5 ms·
US House lawmakers release draft bill to prohibit state AI rules
- panny 5mo agoAmendment 10 of the US Constitution: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
- dosisking 5mo ago[flagged]
- yesfitz 5mo agoProbably the Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
- ljlolel 5mo agoSo then wouldn’t cover open source
- lokar 5mo agothey often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
- pfdietz 5mo agoYes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- gopher_space 5mo agoI don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause.
- iAMkenough 5mo agoIf there is such a topic or situation, we can always fall back to the "national security" rationale. That covers everything else the federal government wants to impose on states.
- pfdietz 5mo agoThis one seems more well founded than some. AI by companies is commerce, no? And uniform regulation of commerce is under the clause.
- tristanj 5mo agoIt's covered by the interstate commerce clause.
- dh2022 5mo agoHow does the inter states commerce clause block a state from blocking data center buildout?
- tootie 5mo agoIt's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
- toast0 5mo agoMy understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
- CamperBob2 5mo agoAnd you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"
- chris_money202 5mo agoCongress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
- jfengel 5mo agoFortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
- voidfunc 5mo agoSarcasm right?
- bigyabai 5mo agoIt's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.
- smallmancontrov 5mo agoWell, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
- shermantanktop 5mo agoSuch “beliefs” are cooked up by people who are mostly self-serving and insincere. We’d call them “political operatives” today I guess. Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
- 5mo ago
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- gradientsrneat 5mo ago> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology. Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment): https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-programs/broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead-program https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-pr... Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions". From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment": https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ensures-a-national-policy-framework-for-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-pr...
- olivierestsage 5mo agoSure sign that we are not dealing with a coercive situation! :)
- amazingamazing 5mo agoWould people have the same reaction if it were solar tech, nuclear?
- Retric 5mo agoStates do restrict those things quite heavily without much comment from the general public. Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.
- antiframe 5mo ago> Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example. In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- fragmede 5mo ago> they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back how much do you suppose that costs?
- antiframe 5mo ago$2.60 per W [1]. Seems on the lower side of the average. Maybe you have an actual answer to why FL is so onerous compared to other state, because I haven't found anything to indicate that, yet. My mind is open to hearing the reality but I can't find it. [1] https://solarcalculatorhq.com/guides/solar-panel-cost-by-region/ https://solarcalculatorhq.com/guides/solar-panel-cost-by-reg...
- Retric 5mo agoIn 2025 they specifically streamline the permitting process because it was prohibitive (HB 683). The legacy of the prior system is isn’t erased because the rules suddenly changed. Requiring a grid connection doesn’t impact every install equally but it was specifically there to subsidize grid operators at the expense of people who would have happily done without. Further if you are required to connect to the grid then having a system capable of 24/365 independent operation isn’t nearly as cost efficient. It’s those kinds of issues that slowed adoption. Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices. In 2026 it’s not necessarily that bad, but 2016 was a meaningfully different story.
- pasttense01 5mo agoThe best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws. The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc) The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
- pstuart 5mo agoThe whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too. I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.
- mikem170 5mo ago> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws What if the feds won't let a state outlaw policing using AI? Or insurance companies setting rates based on AI interpretation of their driving, phone location, browsing and/or credit card data? Or public license plate and face tracking by private companies? Why do the feds want to interfere with the states setting implementation rules for themselves? What if the federal rules are really bad, or non-existent, perhaps due to lobbying/corruption? Who is helped by uniform federal regulation? The public in all fifty states? Or big tech AI companies?
- dh2022 5mo agoIf federal regulations allow communities to ban data centers I am all for it. But I think the federal regulation that will emerge will block communities from doing their thing.
- jjav 5mo ago> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws. If we believe that government mostly does the right thing for the people, this is true. One set of rules, simpler, more efficient. OTOH, if there ever was a hope that government is driven by a desire to do the right thing for the people, that has certainly been shattered lately. It is now completely transparent that they're in it for the grift and personal power, that's it full stop. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore. So, having laws being as decentralized as possible is the best solution. Having to bribe and corrupt 50 state legislatures is a lot more work than bribing and corrupting a handful of people in DC. Even more decentralized would be better. Counties should set their own laws without interference from above. There are 3244 counties in the US, it would now take enormous work to bribe and corrupt 3244 legislatures. Inefficient? Yes, very. So be it. That's still better than a few oligarchs imposing their will for personal benefit from the top.
- jwitthuhn 5mo agoGood, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
- gamblor956 5mo agoThe case established that code is speech. Software is not protected as speech.
- jwitthuhn 5mo agoThanks for the correction, I had misunderstood that and thought it applied more broadly but it is indeed just "source code". Given that, I'm glad to see something that protects software more broadly.
- jmyeet 5mo agoI'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality. California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1]. At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors. We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states). There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing". [1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-f...
- BLKNSLVR 5mo agoSmall government for topics we don't care about, like education. Big government for agendas that we're pushing. (and when we say 'pushing' we mean 'planning to profit from').
- fastball 5mo agoNot sure I follow. What happened to student attainment after the DoEd was introduced?
- BLKNSLVR 5mo agohttps://www.npr.org/2025/11/18/nx-s1-5607221/education-department-trump https://www.npr.org/2025/11/18/nx-s1-5607221/education-depar... https://www.ed.gov/about/initiatives/returning-education-states https://www.ed.gov/about/initiatives/returning-education-sta... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/doge-education-department-cuts-trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/doge-educati... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/us-education-department-to-cut-half-its-staff-trump-doge/105042214 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/us-education-departme...
- fastball 5mo agoRight, but you didn't answer my question. How are you measuring impact of the DoEd?
- thesmtsolver2 5mo agohttps://edsource.org/2024/california-should-follow-mississippis-lead-on-reading-instruction/706540 https://edsource.org/2024/california-should-follow-mississip... https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/26/03/what-mississippi-got-right-about-reading https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/26/03/what-mississi...
- cherry_tree 5mo ago[flagged]
- spacebacon 5mo ago[dead]
- tancop 5mo agoif its really about development only and not preventing regulations on ai usage then its not a bad idea. but i dont see US politicians doing something like that. i really think the best way to handle this is federally protect open source code including ai (but also things like hack tools, anonymous crypto payments and breaking drm). that way states can regulate for profit companies as much as they want and it cant hurt free speech for individual people.
- tw04 5mo agoWhy is federal rules forcing states to host business they don’t want a good thing? AI isn’t a protected class. Nothing about a datacenter provides benefit to local communities. It increases their water and electricity bills so that someone on the other side of the country can either replace them with a computer or just get rich off their natural resources. And then those same rich a-holes use their profits to attack any political momentum that would see them actually having to pay a remotely fair amount in taxes.