[mixologist]

Let me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states.

Weird priorities.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Paraphrasing - Their one principle is that laws should protect them and bind everyone else, and not bind them, and not protect anyone else.

Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie

[baq]

Follow the money. Once you realize nothing makes sense, everything suddenly makes sense.

[UncleMeat]

Don't worry, they also don't think that women's health should be left to the states. Given the opportunity to ban abortion federally they'll take it.

[immibis]

That's because what they actually want is for their policies to be applied everywhere. Sometimes there's a reason they can't just apply the policy everywhere at the highest level. In these cases, what they do is they make sure there's no policy at the highest level, so that as many instances of the lower levels as possible can apply the policies they want.

The reason they said abortion law should be a state issue is they knew they couldn't get a federal abortion ban. By making it a state issue they ensure they get to at least ban abortion in half the country rather than none of the country.

By now they probably can get a federal abortion ban, though, so I expect them to do that sooner or later. Don't expect consistency from their public statements - "abortion should be up to the states" will simply be memory-holed.

[firesteelrain]

In practice, "states’ rights" is sometimes used strategically, not ideologically. AI though is viewed as as a technological and economic issue, requiring national coordination to maintain US competitiveness and adding a patchwork of States laws impedes that goal

That’s the reason it is different for the GOP

[lantastic]

My cynical take is this is regulatory capture on part of the most lucrative tech sector in the next few years, in return for campaign contributions.

[danaris]

IMO, you're almost there.

"States' rights" has only ever been used as a smokescreen. The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery. More recently, it's been a cover for other far-right reactionary positions specifically during center-left administrations that would otherwise seek to impose regulations preventing them from oppressing people at the state level.

AI is not being "protected" this way because it's Just Too Important To Leave To The States; it's being protected because Musk and other mega-wealthy Silicon Valley types have pushed to exempt it from all regulation. (Notice that this bill does nothing to regulate AI at the federal level, nor is there any particular proposal to do so from the people pushing for this clause!)

[briandear]

AI can be a legitimate interstate commerce issue. If my code runs on a data center in Virginia, am I, someone located outside of Virginia now subject to Virginia AI laws? Do I control network routing so that my application requests won’t inadvertently cross some state line? If a state hypothetically made possessing an AI app a felony, but the app weren’t on my phone but instead stored in iCloud — am I guilty of “possession” even though the actual bits and bytes are in some outside data center? If I am a California company and California banned AI, but one of my workers lived in Nevada, could that company still use AI if the work were completed outside of California? It’s a Pandora’s box, luckily that scenario is covered by the Commerce Clause.

On your illustration about abortion: the same people who wanted national vaccine mandates now want AI to be left up to the individual states? The same people that defend the Department of Education’s national influence over public schools are now states rights advocates when it suits their agenda? There is hypocrisy on all sides.

The media and pundits frame budget reconciliation thusly: When Republicans do it, it’s a “threat to Democracy” when Democrats do it, it’s “protecting democracy.” As a practical matter an AI federal law shouldn’t be in a budget bill: it should go through the normal lawmaking process. But there are a lot of things that don’t belong in a budget bill that end up there. The process is rotten.

Democrats and Republicans use federalism as it suits their agenda. Let’s not be surprised anymore. Democrats typically support strong central governments — until they aren’t the majority in Washington. Then they become fervent supporters of the strong states rights used by the Confederacy to justify slavery. When they have power in Washington, they’re now Abraham Lincoln. And vice versa. When Florida wants to strongly enforce immigration law, blue states sue. When California doesn’t want to follow immigration law, that’s somehow heroic? Some states have even passed laws prohibiting law enforcement from following federal laws while simultaneous accepting federal funding for their law enforcement then suing when those funds are withheld.

My basic view is this: there are enumerated powers, the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. Let’s use those to decide who should be doing what.

We can (and should) disagree on the issues, but it would be delightful if we could at least all follow the same processes.

Drug laws: unless you’re crossing a state line, state. Immigration: federal (Commerce Clause) AI: states — until there is an interstate commerce nexus (i.e. data centers, internet)

By the way the author laments the budget reconciliation process for AI laws, but that same process was used to pass Obamacare. Is using reconciliation acceptable when it suits one’s agenda? Again: hypocrisy on all sides.

The Constitution already covers this stuff, if anyone bothers to follow it. The constitution has been bent and beaten to within an inch of its life. We need to push back on that even if it results in outcomes we might not like in the short term.

[Spivak]

I think you're inventing a hypocrisy that doesn't really exist.

Abortion protection should exist at a federal level because it's healthcare. If a pregnant woman is traveling and has an emergency that requires an abortion she should be able to receive one regardless of what state she's in.

Vaccine mandates are a federal issue because the virus doesn't give a shit about state lines and right of movement is a thing neither states nor the federal government can restrict.

AI is a state issue because it can be contained within a particular state. It works like pornography bans. If you are in a state that bans pornography you can't distribute it nor consume it regardless of whether it originated on a computer outside the state.

Marijuana should be a state issue for the same reason. Whether you're allowed to import it from outside the country or if you move your marijuana from a legal state to an illegal state is a federal issue. Whether states that ban it should have to respect medical cards is a federal issue.

Education is a federal issue because the state has an interest in children getting a quality public education even if they move.

Nobody is all federal or all states rights. To do so would literally be unamerican.

[moomin]

Accurate way of phrasing it. Even Dobbs vs JWHO accepted that this is the point.

[chneu]

That's not at all what they're saying. By the GOPs logic there shouldn't be an either or decision here.

[watwut]

"The other people" are however not using the flat "everything should be decided by federal goverment" claim. GOP does hide behind states rights when it suits them.

"The other people" are saying abortion bans harm women physically and are removing their freedom. They are saying AI should be regulated in certain way.

None of that is hypocritical. It is not even opposite direction.

[firesteelrain]

The debate in all of this what are national interests and what are local ones? What rights can be universal and what can vary state to state?

But, data and algorithms don’t stop at state lines so national standards would be more effective. We don’t know if a standards or policy setting org is looking at it not. I hope so