US House lawmakers release draft bill to prohibit state AI rules

Posted by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3 days ago

Counter129Comment97OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by BLKNSLVR 3 days ago

Small 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').

Comment by rayiner 2 days ago

> Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.

Every federal system has a division of responsibility between the federal government and sub-national governments. And education is assigned to the sub-national governments not just in the U.S., but in other federal systems: Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Switzerland, for example, doesn't even have a federal ministry of education: https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-ed....

Comment by em-bee 2 days ago

the distributed responsibility for education in germany was expressly designed that way to prevent national indoctrination.

Comment by rayiner 2 days ago

Education is considered a local issue pretty much everywhere. Even Sweden, which is a unitary state the size of Virginia, has principles of decentralization that places primary responsibility for education in the municipal governments.

Comment by fastball 3 days ago

Not sure I follow. What happened to student attainment after the DoEd was introduced?

Comment by cherry_tree 2 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by fastball 2 days ago

No, I am directly addressing the parent's implication that for things "we care about", small (central) government is somehow bad or a curious choice or hypocrisy.

I'd like to make a cleaner point, but the parent itself is very vague.

Comment by BLKNSLVR 2 days ago

Republicans / Conservatives, whatever the terminology, generally have an aim of "small government"; minimal intervention. This is not a bad thing in and of itself.

I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy that they choose Big Government for specific topics because what they actually want, when they say Small Government, is minimal responsibility for what they consider trivial or politically inert or personally boring, and Big Government when it suits their agenda; when it will score political points or personally profit individuals making the decisions.

Specifically denying States the ability to pass laws seems... overtly paranoid. It shows their hand on how desperate they are about US success of AI. As if they know the bubble will inevitably pop and are legislating against the possibility of anyone creating something that might look like a pin, so as to delay the pop until, hopefully, after the next election.

Comment by cherry_tree 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by fastball 1 day ago

Believing government should be big for some things and small for others is not intrinsically hypocrisy.

Comment by BLKNSLVR 1 day ago

No, that's fair enough, and probably the correct answer overall: Find the size that best fits the "thing".

Hypocrisy is invoked, however, when a party that rallies around "small government" as core to their ideology legislates in a "big government" fashion to such an extent that it is to explicitly prevent "small government" behaviour (ie. allowing states to make their own decisions).

What this does it totally and completely give their game away: They're betting the farm on AI (currently synonymous with US Big Tech).

Comment by pasttense01 3 days ago

The 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.

Comment by mikem170 3 days 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?

Comment by pstuart 3 days ago

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.

Comment by jjav 2 days 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.

Comment by dh2022 3 days ago

If 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.

Comment by panny 3 days ago

Amendment 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.

Comment by yesfitz 3 days ago

Probably the Commerce Clause.

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

Comment by ljlolel 3 days ago

So then wouldn’t cover open source

Comment by lokar 3 days ago

they 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.

Comment by pfdietz 3 days ago

Yes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause.

Comment by gopher_space 3 days ago

I don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause.

Comment by iAMkenough 3 days ago

If 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.

Comment by pfdietz 3 days ago

This one seems more well founded than some. AI by companies is commerce, no? And uniform regulation of commerce is under the clause.

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by tristanj 3 days ago

It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.

Comment by dh2022 3 days ago

How does the inter states commerce clause block a state from blocking data center buildout?

Comment by chris_money202 3 days ago

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.

Comment by dosisking 3 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by sameers 3 days ago

You still have the PAC part to work out.

Comment by dosisking 3 days ago

American-funded Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by tootie 3 days ago

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.

Comment by toast0 3 days ago

My 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.

Comment by CamperBob2 3 days ago

And you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"

Comment by amazingamazing 3 days ago

Would people have the same reaction if it were solar tech, nuclear?

Comment by Retric 3 days ago

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.

Comment by antiframe 3 days 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.

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by fragmede 3 days ago

> they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back

how much do you suppose that costs?

Comment by antiframe 3 days 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-reg...

Comment by Retric 3 days ago

In 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.

Comment by justinclift 2 days ago

> Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.

Shouldn't that also have 2nd (etc) order effects like reducing house fires and other fuck ups from installations by people who reckon they can do the job correctly, but actually can't?

Comment by antiframe 2 days ago

Also, Florida I believe gives you market rate for electricity you send to the grid, where most give you a reduced rate like 75% or nothing or offset credits. So it's a higher ROI state than most.

Installation costs where I am at are 50% higher, still require a permit, and I get 75% of market rate for my generated power. So, Floridians complaining about their onerous regulations irk me.

Comment by Retric 2 days ago

The baseline isn’t zero certification requirements. Florida specifically tacked on a Business and Financial Management exam because their goal wasn’t safety.

You can compare various states here: https://irecusa.org/solar-licensing-database/

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by phs318u 2 days ago

Or abortion, or the right of people to be taught the truth about their own country's history, or the right to support clean technologies, or the right to have public spaces and schools free of religious dogma, and ...

Comment by olivierestsage 3 days ago

Sure sign that we are not dealing with a coercive situation! :)

Comment by jmyeet 3 days ago

I'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-f...

Comment by gradientsrneat 3 days 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-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-pr...

Comment by jfengel 3 days ago

Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

Comment by zdragnar 3 days ago

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.

Comment by Retric 3 days ago

Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.

Comment by cataphract 3 days ago

Not really. The only reason California was able to do this is because it got waivers for the federal law preemption rule (in the Clean Air Act).

Comment by Retric 3 days ago

We’re currently in the process of revoking California’s exception. However that’s a more complicated legal issue than the feds get to do whatever they want.

Comment by 9021007 2 days ago

Who is “we” in this sentence?

Comment by Retric 2 days ago

America. It’s going through the courts which means California is involved as are other interested parties.

Comment by cyanydeez 3 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by codeddesign 3 days ago

Do you plan on selling the fetuses? This is associated with commerce and inter-state use.

During Covid, their were individual state laws around employment vaccinations.

Comment by mikem170 3 days ago

Does the interestate commerce clause preclude state laws pertaining to implementation and usage?

For example, can a state outlaw public plate/facial recognition cameras, or usage of social network data and AI by local police?

You could still buy AI, but The People decided you can't use it on the public for anything and everything just because big tech profits.

Or has that become the point of the interstate commerce clause, that big companies can maximize profits in cooperation (lobbying) with one federal government, instead of being inconvenienced with the laws of fifty states, in this the richest country of the world?

Comment by zdragnar 2 days ago

States already have a wide range of very restrictive laws on the sale and use of firearms and alcohol. Neither of these categories get challenged on interstate commerce grounds, if they get challenged.

Comment by polski-g 2 days ago

Most state laws would also run a foul of Bernstein v DOJ: computer code is free speech just like French is.

Comment by dh2022 3 days ago

Do you have an example of an AI state rule that does not obey the interstate commerce law?

Comment by LastTrain 3 days ago

Thanks for confirming what we always knew - you never actually gave two shits about states rights, thus confirming OPs point.

Comment by zdragnar 2 days ago

I'd love to see Wickard v. Filburn overturned, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. This is the reality we live in.

Comment by rayiner 3 days ago

“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.

Comment by ericio 3 days ago

Would you say growing wheat to feed your own farm animals should be regulated by the federal government? SCOTUS decided in Wikard v Filburn [1] that a farmer growing wheat for private use was in fact inter-state commerce. This decision has been used to uphold all manner of federal laws that on their face appear to regulate private conduct totally within the confines of a single state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Comment by rayiner 2 days ago

I think Wickard was wrongly decided.

Comment by Barrin92 3 days ago

haven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?

Comment by kyledrake 3 days ago

It's not different and it should also be done on a federal level, instead of 50 different governments passing random crazy internet laws. When you have to do compliance for hundreds of laws in 50 different states it basically becomes impossible to do it and you end up in this weird position where you're probably breaking a law somewhere and you don't even know about it.

Comment by hollerith 2 days ago

>it basically becomes impossible to do it

Those of us who want to "unnormalize" porn consider that a feature.

Comment by trumpdong 2 days ago

Why do you hate freedom?

Comment by rayiner 2 days ago

The founders' conception of "freedom" was different than the modern "anything goes" version. It was closer to the idea that moral and disciplined people could be trusted with freedom. As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Comment by 2 days ago

Comment by trumpdong 2 days ago

And people can't be trusted to uphold the constitution if they watch porn?

Comment by rayiner 1 day ago

I think John Adams would have said "no." Not only because of the prurient aspect, but the lack of self control it implies. But my point was more that “freedom” as it is understood in the american canon is a narrower concept that in post-modern liberalism.

Comment by TimorousBestie 1 day ago

Adams had many disagreements with Franklin over matters of state, culture, and once famously over whether the window should be left open at night, but I can find no evidence of Adams saying that Franklin’s well-known whoring disqualified him from the practice of statecraft, let alone citizenship. He had plenty of praise for Franklin, in fact.

Here are some collected anecdotes, including Adams delighting in an explicit caricature he saw passed around at a dinner in France that portrayed Franklin with a female personification of America.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20090161?seq=9

Also therein:

> Thus, while certainly not a roué, Adams-though he may have envied Franklin's flair for the courtly graces, and may have frowned slightly upon Franklin's way with the ladies-does not really seem to have felt much indignation toward the sage's somewhat uninhibited private life, and neither of these things can be interpreted as being decisive factors in turning Adams against Franklin.

Comment by rayiner 3 days ago

Moral regulation is the domain of the states, so that example is in fact different.

Comment by yieldcrv 3 days ago

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.

Comment by jfengel 3 days ago

They are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.

Comment by yesco 3 days ago

You can agree or disagree with the consequences, but the voting rights act never had any explicit provisions about districting, this was something conjured entirely by the courts. It was even framed as a temporary measure at the time of the original ruling.

So not exactly bewildering, I personally saw it as closer to inevitable. The Supreme Court never had the power to legislate, it can only interpret, and a shaky interpretation always has an expiration date no matter how popular it is.

Comment by yieldcrv 3 days ago

It fits the pattern perfectly

The court invalidated part of an existing law passed by Congress, it didn’t create a national framework in the absence of any law never passed by Congress

Comment by analognoise 3 days ago

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.

Comment by onlyrealcuzzo 3 days ago

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...

Comment by anigbrowl 3 days ago

The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA

Why do you say this? Going by MAGA types online, they seem extremely willing to rely on it for opinions and to generate political 'art'.

Comment by bryanrasmussen 3 days ago

>The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA,

It seems to me that meme usage tells a decidedly different story.

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by voidfunc 3 days ago

Sarcasm right?

Comment by bigyabai 3 days ago

It's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.

Comment by smallmancontrov 3 days ago

Well, 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.

Comment by shermantanktop 3 days ago

Such “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.

Comment by Larrikin 3 days ago

Just call them racist. They don't like that

Comment by mlinhares 3 days ago

Don’t think they care that much about that anymore.

Comment by themafia 3 days ago

Unfortunately, there's always someone to blindly inject party politics into HN threads.

So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?

Comment by jubilanti 3 days ago

#1 this is literally a thread about laws in the US Congress, how is this not about party politics?

#2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.

Comment by themafia 3 days ago

Laws can have bipartisan support or disapproval. So just because a law was passed does not mean "party politics" were involved, or that fealty to a president was the motivation. If you automatically think these things I think you're depriving yourself of the deeper understanding that _money_ controls politics.

The Republican party under Trump is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same tired old story since the 1990s. Which I guess is my real complaint. You're just throwing out a 30 year old party line to get votes, not to derive any insight, or to engage with any plan to _fight_ this insanity. I mean, what would the solution be, just end the Republican party and move to a one party state?

That it was at the top of the thread I found rather cheap and frivolous.

Comment by sanktanglia 3 days ago

Trump's gop has been extreme to levels not seen for generations so yes it is quite new. Previously Republicans attempted to pretend they cared about a number of things, now if they hate gays and Democrats and foreigners enough publicly, that's the only thing they need to be elected

Comment by themafia 1 day ago

Were you alive during the Iraq War, Operation Fast and Furious and/or COVID? What basis do you use to measure "extremity?"

I think you're operating from a very cherry picked and limited set of facts about political operations over the past 50 years.

They shot JFK and still act like they have no clue how it happened. They murdered a president and felt they didn't have to get justice for him.

Comment by bdangubic 3 days ago

the last one. states rights only when convenient :)

Comment by tancop 3 days ago

if 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.

Comment by tw04 3 days ago

Why 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.

Comment by spacebacon 3 days ago

[dead]

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by jwitthuhn 3 days ago

Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.

Comment by gamblor956 3 days ago

The case established that code is speech.

Software is not protected as speech.

Comment by jwitthuhn 3 days ago

Thanks 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.