The good news on this is that the executive order approach to preempt state authority on AI regulation is quite clearly unconstitutional and will almost certainly fail to stand up to legal challenges. If Congress tries to impose a field preemption approach through law that has a better chance of standing up but will still probably lose b/c there is no necessary Commerce Claude or other authority for such field preemption. Clearly AI can and is already being regulated state by state without any necessary interstate commerce issues -- but this will be a trickier legal set of issues and may take years to resolve, which may be the hope of this approach since the "but China" AI accelerationists seem to base most of their insane AI accelerationism on the "but China" rationale.
Thank you for this extremely important, eye-opening piece. Hopefully Tam Hunt's belief that the approach won't stand up to legal challenges will prevail. I fear that legal judgments will be unenforceable at some point.
We are moving towards a world ruled by AI. Here in the US, this highlights another flaw in our system. How can we be the UNITED States, when the laws are different in every state? Yet state's rights forms a way, in some cases, to be a check on federal overreach. The hearings at SCOTUS yesterday focused not on the unconstitutionality of trying to repeal birthright citizenship but rather on whether it is appropriate to have a nationwide injunction. This tension is a big part of what is at stake.
I understand the desire to compete globally on AI and not be hobbled by domestic laws. I also understand the dislike of CA exporting its state laws all over the country. Nonetheless I do find this to be chilling. Thanks for flagging it.
The good news on this is that the executive order approach to preempt state authority on AI regulation is quite clearly unconstitutional and will almost certainly fail to stand up to legal challenges. If Congress tries to impose a field preemption approach through law that has a better chance of standing up but will still probably lose b/c there is no necessary Commerce Claude or other authority for such field preemption. Clearly AI can and is already being regulated state by state without any necessary interstate commerce issues -- but this will be a trickier legal set of issues and may take years to resolve, which may be the hope of this approach since the "but China" AI accelerationists seem to base most of their insane AI accelerationism on the "but China" rationale.
Thank you for this extremely important, eye-opening piece. Hopefully Tam Hunt's belief that the approach won't stand up to legal challenges will prevail. I fear that legal judgments will be unenforceable at some point.
We are moving towards a world ruled by AI. Here in the US, this highlights another flaw in our system. How can we be the UNITED States, when the laws are different in every state? Yet state's rights forms a way, in some cases, to be a check on federal overreach. The hearings at SCOTUS yesterday focused not on the unconstitutionality of trying to repeal birthright citizenship but rather on whether it is appropriate to have a nationwide injunction. This tension is a big part of what is at stake.
I understand the desire to compete globally on AI and not be hobbled by domestic laws. I also understand the dislike of CA exporting its state laws all over the country. Nonetheless I do find this to be chilling. Thanks for flagging it.
Don’t they need a Constitutional amendment in order to tell the states what they can or can’t do? Or at least, a huge bribe?