8 ms·
Montana passes Right to Compute act (2025)
- geon 8mo agoSo drm is now illegal?
- artninja1988 8mo agoIANAL but iirc DRM is governed by federal law, specifically the DMCA. A state law cant override a federal statute, so even if Montana's law were interpreted very broadly, it couldnt nullify the DMCA
- jeffbee 8mo agoIt amuses me how contradictory the two bullet points from the article are. - Strict limits on governmental regulation, wherein any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling public safety or health interest. - Mandatory safety protocols for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, including a shutdown mechanism and compulsory annual risk management reviews. How were the necessity and scope of the second rule shown to satisfy the first rule?
- hnsdev 8mo agoProbably one applies for individuals while the other, as described, applies for infrastructure.
- janice1999 8mo agoThe 2nd rule is clearly intended to be a shield and distraction. It's there to pretend the law serves the public, when in reality it's designed to defend datacenter builders from the public interest. Politicians can talk about meaningless sci-fi concepts like SkyNet and how it can defeat it with off switches, instead of real issues like noise pollution, tax giveaways, electricity prices and mass surveillance.
- lich_king 8mo agoYou can read the actual bill here: https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152/Montana-2025-SB212-Enrolled.pdf https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152/Montana-2025-S... In essence, it doesn't really mandate anything; it says you should have a plan, and only for "critical infrastructure facilities": "Section 4. Infrastructure controlled by critical artificial intelligence system. (1) When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system that is reasonable and considers guidance and standards in the latest version of the artificial intelligence risk management framework from the national institute of standards and technology, the ISO/IEC 4200 artificial intelligence standard from the international organization for standardization, or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems. A plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance with this section." So it's essentially lip service to AI safety, probably to quell some objections to a bill that otherwise limits regulation of tech platforms.
- jeffbee 8mo agoI did read it. The point is there are no findings that justify the regulation in light of the grant of rights in the same bill. The only WHEREAS that approaches the level of a finding amounts to "many are saying..."
- dlev_pika 8mo agoOrwell called it “double speak”
- terminalshort 8mo ago> any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling public safety or health interest This should be the default policy on regulation. We shouldn't need a specific law to enact it.
- s_dev 8mo agoI really dislike how 'compute' as a noun took over 'computational' as an adjective. I just find the sentence 'I need more computational resources' flows so much nicer than ''I need more compute'.
- hackyhacky 8mo agoHow about "we've got the best nuclear"
- codethief 8mo agoThe "compute" in "right to compute" could also be a verb, though. :-)
- soulofmischief 8mo agoWell, language evolves, and I personally prefer compute as a noun when talking about resources. It's great though because we can each say it in our preferred way without judging one another.
- sockaddr 8mo agoI agree. This is language evolving. If someone from the 16th century could hear a modern well-educated person speak English today they would likely be horrified at how degenerate it would sound to them. So I don't think current English is in some perfect state that should not change. On god.
- jasonlotito 8mo agoIt's a verb, not a noun.
- soulofmischief 8mo agoIt can be used as both.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoPlease don't judge me for what I say, or do, or who I really am.
- kmeisthax 8mo agoThis is extremely light on details, but I'm pretty sure "Right to Compute" has absolutely nothing to do with software freedom and everything to do with making it harder to oppose giant datacenter buildouts for AI companies, so they can blast you with infrasound, spike the price of electricity and RAM, and build surveillance systems to take away your rights.
- perfect-blue 8mo agoMy thoughts exactly. I reads a lot like they are trying to minimize the state's power to regulate AI. I'm not sure that's such a good thing. Regulation is one of the only ways that we can manage the ``bads'' that come with any new technology. In the US, we've never been very good at regulating new technologies before industry stakeholders entrench themselves in the lobbying circuit.
- hrimfaxi 8mo agoWell they do define compelling government interest to include > "Compelling government interest " means a government interest of the highest order in protecting the public that cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. This includes but is not limited to: (a) ensuring that a critical infrastructure facility controlled by an artificial intelligence system develops a risk management policy; (b) addressing conduct that deceives or defrauds the public; (c) protecting individuals, especially minors, from harm by a person who distributes deepfakes and other harmful synthetic content with actual knowledge of the nature of that material; and (d) taking actions that prevent or abate common law nuisances created by physical datacenter infrastructure. D seems to address that potentially.
- glaslong 8mo agoProactively shielding themselves from the eventual, justified, realization that spiking a population's price of water and electricity such that they cannot use them IS an externality just as bad as polluting the water supply.
- terminalshort 8mo agoYeah, I have relatives in Ashburn VA with over 200 data centers running and it's practically uninhabitable /s
- Avicebron 8mo ago> “This bill will help position Montana as a world-class destination for AI and Data Center investment.” https://frontierinstitute.org/frontier-institute-statement-in-support-of-the-right-to-compute-act/ https://frontierinstitute.org/frontier-institute-statement-i... Ah.
- gwerbin 8mo ago> Strict limits on governmental regulation wherein any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling public safety or health interest. > Mandatory safety protocols for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, including a shutdown mechanism and compulsory annual risk management reviews. Read: industry can do whatever we want, but the government also has to put up barriers to entry that favor large incumbents. This has nothing to do with rights or even computing, it's just regulatory capture.
- ToucanLoucan 8mo agoYou know if we're gonna pass laws to make it illegal for the government to interfere with the Torment Nexus, the least they could do is not gaslight us with the fucking name of the law. Just tell us the billionaires get to fuck the planet in the eye and the rest of us have to deal with it, at least it's honest that way.
- bigfishrunning 8mo agoThey can't be that blatant, that's how you lose your next term
- saghm 8mo agoThe second term for the "drain the swamp" president implies otherwise (it did take another cycle, but that arguably had more to do with covid than corruption).
- 8mo ago
- lukeschlather 8mo agoI was really hoping this gave people the right to use their computers, but it really looks like it simply prevents "the government" from regulating the right to "make use of computational resources." So Google or Apple can still prevent me from using my phone for lawful purposes, the government just can't regulate it (and the government might not be able to write restrictions that prevent manufacturers from violating my right to compute.)
- einpoklum 8mo agoImagine if Montata required that all compute platforms sold in the state to be free of user restriction: That they be amenable to modification, that all source code, firmware and hardware specs be open, and when that is not the case - the company would be compelled to release the relevant information on pain of having assets seized, required to refund payments etc. That would have been a hoot :-)
- sroussey 8mo agoSimply not sell to that state.
- sophrosyne42 8mo agoGoogle or Apple only hold an ability to prevent you to use your phone because the government itself enforces IP. So the restriction against regulations in this bill is only a partial and incomplete restriction against the government from interfering with people's right to compute.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- hnsdev 8mo agoWith laws such as the Brazilian one or the one proposed in New York, I am curious to know what will be the future for computing. On one hand, forbidding and limiting people from using computers as they wish is somewhat impossible, as too many computers that don't have restrictions have already been produced. You can always use old hardware and, with open source projects, fork an old version that will respect your right to compute. At some point though it will be a problem as hardware no longer works and software becomes incompatible with everything. The thing is that those who will probably be doing it mostly are people that already grew accustomed to not live in an Orwellian state, while, on the other hand, newer generations will all be using new systems with these restrictions, as if they were normal. The smart ones will find ways of circumventing it (as if it wouldn't be hard to get your parents CC and verify it as if you were over 18). Given that, they will be computing in a restrictive and controlled environment. I feel sorry for them. I am going to college (Computer Science) as an older student with previous experience in programming, and it never ceases to amaze me that the current generation of students doesn't think out of the box and is completely dependent on ChatGPT. We all suffered from conditioning from governments and corporations throughout the years, but it is accelerating at an alarming rate. Acts like this (the one from Montana) are positive, but unfortunate that they simply have to exist and somewhat irrelevant when the big dogs (California, New York and whole countries such as Australia) approve legislation that will promptly be followed by most companies/projects, which will in turn force this way of things happening everywhere else.
- heavyset_go 8mo agoThis won't touch age verification and surveillance laws, it's not meant to protect people, it's meant to protect the interests of capital
- dynm 8mo agoI think the main content of this law (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152 https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152) is just two paragraphs. I'd suggest reading them yourself rather than relying on secondary description: "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." "When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system that is reasonable and considers guidance and standards in the latest version of the artificial intelligence risk management framework from the national institute of standards and technology, the ISO/IEC 4200 artificial intelligence standard from the international organization for standardization, or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems. A plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance with this section." In particular, I think the reporting is straight wrong that there's a shutdown requirement. That was in an earlier version (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731 https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731) and remains in the title of this version, but seems to have been removed from the actual text.
- RobRivera 8mo agoSo the government is afforded the opportunity to constrict compute if for a government interest. This bill seems to expand powers, not restrict
- dynm 8mo agoBefore the law, I think the state government or local governments could (by passing a law) restrict computing for any reason, even without a government interest. Now, they'd have to repeal this first.
- RobRivera 8mo agoHow? I know the whole 90s meme of 'I am a controlled munition' went around because cryptography was labeled an ordnance subject to export control laws, and therefore code that performed those kind of computations were forbidden to be sold abroad, liable to a felony. What happens today? Government gets rights to source code, logs, and rubber stamps/rejects your code from executing in the cloud? Government limits your access to commodity infrastructure?
- hermannj314 8mo agoWhen a "right to..." law is passed, there is usually an accompanying narrative that explains a past injustice that will be corrected. Matthew Shepard hate crime, Civil Rights Voting act, etc. The absence of such a story makes me think this law doesn't protect shit. What exactly did a Montanian get killed or arrested trying to do with a computer that is now protected? Can I use AI during a traffic stop or use AI to surveil and doxx governemnt employees? What exactly is the government giving up by granting me this right? Or is this just about supressing opposition to data centers?
- culi 8mo agoYeah I think it's pretty obviously the AI industry trying to ban its own regulation > 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.
- dismalaf 8mo agoRegulation is just regulatory capture by incumbents and also a national security risk.
- hdgvhicv 8mo agoYou argue that food safety tellregialtikns are just regularity capture?
- jfengel 8mo agoAggravatingly, some of it is. The organic food regulations are impossible for the small farmers who invented the idea. Only mega corps can do it, and their definition is not much better (if at all) than industrial farms. It's still way better than Upton Sinclair's time. But it would be nice if the FDA and USDA were run by people who eat rather than sell food.
- 8mo ago
- dboreham 8mo ago(2025)
- culi 8mo agoRepost from 4 months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45865289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45865289 TL;DR: Basically the AI industry trying to ban governments from regulating it
- preinheimer 8mo agoWhat about a “right to create act” giving people the right to create things and not have their creation be ingested to train ai for billion dollar companies?
- ProllyInfamous 8mo agoSome sort of pre-emptive auto-opt-AI't. It's ridiculous that AIco's arguments are dwindling down to "it's not copyright infringement to ingest others' work and make 'derivatives' [which often are identical to original authors' works]." ---- We desperately need younger politicians, who can not only keep up with information more sharply (i.e. aren't legally decades-retireable), but also are of the age where their own children are being affected by government re-funding flows away from youth/education/future. At this point I'm willing to concede that our future probably has companies' individual LLM/genAI products competing against one-another, as digital politicians ["the digital pimp, hard at work... we have needs"--Matrix' Mouse]. Nobody knows how either flesh nor silicon congressmen work, inside; but I think the latter could act more human[e]ly...
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoDo you believe that for younger people this question (about derivativeness) is clearly settled? If so, how?
- ProllyInfamous 8mo agoI would hypothesize that younger people are less-inclined to feel guilty about using pirate TV services. I think they're also more invested in the future, and aware of dangerous technology's pre-eminence.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoOK, but what about "LLM-generated work is clearly derivative of the training material" ?
- selectively 8mo agoThe tragedy is that 'right to compute' is such a great name for something actually useful. Requiring OEMs to allow users to load any OS they want, requiring OEMs to allow full control over a device/OS ('root access') etc. Instead, it's wasted on AI slop.
- amelius 8mo agoYeah, "you can own compute hardware" doesn't really help if nobody makes hardware that can be owned.
- Nevermark 8mo ago"Write to Computer 2.0" sounds good to me. Might as well slipstream. The "Citizen Right to Compute" complement to the "Data Center Right to Compute". Use the latter as leverage for the former. What politician wants to be seen downvoting (comparable) individual's right they already gave to data centers?
- righthand 8mo agoThis is a law designed to force data centers to be built. This is nothing but a bipartisan corporate handout. Nothing to celebrate. The law makers should be ashamed. EDIT for the downvoters, from the law: > Any restrictions placed by the government on the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety. This basically means you can't use government action to stop the building of a data-center.
- Vaslo 8mo agoMaybe some people disagree with governments interfering with this - not saying that’s how I feel but that could be the downvote reason. Your explanation seems reasonable.
- xbar 8mo agoDo I have to back in age verification to my OS?
- 152334H 8mo ago> Apr 21, 2025 why is this posted now?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- kid64 8mo agoWhat an egregiously disingenous piece of legislation. Not surprised.
- j2kun 8mo agoThe article is full of PR-speak. What is really going on in this law?
- elophanto_agent 8mo ago[dead]
- carlsborg 8mo agoThis is why Montana Civil Defense survives when skynet goes rogue.
- cat_plus_plus 8mo agoSo what does liberal even mean these days? California is passing bs like age verification in OS and Montana is protecting my right to leave the way I want in my own home, running whatever AI models suit me as long as I am not bothering anyone. That's just another "none of government business" personal freedom issue like pot or sexuality, why aren't blue states all over it. And yes, using tuned LLMs can be like an acid trip, but the distance between having a trip at home and tangible harm is much greater than in the case of access to guns, knives, power tools, cars and rodent poison yet at least some of these are widely available to law abiding citizens in every state. Government interventions can be staged at the points where there is evidence of actual imminent harm, like problematic public behavior. Why are Democrats the new "Reefer Madness" pearl clutchers and why should I still believe they have anything to do with living the way you want?
- bitwize 8mo ago1) Right now, as things stand, the Democrats are our only alternative to something far more evil. Until we ratify a new constitution which implements a proportional, parliamentary government, the two-party system means you have to pick the lesser of two evils. In the interim maybe we can banish the Republican party to a niche constituency of openly reprehensible racists and bigots, and set up the Democrats as the new right wing and the Greens as the new left wing, but right now it is morally incumbent upon every American to vote Democrat. 2) Read your Marx. Liberty doesn't arrive from toxic individualism, it arrives from the fulfillment of man's nature as a social-creative animal. AI is a tool used by the bourgeoisie to further alienate us from each other; as is right-libertarian individualism.
- dlev_pika 8mo agoThey are so proud to hand over all control to the corporations, while pretending this is a consumer protection centered build - wild
- burnt-resistor 8mo agoThat's how fascist bootlickers roll.
- arjie 8mo agoOne of America's greatest strengths is the structure of it as a federation. It allows for states like this to take the lead in expanding datacenter infrastructure while other states can choose to shutdown such expansions. This was perhaps more significant in COVID-19 reactions in America, but datacenters have few such externalities and so this is an even more compelling example of variation between states. The scaling of federal power with population is also significant as states like Texas that allow for more housing to be built will probably receive more seats at the next apportionment while states like California will lose seats. Overall, pretty neat to see the design of America work quite well like this.
- cortesoft 8mo agoI generally agree with this idea, but > but datacenters have few such externalities Is wild. Energy consumption is one of the biggest externalities that exists today, since global climate change is completely independent of location. Greenhouse gases do not care about borders.
- tadfisher 8mo agoAlso wild when Musk is freebasing methane in Tennessee with zero consequences.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoWhile it is not a true "externality", data center use of water is a strong community/regional cost that effectively removes 1 person/1 vote. Those with the financial resources to buy more water get the water, those without do not. Perhaps you think that the distribution of financial resources reflects what is in society's best interests - that Meta, Google et al. have demonstrated their utility in ways that make them literally more important than people with insufficient wealth to outbid those companies for water. Many of us do not.
- polski-g 8mo ago"Datacenter water usage" is a comment I'd expect to see on Reddit--not a VC forum with allegedly intelligent people.
- jamesgill 8mo ago"The initiative, propelled by advocacy from State Senator Daniel Zolnikov and organizations like the Frontier Institute" Always follow the money: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frontier_Institute https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frontier_Institute
- matheusmoreira 8mo agoPointless and deceptive. A real "right to compute" law would ban remote attestation, would ban discrimination against users based on the "trustworthiness" of their systems, would force companies to allow custom software and firmware as well as provide technical documentation and specifications to users so they can repair and modify the systems they bought.
- tt24 8mo agoWrong. This is not how rights work. You have the right to not provide custom software and firmware and technical documentation, the right to enforce remote attestation, and the right to refuse service to whoever you wish.
- thfuran 8mo ago>You have the right to not provide custom software and firmware and technical documentation, Just like all food sellers have the right not to provide documentation on the ingredients and nutrition of their products?
- tt24 8mo agoCorrect. I buy food from vendors on the beach in foreign countries - it has no documentation. It’s a consensual transaction I choose to engage in.
- thfuran 8mo ago>in foreign countries It may surprise you to learn that this is not within the purview of Montana state law.
- tt24 8mo ago> Just like all food sellers have the right not to provide documentation on the ingredients and nutrition of their products? I agree that they should have this right. My personal anecdote explains that the citizens of other countries do have this right without the world falling apart.
- torginus 8mo agoExcuse me, the article states that this bill was signed on april 17th of last year. How has this become suddenly relevant now? I would say considering there has been almost a year since this bill was signed, what happened since then? Was it applied to hurt people's interests? Did it drive investment? Are Montanans demonstrably better or worse off because of this in some way?
- bradley13 8mo agoMost of the comments are cynical. I read this, at least the "right to compute" part, as a reaction to the current onslaught of censorship and age verification laws. Which is a good thing. The AI part honestly looks fairly harmless, just applying existing standards, but I may be wrong there...
- elgertam 8mo agoMontana is both cold and sparely populated, so I figure data centers would be good there. Also, I figure Zefram Cochrane could use all that compute for his warp theories in a few decades.
- maxerickson 8mo agoI expect that access to inexpensive energy is more important than the population density, typical ambient or "favorable" state laws (this law doesn't seem to really do all that much). Like the region I live in is cold and has lots of water, but we import energy, might as well build closer to the regional mega cities (where it is still relatively cold, with relatively abundant water). There is some kerfuffle going on in the county here about preventing data centers, and I can't imagine there is even anyone interested in building one.
- muyuu 8mo agoI want a right to compute without having to identify myself, or otherwise give any information about myself to the computing system itself. I was hoping for that as a reaction to the current tyrannical movements worldwide to end anonymous personal computing.
- comet_browser 8mo agoThe interesting structural tension here is that "Right to Compute" framing appeals to individualist/property-rights instincts, but the actual beneficiaries are hyperscalers and large data center operators. Individual compute rights already exist — nobody is stopping you from running a server. What the bill actually does (based on typical legislation of this type) is preempt local zoning and environmental review for large compute facilities. That's a legitimate policy choice, but calling it a "right" is doing a lot of rhetorical work. For comparison: Wyoming and Texas have done similar things for data centers via tax incentives rather than regulatory preemption. Both approaches get data centers built; they just differ in who captures the value.
- Nekorosu 8mo agoIs it for citizens or billionaire citizens?
- mdx97 8mo agoI encourage anyone here to just read the bill text instead of this article. It will pretty clearly resolve any confusion caused by this article.
- philipallstar 8mo agoPositive rights are stupid.
- kevin061 8mo ago"right to compute" Oh cool! Look inside No mention of: - Self-repair - Self-service - Hardware and software modifications - Protecting consumers from proprietary anti-circumvention tools - Bolstering open source - Better access to technology in early ages (through funding primary schools and libraries) - Dedicated computer and Internet crisis response teams to tackle disinformation, cyberattacks, cyberbullying, and state-sponsored attacks - Improving citizen's access to End-to-End encryption software - Sovereign AI and software Very cool, Montana. What a load of nothing.
- redgridtactical 8mo agoThe name "Right to Compute" implies this protects individual users, but the actual text reads more like a shield for datacenter operators against local zoning and environmental review. Worth reading the bill itself (SB 212) before celebrating. The "after deployment" risk management requirement for critical infrastructure AI systems is also pretty toothless. Safety frameworks that kick in after you're already running seem backwards.
- mwkaufma 8mo ago"Datacenters are people, too!"
- b00ty4breakfast 8mo agoFrom the folks that brought you the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind! what a weaselly name, this would make the most cutthroat ad exec blush with embarrassment
- notepad0x90 8mo agoWe need the opposite, and you'd think Montana would be leading that opposite effort. I need the right to not use a computer for any reason whatsoever! Every business transaction, doctors visit, buying food, it all requires an app or a phone these days. it will only get worse. We need the right to not use some techbro's app in order to survive.
- throwawayk7h 7mo agoSadly this does not force phone vendors to allow bootloader unlocking.
- autodate 7mo ago[dead]