> I'm with it -- but is this actually addressing a real threat? Yes, the threat of mandated computational devices performing mandated computations to do things in regular life. Currently, these come almost exclusively from private companies (at least in the free world), but I think it's a good precedent for a government to recognize the dangers here. To be really helpful, it needs to ban those private companies from doing what they're doing. But this is a good start.
- wyager 1y agoThe EU and UK keep trying to undermine encryption, so I'd say there's a pretty clear risk to the freedom of general purpose computation.
- cestith 1y agoThe US has tried more than once.
- nrhrjrjrjtntbt 1y agoNo one made the joke yet? Right to bear ARMs.
- cwillu 1y agoIt's not about private citizens, for all they go on about “protecting rights”; this is transparently about preventing corporations from having their datacenters regulated.
- anigbrowl 1y agoThis is just going to be used to shut down environmental objections to data centers. It will have absolutely no impact for individuals, imho.
- throwaway290 1y ago> But do we think our government is gearing up to take our laptops away? This law is not about them coming for your laptop. It's about some massive corporation is not allowed to cover all the land in data centers. Which one of you has more legal lobby power? The gov doesn't need to come for your laptop if you are out of the job and can't even afford that laptop because everybody pays an LLM company instead Think about this like you're openai not an average Joe: > Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes
- rkagerer 1y agoYou're not alone wondering about that. I would much rather have seen something along the lines of: - right to internet connectivity (along with restrictions against some particularly offensive practices impinging access, including ads and popups when they are intrusive enough to substantially interfere*) - right to utilize methods that protect personal privacy, like off-cloud computing (which I guess is partly covered here) and encrypted communications - limit the extent to which online Terms of Service can bind you (i.e. deem unenforceable some of the worst clauses making their way around Silicon Valley, e.g. vague catchall indemnities that don't arise directly out of a user's breach of contract or illegal activity, incorporating third party terms of service by reference without explicitly stating what those terms are) - identify activities that must be explicitly opt-in instead of opt-out (e.g. newly-introduced settings or features when they reduce a user's privacy, consents to sell user information / behavioral advertising / advertising remarketing / etc.) --- * Think about it like driving down a road. Imagine if you couldn't even get get down the street or across an intersection without bumper-car-ing into some giant "acknowledge", "agree", "go away" buttons, and having to swerve around billboards that randomly jump into your lane.
- NoGravitas 1y agoThe name and rhetoric of the bill sound great, but the actual point of the bill is to make it impossible to stop AI companies and cryptominers from building data centers in your residential neighborhood.
- seneca 1y agoHere's the actual text of the law: https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731 https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731
- superkuh 1y agoIt's hilarious that the text of this law is blocked behind an impassible cloudflare computational paywall.
- terminalshort 1y agoSo impassible that I didn't even see it
- kragen 1y agoWhat homelessness problem? I have a house, don't I?
- superkuh 1y agoYep. Use a modern corporate browser and you'll have no problems personally (or so I assume from everyone saying so, I don't use chrome). Use anything else (ie, not-modern corp browser like FF pre-XUL death or some modern non-corporate browser) and you'll get blocked. I'm still getting blocked, btw. And it is cloudflare's block page. And it happens from my residential (comcast) IPv4 and multiple test IPv4 from other netblocks. It is real. People are being blocked. Even if you aren't.
- fHr 1y agoI don't get it, accessing this from EU no issue
- dynm 1y agoI think this is the main content of the law. (Everything below is quoted.) --- Section 3. Right to compute Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety. --- Section 4. Infrastructure controlled by artificial intelligence system -- shutdown. (1) When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall ensure the capability to disable the artificial intelligence system's control over the infrastructure and revert to human control within a reasonable amount of time. (2) When enacting a full shutdown, the deployer shall consider, as appropriate, disruptions to critical infrastructure that may result from a shutdown. (3) Deployers shall implement, annually review, and test a risk management policy that includes a fallback mechanism and a redundancy and mitigation plan to ensure the deployer can continue operations and maintain control of the critical infrastructure facility without the use of the artificial intelligence system.
- BirAdam 1y agoI feel like this was a mistake: “must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety” So, public health or safety, in the hands of a tyrant how broad can that get? I imagine that by enshrining this in law, Montana has accidentally given a future leader the ability to confiscate all computing technology.
- ralusek 1y agoIt appears to be a law that is simply adding restrictions to what the state can do (like the first amendment, the best sorts of laws IMO). It’s not granting people limited rights. Any existing rights people had under the fourth or first example, for example, are still in place, this just sounds like further restrictions on the state.
- terminalshort 1y ago
- colingauvin 1y ago>Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety. ....what does this say about DRM enforcement?
- nayuki 1y agoExactly. I was hoping that this law would be the pushback to the overzealous prosecution of DeCSS, people who defeat DRM locks in order to lawfully back up the multimedia data that they already paid for, etc. Somewhat related: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read I also wonder what the impact of the law is on TPM chips on computers (restricting your ability to boot whatever OS you want), the locked-down iOS mobile app store, etc.
- derbOac 1y agoI admit I'm not knowledgeable about this law but as it's written it seems fairly meaningless to me, as it could be interpreted in many different ways, and the exclusion is a hole you could drive a metaphorical truck through.
- sweetjuly 1y agoMost of the laws which touch on DRM are federal, and so they override any state laws due to the supremacy clause.
- sandworm101 1y agoQuestion nobody wants to talk about: will this prevent courts from issuing "no computer" restrictions on persons convicted or being investigated for crimes involving computers? I have seen clients go for many years without cellphones because a judge cassually attached a "no computer" protective order. It is hard enough finding work as a convict or person under investigation, but 10x harder for those without cellphones and email.
- FpUser 1y agoThese restrictions must be scrapped completely. Along with this barbaric "criminal record" they delegate big chunk of the population to an underclass, well, unless they are rich.
- twodave 1y agoI disagree for most crimes at least. Most crimes are either going to be some form of illegal dishonesty (theft, fraud, etc.) or violence. I would hope the company I work for is able to screen individuals for such behaviors before hiring them. “Willing to lie/cheat/steal for gain” in particular is such a huge red flag that any company who hired someone and ignored such red flags could reasonably be sued for negligence whenever that employee inevitably commits another similar crime. There are examples of this in the news literally today.
- FpUser 1y agoWhat a pile of crap.
- twodave 1y agoYou say that now, but if your family member were hit by a drunk driver who was only in your city for work, and the employer knew the employee had a couple of DUIs but had them rent a car for travel anyway, you'd probably want them to be held somewhat responsible. We can't have it both ways.
- 1y ago
- threecheese 1y agoAny idea how “citizen” is defined here? Does this apply, like speech (and campaign donations), to corporations?
- sandworm101 1y agoYes. In written laws "citizen" generally means any person and/or organization subject to the laws of the state. It doesnt mean just living people who can vote. Many a young law student has pontificated that as non-citizens, visiting tourists have no rights. There is no more loaded a word in US politics, and none more malleable under the law, as "citizen". It means something different in every context.
- zkmon 1y agoI mean, without this law, are the people not allowed to use computing? What exactly is the difference it brings? Does it force government to provide computing to all citizens?
- manbart 1y agoMakes it harder for people to oppose construction of data centers in their back yard
- righthand 1y agoHere is the official text: https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC0292?open_tab=bill https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC0292?open_tab=bill
- hereme888 1y agoGood job, Montana. There was a trend in proposed and passed policies that were eating at rights to own machines. Examples: DMCA anti-circumvention (right to repair and jailbreak), export controls for high-end chips and cybersecurity tools, proposals to weaken/negate e2e encryption or delay security updates, AI rules that you can't train past X amount (shortsighted for future of personal compute capacity), restricting individuals from crypto mining, etc. So basically a trend of restricting software use or modification on general-purpose hardware. Once the tiniest relevant policy lands, it tends to expand from there. Hence what Montana did.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoAren't all of those federal efforts? This state law would have no effect on those.
- hereme888 1y agoNot sure, but to me the beauty of individual States who agree to Unite, is they get to keep all powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government, which creates 51 different A/B tests, to see which ones others would want to adopt or champion. ^^^ Ok, I just learned that concept from a recent tweet from Linus Torvalds.
- pottertheotter 1y agoI think this is just to make it so that data centers and crypto mining facilities can be built and operated where owners want. Makes it so zoning and environmental regulations can’t stop you as easily.
- tdeck 1y agoPeople need to be more skeptical. This is not going to be used to uphold individual rights, and that's not the intention. This will be used not only to fast track data centers, but to support companies like Flock and push back against any attempts to regulate widespread surveillance.
- dboreham 1y agoUm. Montana resident here. The state also had quite strong anti-corruption (aka campaign finance) laws, since the copper baron days. But the US Supreme Court ruled that doesn't matter (because their corruption trumps any state anti-corruption law presumably). So don't expect this to amount to anything.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lr4444lr 1y agoIt's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure it will matter. AI is likely already on the Federal radar for superseding regulation.
- eikenberry 1y agoAs long as laws are restricted to business services it shouldn't conflict. This is the right for citizens to use computation, business regulation is always a layer on top of that.
- londons_explore 1y agoI'm not sure exactly what this law does, but I would like to do with a computer anything I could theoretically and legally do with my mind. Eg. If I'm a shopkeeper and see some customer coming in who stole stuff from the shop last time, I am within my rights to tell them to leave the shop. However if I use a computer to do the same, many countries would disallow facial recognition, keeping databases of customers without consent, etc.
- jstanley 1y agoOK, but be careful what you wish for. We might get regulations on allowable thought if that's what's necessary to regulate computation.
- suncemoje 1y agoWhat does this make with Montana?
- teucris 1y agoI’m all for this movement provided it’s actually focusing on the rights of individuals rather than empowering corporations to own and operate massive amounts of computing power unchecked. When I first read the article, I frankly assumed this was meant to limit regulation on AI. From what I’ve read in the law that doesn’t seem to explicitly be the case, but given the organizations involved, I fully expect to see more in that vein.
- frmersdog 1y agoI feel super happy for the 5 people and 20 cows who will benefit. (This is intended less a jab at Montana specifically and more at state and national politicians who only seem to have political gumption when it concerns the needs of less-populated states with particular demographics.)
- culi 1y agoMontana is the 7th least populated state but it has become a hub for the ultra-wealthy.[0][1] Many of those people made their wealth in tech. It's not that surprising that a state this small could be easily influenced to pass a law that bans AI regulation [0] https://montanafreepress.org/2023/04/17/how-an-avalanche-of-wealth-is-displacing-workers-in-montana/ https://montanafreepress.org/2023/04/17/how-an-avalanche-of-... [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/08/17/nx-s1-5077696 https://www.npr.org/2024/08/17/nx-s1-5077696
- perihelions 1y agoThe major context of this law is regulations like Executive Order 14110, of 2023 (since rescinded), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14110 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38067314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38067314 ("Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (whitehouse.gov)"—337 comments)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- malvim 1y agoI mean, isn’t there also law that says people have basic rights to food, housing, healthcare? What will this law change, effectively?
- kragen 1y agoNo, definitely not, not in Montana. Maybe in France or Vietnam.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoIf there a law saying people have the right to food?
- samdoesnothing 1y agoNo...?
- jandrewrogers 1y agoThere is no basic right to food, housing, or healthcare. Your premise is wrong.
- malvim 1y agoOkay, sorry, I’m not from the US. I thought the constitution might have something along those lines. I’m clearly wrong. No wanting to bash this new law, just wanted to understand what it’s supposed to effectively change.
- Sleaker 1y agoInteresting, has the EFF done a writeup/opinion on this legislation yet? I tend to trust them on breaking things down from the legalese and implications.
- RRWagner 1y agoI used to do presentations at educational technology conferences and many (30+)years ago I speculated that "in the future" computers that could create would be licensed. This was based on the observation that every significant past technology under user control was eventually licensed for permission to operate - radio, television, cars, the list is long.
- PunchyHamster 1y agoyou need better examples than radio/tv/cars radio/tv share the bands which are very narrow resource so licensing pretty much have to exist else there would be interference abound (imagine competing TV station just driving around with a jammer on competition cars have that + the fact infrastructure is built by public money. Allowing anyone on anything with no training there literally costs lives Or, copyright wise, to earn money in before digital world you kinda had to not have too much of copyright infringement - while artist today might get popular enough to subside on patreon/other form of digital tips, before it wouldn't be possible
- Spivak 1y agoThis doesn't really disagree with the parent's thesis. You're just giving the long explanation for each event. Any significant technological advancement necessarily uses some shared public resource which will drive people to regulate it. For AI folks are trying to get a lot of random things to stick: the power grid, water usage, public safety, disinformation.
- cushychicken 1y agoOh wow, Greg Gianforte managed to do something in politics I don’t vehemently hate. He’s not a very nice person but he did at least used to own a tech company.
- nikitalita 1y agoThis is very transparently an attempt to prevent regulation of AI companies
- nougati 1y agocan you explain? it seems like the shutdown requirements specifically read as regulation which would apply to ai companies
- culi 1y agoSB212 is an AI bill. It also includes some guidelines around AI-controlled infrastructure. But, as the source explicitly discusses, the focus clearly seems to be around preventing AI regulation of private individuals (individuals also means corporations in the US). > Nationally, the Right to Compute movement is gaining traction. Spearheaded by the grassroots group RightToCompute.ai, the campaign argues that computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right. “A computer is an extension of the human capacity to think,” the organization states. > The MRTCA stands in stark contrast to recent regulatory efforts in other states, such as California, Virginia, and New York, where proposals to rein in AI technologies have either failed or been heavily revised. Montana’s approach leans toward empowering individual users rather than restricting access.
- tdeck 1y ago> grassroots group RightToCompute.ai Sure, I completely believe this model legislation drafted by ALEC is being pushed by a "grassroots group" and not an industry lobbying organization. I wish reporters would be more careful with their language. https://alec.org/model-policy/right-to-compute-act/ https://alec.org/model-policy/right-to-compute-act/
- unwise-exe 1y agoMaybe someone could have just came up with in a vacuum, but it looks like a response to other attempts to restrict AI by saying that models trained with more than X amount of compute resources have to follow tons of extra rules. And, per the article, the group pushing this is AI and blockchain companies.
- culi 1y agoMontana, which has the 4th largest population of millionaires despite being the 7th lowest populated US state, passes a law to prevent AI regulation. I don't think that it's a coincidence that many of the wealthy individuals that have flocked to Montana made their wealth in the tech industry
- cheesecompiler 1y agoWhy have they flocked to Montana? I had no idea.
- sam345 1y agoIt doesn't sound like anybody really knows or has any clue about what this law will do or be used for. Exactly what are the implications?
- hx8 1y agoI think this signals to data center builders that Montana wants their business, and this is really just a publicity stunt.
- simulator5g 1y agoThis law prevents future politicians from writing laws that place restrictions on AI companies.
- kragen 1y agoDamn right. Keep yer damn laws off my exocortex!
- cat-whisperer 1y agoits' time for government owned agencies to be more open to integrating intelligent systems. I would prefer if this happens in india too.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yapyap 1y agoperformative lawmaking
- zjaffee 1y agoMontana likely passed such a law because they have a governor and a senator who both came from the tech sector in big ways (sold the same company to oracle). That said, there are a lot of other legal hurdles that would prevent Montana from ever being significant to the tech sector, despite the fact that I'm certain many skilled people would love to live there. From being the only state to not have at will employment to having a completely out of wack tax system (ratio between income and sales tax for a state entirely dependent on tourism), to countless restrictions (and often necessary because of water restrictions) on building large amounts of new housing, it just sin't happening.
- aids_bomb 1y ago[dead]
- yard2010 1y agoI love how lawmakers jerk each other doing jack shit at the expense of the public. This is a long text that actually says nothing.
- namesbc 1y agoUg, this bill is all about preventing regulation of multinational corporations, it has nothing to do with the right for individuals to compute anything.
- NoGravitas 1y agoYep, I'd like to think this was a bill to protect my right to run any software I want to on hardware that I own, but it's actually a bill to keep Montana localities (cities, counties) from regulating or restricting data centers (noise, power, etc) in the interests of their residents. It's a state preemption bill restricting local democracy for the benefit of big business and polluters.
- noahbp 1y ago"Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety." They can absolutely be regulated, but you must prove actual harm instead of "I don't want any data centers near me because of (conspiracy theory I read on Facebook)."
- init1 1y agoWhat useless drivel. If you already have property rights then you have the right to own and operate computers. The main thrust of the law is directly self contradictory. "Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes..." OK then just make the usage you don't like unlawful and you are allowed to violate this "protection".
- hermannj314 1y agoCan someone give an example of a law Montana passed or tried to pass that this law now prohibits a future legislature from passing? I don't like a legislature compelling a future legislature to not have power, isn't that really a state constitutional thing? This is going to be used to fuck over people, no way this is a good thing.
- MangoToupe 1y agoHonestly, this sucks for people living in montana. It's hard to view this as a positive for anyone but business owners.
- rvba 1y agoLooks like regulatory capture. What do the AI bros want to do that they require such law? I guess it is future proofing to defend scraping. Scraping that ignores robots.txt
- fooker 1y agoNeat doublethink. "Right to compute" but does not provide anyone with any right, waives away potential future regulations for tech companies. BUT who could possibly need an escape hatch from AI regulations? Likely not Nvidia or Google or Apple,... Companies and agencies making AI drone swarms or whatever the next gen AI policing/surveillance tech though, this is a godsend. I have to wonder, where the palantir connection is. Is it hidden or are they brazen enough to flount it openly yet?
- Nifty3929 1y agoReally? - I took away that this does give people the right to use computers and AI technologies. I.e. the government can't ban or encumber those things. But I didn't see the full text in TFA. Can you elaborate a bit on how this does not meaningfully create any rights?
- fooker 1y agoIt's more about government not regulating companies than people. The part about people says there has to be good reason to restrict people, which doesn't really mean much.
- hellzbellz123 1y agoindividuals also means corporations in the US