Hacker News

Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.

Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.

Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.

The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.

I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.

To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.

If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...

Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.

These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.

amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.

so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.

Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.

Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.

Sarcasm right?

The 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.

States do restrict those things quite heavily without much comment from the general public.

Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.

Probably the Commerce Clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Congress 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.

It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.

It'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.