Federalism works best on policies that are local by nature. For example, a national building code makes no sense. 50 separate policies on immigration make no sense either.
AI and social media and Internet regulation in general is perhaps the most non-localist issue possible. It's located in an imaginary place called cyberspace and anything that happens there affects everyone on the entire globe. This is especially true for AI.
I can't imagine a more clear cut case for federal preemption. This article talks a lot about freedom, but the whole point of Commonplace is not maximal liberty but the pursuit of the common good. Defining that requires a broad national standard; 50 separate "common goods" don't work.
First off, it’s fantasy to believe the federal government is going to do anything other than implement carte blanche for the AI industry. The Trump Administration’s AI Blueprint reads like an AI summary of a key AI industry mouthpiece’s Blueprint; and the idea that the industry is focused on protecting Americans, let alone American kids, is absurd.
(The cribbed document is American Edge’s “The $7 Trillion Battle for Global AI Supremacy.” American Edge is a Mark Zuckerberg organization that he seeded with $40 million to push pro-monopoly policy and now for AI to be given free rein.)
The whole frenzy for federal regulation right now is to preempt state laws that protect children, copyright owners, home owners, and others being harmed by unregulated AI, before the GOP may lose its Trifecta on January 3, 2027.
It has taken decades for states (and juries) finally to start protecting children from the excesses of social media and related online businesses harming our kids for profit. Now the very same industry is demanding unfettered access to our kids again, by seeking to preempt the only governmental units that have been able to defeat the unlimited tech industry money that has given them control of Washington.
Two final points. First, we are a divided nation trying to survive together. This is an argument for federalism, not brute federal force mandating outcomes for all 50 states. We have states that mandate p*rn be made available to kids in school and public libraries; and we have other states that ban teachers from telling primary school students that they may have been “born in the wrong body,” a monstrous lie to frighten a child with. Federalism allows us to remain one nation while letting Americans vote with their U-Hauls about which vision they want for their family.
We also have states that mandate a 10 year-old child victim of r*pe carry the resulting baby to term; and other states that have created an absolute right to abortion until the moment of birth. Be careful about wishing for federal mandates, because the pendulum swings pretty dramatically in the US, and federal mandates will be even more destructive in the post-filibuster future we will face as soon as 2029. (Are the AI plutocrats ready for a federal version of Cali's impending wealth tax?)
Second, we are told by the industry that AI is so advanced it is about to achieve human consciousness. AI companies are worth trillions based on likely future profits, because their products are so capable and competent and amazing. At the same time, we are told that AI can’t figure out how to check a public IP address and then serve a response that complies with the publicly-available laws and regulations of the state where the IP address is located. These companies are already providing customized results for the US, EU, India, and other locations!
If it is so horrible that red communities don’t want data centers in their rural and suburban neighborhoods that federal preemption is needed; surely instead, C-suite AI execs can simply volunteer their own neighborhoods to host them? Bueller? Bueller?
What I would like to see is regulation regarding resource consumption, especially water. These data centers consume massive quantities of power and water, leaving the communities they are built in starving for those same resources.
The imposition of liability on creators/providers of AI tools is itself a very dangerous step. The Left is already trying this with guns, fossil fuels and assorted chemicals. Where exactly does such a concept end? I can make an argument that almost all food is a GMO. Tough luck if you're not a hunter/gatherer and an unimaginative one at that. Expanding such a concept to AI would stifle all innovation. Can you prove in court that you didn't use Claude?
Guns, fossil fuels, and even chemicals make for a poor analogy; a more apt one would be Covid-19 - because then you are playing “let’s see what happens if . . .”
Interesting essay, but I don’t think I’m convinced. A federal preemption that merely sets a floor and not a ceiling is not much preemption in this arena. This is not like the minimum wage. This is more like letting California legislate car standards for the rest of the country. Or the mess of regulations that have to be disclosed with every single credit app or report, but with significantly greater potential for throttling technology.
“Only 33?” That’s only right now. In the absence of preemption, that only gets worse over time. Not because there may be more (though that’s possible), but precisely because of what the author cites as an advantage: a coalescing consensus. Suppose that consensus begins to ramp up the constraints? And trotting out the old “laboratories of democracy” aphorism isn’t very helpful. It’s just a slogan that gets used when one side wants to avoid federalizing an issue. In this case, it’s worse. Colorado’s terrible bill, California’s, Hawaii’s and other deep-fake regulatory violations of the First Amendment, and other examples illustrate that the states have very little business regulating a technology they don’t understand within a constitutional framework they seem to understand even less. .
Federalism works best on policies that are local by nature. For example, a national building code makes no sense. 50 separate policies on immigration make no sense either.
AI and social media and Internet regulation in general is perhaps the most non-localist issue possible. It's located in an imaginary place called cyberspace and anything that happens there affects everyone on the entire globe. This is especially true for AI.
I can't imagine a more clear cut case for federal preemption. This article talks a lot about freedom, but the whole point of Commonplace is not maximal liberty but the pursuit of the common good. Defining that requires a broad national standard; 50 separate "common goods" don't work.
First off, it’s fantasy to believe the federal government is going to do anything other than implement carte blanche for the AI industry. The Trump Administration’s AI Blueprint reads like an AI summary of a key AI industry mouthpiece’s Blueprint; and the idea that the industry is focused on protecting Americans, let alone American kids, is absurd.
(The cribbed document is American Edge’s “The $7 Trillion Battle for Global AI Supremacy.” American Edge is a Mark Zuckerberg organization that he seeded with $40 million to push pro-monopoly policy and now for AI to be given free rein.)
The whole frenzy for federal regulation right now is to preempt state laws that protect children, copyright owners, home owners, and others being harmed by unregulated AI, before the GOP may lose its Trifecta on January 3, 2027.
It has taken decades for states (and juries) finally to start protecting children from the excesses of social media and related online businesses harming our kids for profit. Now the very same industry is demanding unfettered access to our kids again, by seeking to preempt the only governmental units that have been able to defeat the unlimited tech industry money that has given them control of Washington.
Two final points. First, we are a divided nation trying to survive together. This is an argument for federalism, not brute federal force mandating outcomes for all 50 states. We have states that mandate p*rn be made available to kids in school and public libraries; and we have other states that ban teachers from telling primary school students that they may have been “born in the wrong body,” a monstrous lie to frighten a child with. Federalism allows us to remain one nation while letting Americans vote with their U-Hauls about which vision they want for their family.
We also have states that mandate a 10 year-old child victim of r*pe carry the resulting baby to term; and other states that have created an absolute right to abortion until the moment of birth. Be careful about wishing for federal mandates, because the pendulum swings pretty dramatically in the US, and federal mandates will be even more destructive in the post-filibuster future we will face as soon as 2029. (Are the AI plutocrats ready for a federal version of Cali's impending wealth tax?)
Second, we are told by the industry that AI is so advanced it is about to achieve human consciousness. AI companies are worth trillions based on likely future profits, because their products are so capable and competent and amazing. At the same time, we are told that AI can’t figure out how to check a public IP address and then serve a response that complies with the publicly-available laws and regulations of the state where the IP address is located. These companies are already providing customized results for the US, EU, India, and other locations!
If it is so horrible that red communities don’t want data centers in their rural and suburban neighborhoods that federal preemption is needed; surely instead, C-suite AI execs can simply volunteer their own neighborhoods to host them? Bueller? Bueller?
What I would like to see is regulation regarding resource consumption, especially water. These data centers consume massive quantities of power and water, leaving the communities they are built in starving for those same resources.
The imposition of liability on creators/providers of AI tools is itself a very dangerous step. The Left is already trying this with guns, fossil fuels and assorted chemicals. Where exactly does such a concept end? I can make an argument that almost all food is a GMO. Tough luck if you're not a hunter/gatherer and an unimaginative one at that. Expanding such a concept to AI would stifle all innovation. Can you prove in court that you didn't use Claude?
Guns, fossil fuels, and even chemicals make for a poor analogy; a more apt one would be Covid-19 - because then you are playing “let’s see what happens if . . .”
Interesting essay, but I don’t think I’m convinced. A federal preemption that merely sets a floor and not a ceiling is not much preemption in this arena. This is not like the minimum wage. This is more like letting California legislate car standards for the rest of the country. Or the mess of regulations that have to be disclosed with every single credit app or report, but with significantly greater potential for throttling technology.
“Only 33?” That’s only right now. In the absence of preemption, that only gets worse over time. Not because there may be more (though that’s possible), but precisely because of what the author cites as an advantage: a coalescing consensus. Suppose that consensus begins to ramp up the constraints? And trotting out the old “laboratories of democracy” aphorism isn’t very helpful. It’s just a slogan that gets used when one side wants to avoid federalizing an issue. In this case, it’s worse. Colorado’s terrible bill, California’s, Hawaii’s and other deep-fake regulatory violations of the First Amendment, and other examples illustrate that the states have very little business regulating a technology they don’t understand within a constitutional framework they seem to understand even less. .