_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
(HTM) Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
(HTM) Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
resters wrote 1 day ago:
Like most of what Trump does it's 1000% emo and also very stupid. It's
proudly anti-democratic and fundamentally disrespectful of American
values.
People fall for it because fear of foreign rivals, frustration with a
regulatory patchwork, and antiââideologicalâ backlash make a
centralized, toughâsounding fix emotionally satisfying. Big Tech and
nationalâsecurity rhetoric also create an illusion that
âdominanceâ equals safety and prosperity, shortâcircuiting
careful federalism and due process.
DannyBee wrote 1 day ago:
Any company dumb enough to try to use this to ignore actual state law
will get what they deserve. No state court will give them a pass when
they claim an EO has any force of law or that it was reasonable to rely
on it.
Even given the current state of things (Iâm a lawyer, so well aware)
I would put money on this
arminiusreturns wrote 1 day ago:
Where this is really going: AI is the boogie man they are going to try
to use to infiltrate and take over computing, it's 90s cryptowars 3.0
The pivot will be when they starting talking about AGI and it's dangers
and how it must be regulated! (/clutches pearls)... right now they are
at the "look at AI we need it it's awesome" stage.
aw124 wrote 1 day ago:
Question number one. Is dominance really a necessary part of a
country's existence? Can't you just have peaceful relations and
supportive relationships with other countries to live in harmony, when
artificial intelligence brings benefits to all countries, not just the
USA? Can't you build on the technological foundations that have been
laid to create sustainable development for your society?
The desire for more. To have more than others, is a key problem that
generates unhealthy politics. Unhealthy foreign policy towards other
countries. In your pursuit of being first in everything. Being first in
everything, preventing the development of other countries, holding onto
technologies for yourself. You create an imbalance. You create an
imbalance in the global economy, in politics, in the social sphere, and
in the social environment.
Isn't there an alternative to having sustainable development? Built on
the principles of mutual support and focused not on dominance, but on
collaboration between peaceful states. Between peaceful states.
ProllyInfamous wrote 12 hours 1 min ago:
>~Is dominance necessary?
Not necessarily â it's about respect. And a time-tested method is
to exert your dominance (typically with violence). Maintaining
power[1] is about maintaining respect [2].
[I love that certain groups of sub-ordinate apes have been observed
literally tearing the alpha monkey apart, killing him; effectively
ending excessive tyrannies]
As a counter-example, among the most respected persons in a prison
system is the one who is generous[0] with their commisary. Snickers
bars end wars.
"You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
>~The desire for more.
"The problem with always winning is you end up having to win all the
time." âJohn Candy
[0] without reciprical expectations [1] "everything is about sex,
except sex; sex is about POWER" â without further commentary, other
than are you reading these headlines (PS: he didn't kill himself)?!
[2] If you have not, Tim Urban's book What's Our Problem[3] is among
my favorite datageek sociology books. It helped me better understand
both my world and my lawyer brothers. He's the author of the
excellent Wait But Why? blog.
[3] < [1] >
(HTM) [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Our-Problem-Self-Help-Societies...
Nasrudith wrote 18 hours 56 min ago:
Stasis is the quickest way to be 'sustainible' but is a far from
ideal outcome. Even if we ignore the squandered potential, take a
look at what happened to Japan and others who pursued policies of
stagnation for the sake of stability. The lucky ones only got admiral
Perry-ied. The unlucky ones were brutally colonized or conquered. The
really unlucky ones no longer exist.
States are what can be called superorganisms literally made entirely
out of coercion to get others to serve their goals without their
consent. Despite the claims of social contract, nobody ever signed
one. Asking statew not to seek dominance is like asking a wolf to
take up vegetarianism. They technically could do it but it goes
fundamentally against its entire design and purpose.
Not to mention that saying no to 'more' isn't kumbaya everyone has
peace and freedom. It means active suppression of ambitions of
others. States are made of coercion, remember?
tbrownaw wrote 1 day ago:
> Can't you just have peaceful relations and supportive relationships
with other countries to live in harmony
"I can picture a world without fear, without hate. I can picture us
conquering that world, because they'd never expect it."
isubkhankulov wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, dominance is preferred.
Countriesâ resources arenât evenly distributed, and this fact
determines foreign policy more than anything else.
Thereâs no world govt or global authority. Every country must look
after its own interests.
Having every country cooperate requires trusting some entity as a
global enforcer, one that wont abuse their unchecked power.
Obviously, america has played this role since ww2 but not without
plenty of mistakes and oversights.
We as humans havenât found an alternative to this yet.
rokoss21 wrote 1 day ago:
The regulation vs innovation framing is a false dichotomy here. Most
developed economies have found that thoughtful regulation enables
_sustainable_ innovation - see GDPR and data privacy innovation, or
pharma regulations driving R&D.
For AI specifically, baseline standards around model documentation,
data sourcing transparency, and compute auditing would actually help
larger players (who can afford compliance) and reduce race-to-bottom
dynamics that harm smaller developers.
maplethorpe wrote 1 day ago:
> shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto
It's funny to me that they categorise AI and crypto together like this,
two technologies that have nothing to do with each other (other than
both being favoured by grifters).
tbrownaw wrote 1 day ago:
> categorise AI and crypto together like this, two technologies that
have nothing to do with each other (other than both being favoured by
grifters).
No, they're different in that regard as well; AI actually does have a
bit of "there" there.
insane_dreamer wrote 1 day ago:
And here I thought the GOP was the "states rights" "small gov" party.
ziml77 wrote 1 day ago:
It's never been about principles of states rights. It's always about
disliking specific national policies and spinning the argument to
make it sound as if it's about a reasonable principle.
"State's rights to do what?"
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZB2ftCl2Vk
justarandomname wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, was thinking the same thing. Reading this:
> State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50
different regulatory regimes
Like... isn't that the whole point? Let the states decide?
ngcc_hk wrote 1 day ago:
National ⦠is it relevant ? And what is the point and why republicans
do what the democrats do. Wonder.
d--b wrote 1 day ago:
This is hardly readable. Whatâs this about?
nickpsecurity wrote 1 day ago:
More than anything, they need to match and then exceed Singapore's text
and data mining exception for copyrighted works. I'll be happy to tell
them how since I wrote several versions of it trying to balance all
sides.
The minimum, though, is that all copyrighted works the supplier has
legal access to can be copied, transformed arbitrarily, and used for
training. And they can share those and transformed versions with anyone
else who already has legal access to that data. And no contract,
including terms of use, can override that. And they can freely scrape
it but maybe daily limits imposed to avoid destructive scraping.
That might be enough to collect, preprocess, and share datasets like
The Pile, RefinedWeb, uploaded content the host shares (eg The Stack,
Youtube). We can do a lot with big models trained that way. We can also
synthesize other data from them with less risk.
ETH_start wrote 1 day ago:
Very welcome order to prevent the anti-AI movement from stymieing the
development of AI in the U.S.
DannyBee wrote 1 day ago:
Except it does literally nothing since EO canât preempt state law
petcat wrote 1 day ago:
It could have some teeth considering that the whole point is the
executive office is going to establish a task force that
investigates state laws in opposition of this federal deregulation
of AI. Any states deemed to be out of sync will have certain kinds
of federal funding cut from them.
There are a lot of states, and especially state universities, that
will not like that.
DannyBee wrote 21 hours 3 min ago:
The Executive can't actually cut approriated federal funding,
since budgets are congress's job.
The executive, in fact, must spend money that congress
appropriates. Unless it is illegal/et al to do so, or the funding
otherwise allows prseidential discretion, they are required to
do so.
Yes, they did some EO's purporting to cut funding. None that
related to non-discretionary funding have been upheld, even by
"trump" judges, and so far all non-discretionary (IE explicitly
directed by congress) funding cut has been restored, AFAIK. All
are a wildly clear violation of separation of powers, and so far
no judge has disagreed.
(Though don't confuse whether they have to spend the money the
way congress directs with whether they can or can't fire federal
employees, etc)
There is a path to the president impounding appropriated money
through the impoundment control act, but they haven't done it or
followed the process so far.
bgwalter wrote 1 day ago:
Pure nepotism. Trump also recently softened on cannabis. Who is
involved in cannabis (and Adderall) startups? David Sacks, "Crypto and
AI czar" and YouTube pundit.
We were promised a better economy, better job chances, and better
housing by Mr. Sacks on YouTube.
Instead we get "crypto", "AI" and addictive substance grifting.
m4ck_ wrote 1 day ago:
Perhaps folks should take some time to realize they've been conned by
people whose only interest is their own personal weatlh and power,
and will promise anything like "prices are going down day one" or
"your income and networth will DOUBLE if you elect me" to get
elected.
siliconc0w wrote 1 day ago:
An EO is not law - the hard part is going to be to get congress
onboard. Trump is losing political steam and AI is widely unpopular.
Most of this country feels AI is going take their job, poison their
children, and increase energy prices.
hcurtiss wrote 1 day ago:
Where do you get this impression? I donât know anybody who thinks
that.
missingcolours wrote 1 day ago:
> Trump is losing political steam and AI is widely unpopular.
It seems extremely popular based on my LinkedIn feed! /s
malfist wrote 1 day ago:
Good thing LinkedIn is such an authentic representation of the vox
populi
Animats wrote 1 day ago:
Right. Congress has the power to preempt state law in an area related
to interstate commerce by legislating comprehensive rules. The
executive branch does not have the authority to do that by itself.
This is like Trump's "pardon" of someone serving time for a state
crime. It does little if anything.
Quite a number of AI-related bills have been introduced in Congress,
but very few have made much progress. Search "AI" on congress.gov.
fallingfrog wrote 1 day ago:
As expected, the stupidest imaginable policy. Take all the guardrails
completely off, even though the ones that are in place are already
toothless. Don't worry, the free market will ensure that everything is
turned into paperclips at the maximum possible speed.
metronomer wrote 12 hours 41 min ago:
Let's hope it doesn't get universal
rubyfan wrote 1 day ago:
Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These
tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes
and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does
nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to
take their jobs and displace their incomes.
seanhunter wrote 1 day ago:
You donât seem to appreciate: they paid for the ballroom. They have
a right to set policy. Thatâs how an oligarchy works
testing22321 wrote 1 day ago:
Thatâs how campaign contributions have worked for a long time.
Now itâs just a touch more blatant.
The rest of the world has always called it corruption.
conartist6 wrote 1 day ago:
I'm in agreement because what is there to say about AI policy?
This govt clearly isn't going to regulate against harms like
perpetuating systems of racism. This government adores to perpetuate
systems of racism.
So fuck it. Let's race to the bottom like the companies want to so
badly.
carabiner wrote 1 day ago:
This is the most pro-tech admin in decades, and that terrifies me.
mahirsaid wrote 1 day ago:
did you not see who was standing next to him. All of the top tech
bros of silicon valley in their search for the fountain of youth.
bparsons wrote 1 day ago:
For this brief moment in time, crime is legal.
soulofmischief wrote 1 day ago:
The US was founded on crime. We are a colonial imperial country
with a penchant for using racism and religion in order to maintain
a certain lifestyle for white supremacists.
Slavery was really not that long ago, we are still actively
invading countries and murdering people for oil, and we help
bankroll straight up genocide in regions such as Darfur and
Palestine.
This is business as usual.
lowmagnet wrote 1 day ago:
We still do slavery and it's even kept in the 13th amendment as a
punishment.
SXX wrote 1 day ago:
Whats wrong if US population has voted for this? There was no
surprises this time - everyone can expect what is going to happen.
soulofmischief wrote 22 hours 49 min ago:
I actually don't want to suffer just because my neighbor is
racist.
SXX wrote 14 hours 21 min ago:
I'm not saying I support either. I am just looking at US
politics from outside. But this is how your democracy system
works.
soulofmischief wrote 12 hours 25 min ago:
You asked, "Whats wrong if US population has voted for this?"
in response to someone complaining that the system is not
working, and so I explained it: the rest of us are not
represented. I'm unsure what point you're getting at.
SXX wrote 9 hours 13 min ago:
My point is: presidents are not delivered to your country
by president delivery alien space ship. A lot of people
voted for him and this is a fact. You cant just blame
everyone of them for being dumb or racist. If you dont like
their choice that means you should starting to do something
about it.
Authorithorianism also not just happen - it take years to
build and destroy institutions. It took 20 years to build
fascist regime in my country.
Sorry for not making it clear enough.
wood_spirit wrote 1 day ago:
Didnât the majority of people vote to âdrain the swampâ and
âbring down the cost of livingâ?
krapp wrote 1 day ago:
People had nearly a decade of experience with Donald Trump as a
known political entity and decades of receipts and lawsuits
prior to 2016 to speak to his amoral and corrupt nature. If
they didn't know exactly what they were buying into they were
idiots. He isn't exactly a master manipulator.
Also, The first time Trump was elected, the majority of voters
went for Hillary Clinton. Second time, it was still 49% versus
48% for Kamala Harris. The majority of Americans have never
voted for Donald Trump nor ever supported him.
IAmGraydon wrote 1 day ago:
Is it you? I mean, the guy started his term by launching a scam coin
along with his wife. He hates the United States and sees it as just
something to exploit for financial gain and power. That's it. That's
literally all there is to all of his actions.
N_Lens wrote 1 day ago:
Par for the course with this administration.
viccis wrote 1 day ago:
Just another step towards Russian style naked oligarchy.
SilverElfin wrote 1 day ago:
It is definitely naked corruption. Lobbying was always around, but I
would say that with this administration things are a lot more
transactional and a lot more in the open. Companies like Palantir and
Anduril and others are being gifted contracts all over the place -
thatâs money we taxpayers are losing.
A_D_E_P_T wrote 1 day ago:
> Companies like . . . Anduril are being gifted contracts all over
the place - thatâs money we taxpayers are losing.
Can you point to a concrete example of this?
esseph wrote 1 day ago:
It is well known in Defense circles that much of what Anduril
does comes in on no-bid black budget contracts. Often short
duration or low volume.
Imagine Silicon Valley CEOs pumped full of VC dollars and
embedded with units that Don't Exist in places We Were Never At.
mikeyouse wrote 1 day ago:
It's hard to say what they're actually qualified to do but they
went from receiving 1 or 2 contracts per year in the early 2020s
for a few 10s of millions and I think one larger $200M one to
this since Trump was reelected;
$200M - [1] $140M - [2] $31M - [3] $1M - [4] $642M over 10 years
- [5] $3.1M - [6] $160M - [7] $86M - [8] $100M -
(HTM) [1]: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/1527a7adaff14a528...
(HTM) [2]: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/c0203e75ec2949e78...
(HTM) [3]: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/8b0b9449550648649...
(HTM) [4]: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/86d997fbd8a74d0cb...
(HTM) [5]: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/c9878b113f5143cba...
(HTM) [6]: https://sam.gov/opp/f15d4b63ebc846cd9f4870cfa0772fff/vie...
(HTM) [7]: https://www.anduril.com/news/anduril-awarded-contract-to...
(HTM) [8]: https://www.anduril.com/news/special-operations-command-...
(HTM) [9]: https://www.anduril.com/news/anduril-awarded-usd99-6m-fo...
A_D_E_P_T wrote 1 day ago:
tbh there's nothing weird about those.
The Marine Corps I-CsUAS award is explicitly described as an
IDIQ with a maximum dollar value of $642M over 10 years --
though it could be much less -- and reporting indicates it was
competitively procured with 10 offerors. It wasn't
"gifted"/"no-bid"
Also: $642M spread over 10 years is roughly $64M/year at the
ceiling, and ceilings are often not fully used. That scale is
not remotely unusual for a program-of-record counter-UAS
capability if the government believes the threat is persistent.
(Which it does.)
The rest are similarly mundane and justifiable.
Here's what would be weird: Repeated sole-source awards where
a competitive approach is feasible, implausible technical scope
relative to deliverables, unjustified pricing, or political
intervention affecting downselects. I don't see any of that
here. (But, okay, let's not talk about Palantir, lol.)
oceanplexian wrote 1 day ago:
> This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien
(agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.
Where did you get the idea that banning new technology that could
eliminate jobs is even remotely an American value?
Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been
100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption, which has
in turn created millions of jobs that didn't exist before and led to
the US running the world's largest economy.
ajross wrote 1 day ago:
> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has
been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption
Arguably true, but it's also been way ahead of the pack (people
tend to forget this) on protection for organized labor, social
safety net entitlements, and regulation of harmful industrial
safety and environmental externalities.
This statement is awfully one-sided.
idiotsecant wrote 5 hours 57 min ago:
I am not sure you can call it being 'ahead of the pack' when we
are currently furiously disassembling those forward thinking
ideas.
SubiculumCode wrote 1 day ago:
What ISNT an American value is Executive Orders trying to trump
State powers without actual legislation.
kibwen wrote 1 day ago:
> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has
been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption
Until that "innovation and disruption" threatens any established
player, at which point they run crying to the government to grease
some palms. China is innovating and disrupting the entire energy
sector via renewables and battery storage while the US is cowering
in the corner trying to flaccidly resuscitate the corpse of the
coal industry.
Dumblydorr wrote 1 day ago:
Not true that US is 100% gas pedal constantly on innovation.
Youâre forgetting labor reform movements and the service switch
away from industry in the last few decades. Also the de-science-ing
of the current admin has vastly reduced our innovative capacity, as
well as the virtual decapitation of brain drain. Those next
generation of brightest immigrants certainly arenât coming here
to deal with ICE, and thatâs been the source of half the great
minds in our country throughout its history, gone because of
racism.
mnky9800n wrote 1 day ago:
I kind of doubt American scientists will leave en masse to go
elsewhere. Their options are only Europe, the UK, or China. Most
will not be willing to give up the salaries or the resources
available to scientists in the USA, even with the current
administration, to go live in strongly hierarchical academic
systems that they donât know how to navigate. Especially not
for a 30% salary reduction (or more if they go someplace like
France or Italy).
idiotsecant wrote 6 hours 0 min ago:
They don't have to go anywhere if they just don't come here.
American science works on the back of underpaid foreign born
graduate students. If they aren't there, neither is American
science. It's already started. And that's not even considering
the other 'reforms' currently deliberately crushing academia.
The first thing a new fascist regime needs to crush is the
immigrants, and the second is academia.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/graduate-...
x3ord wrote 20 hours 34 min ago:
Canada? Australia? 30% (or more) salary cut certainly applies
but academic systems are similar and resources are in the same
ballpark at top research universities.
dc396 wrote 21 hours 49 min ago:
Reread what the previous poster said. They were talking about
folks coming to the US. Around 50% of doctorate level
scientists and graduate students in STEM come from outside the
US.
milowata wrote 1 day ago:
The case against this EO is not âbanning new technologyâ.
Itâs not allowing the federal government to ban any state
regulation. And states having the power to make their own rules is
maybe the most American value.
SubiculumCode wrote 1 day ago:
It's not even that, as this isn't Federal Law.
devmor wrote 1 day ago:
> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has
been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption,
which has in turn created millions of jobs that didn't exist before
and led to the US running the world's largest economy.
Where did you get the idea that this was the cause that created
millions of jobs and lead to the US running the world's largest
economy, and not say - the knock-on effects of the US joining WW2
relatively late and unscathed, making it the only major world power
left with a functioning enough industrial complex to export to
war-ravaged Europe?
mnky9800n wrote 1 day ago:
There is more to history than ww2.
devmor wrote 12 hours 20 min ago:
There is more to a discussion than strawmen.
ch_sm wrote 1 day ago:
I see your point, but that is definitely not the only cause of
American economic dominance. The U.S. has been the largest
economy by GDP since ca 1900 â i.e. before the wars.
grafmax wrote 1 day ago:
The question isnât the jobs created but how have workers
benefited from increased productivity? They havenât materially
since late 1970s. Thatâs when the American labor movement began
its decline. Innovation isnât what helps workers. The gains from
innovation have to be wrenched from the hands of the ruling class
through organized resistance.
rubyfan wrote 1 day ago:
We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies,
monopolies, energy, financial services, etc. because these things
can be harmful if left solely to the market. Americans value honest
work, dignity, prosperity and equal opportunity. Innovation is
useful in so far as it enables our values - regulation is not
counter to Americans interests, it protects them.
XenophileJKO wrote 1 day ago:
I feel like anyone making this argument hasn't studied how those
regulations happened.
They ALL happened AFTER people got hurt. That's how we do things
here. We always have.
It's kind of messed up, but the alternative is a bunch of rules
on things that wouldn't be a real problem.
rubyfan wrote 21 hours 43 min ago:
Itâs a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle once
out.
AI is already hurting people. We need regulation to hold it and
its benefactors accountable. The federal government is
preempting states from doing so. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
(HTM) [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo
(HTM) [2]: https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-...
(HTM) [3]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-teen-confided-in-a...
(HTM) [4]: https://www.pcmag.com/news/openai-sued-by-7-families-f...
(HTM) [5]: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/chatgpt-murder-su...
(HTM) [6]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tens-th...
(HTM) [7]: https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/17/tech/electricity-bill-p...
XenophileJKO wrote 19 hours 31 min ago:
I don't think you realize the level of damage it generally
takes to get bipartisan support for creation of an oversight
body.
It was popularized that an estimated 8,000 infant deaths
attributed to swill milk occured every year in NYC in the
1850s (take with a grain of salt).
Even more recently much of the banking regulation only
occured after severe market issues that broadly impacted the
economy.
On a related note: "Layoffs" are going to be a hard practical
harm point to rally around. Unless we fundamentally change
the nature of our economy (Which doesn't tend to happen until
the previous system collapses.), effeciency is king. Tha
market isn't rational, but effeciency is a competitive
advantage that compounds over time. So you have a prisoners
dilemma here. If you want to restrict a technology that
boosts efficiency, you either have to close your market and
then put up rules that constrain efficiency or you bleed your
prosperity.
true_religion wrote 1 day ago:
Who got hurt before the US banned the export of cryptography?
XenophileJKO wrote 19 hours 25 min ago:
That wasn't in the list above. We were talking primarily
about consumer/market protections.
true_religion wrote 2 hours 20 min ago:
Rubyfan mentioned nuclear technology, which like
cryptography, has a broad scope and military applications
so isnât something that was just left to the market to
decide the best fit.
I donât think Iâve left the scope of this discussion.
naasking wrote 23 hours 49 min ago:
Cracking Enigma was a big deal in WW2. Germany got hurt real
bad.
Cyph0n wrote 1 day ago:
The CIA, probably.
miohtama wrote 1 day ago:
The latter is called the EU.
myaccountonhn wrote 1 day ago:
Why?
__MatrixMan__ wrote 1 day ago:
Because that's what the people who made all of those rules
decided to call themselves.
andsoitis wrote 1 day ago:
> We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies,
monopolies, energy, financial services, etc.
Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes?
alterom wrote 1 day ago:
>Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes?
In addition to ones at state level, yes.
windexh8er wrote 1 day ago:
Sure. And this is not that. This says: before we begin to
think about our policy let's make sure to remove any barriers
for Mr. Altman and friends so that they don't get sucked down
with their Oracle branded boat anchor.
If this had any whiff of actually shedding light on these
needed regulations the root OP wouldn't have said what they
did. But for now I'm going to head over to Polymarket and see
if there are any bets I can place on Trump's kids being
appointed to the OpenAI board.
__MatrixMan__ wrote 1 day ago:
I think your take is historically accurate. Although one does
wonder how long we'll be able to get away with keeping the pedal to
the metal. It might be worth taking a moment to install a steering
wheel. Rumor has it there are hazards about.
rudedogg wrote 1 day ago:
> Where did you get the idea that banning new technology that could
eliminate jobs is even remotely an American value?
Copyright law is another counter-example to your argument. But
somehow? thatâs no longer a concern if you have enough money. I
guess the trick is to steal from literally everyone so that no one
entity can claim any measurable portion of the output as damages.
Iâve always thought Copyright should be way shorter than it is,
but itâs suspect that weâre having a coming to Jesus moment
about IP with all the AI grifting going on.
zdragnar wrote 1 day ago:
Copyright has nothing to do with banning technology. It is a set
of rules around a particular kind of property rights.
There are things you can do with technology that are banned as a
result of copyright protections, but the underlying technologies
are not banned, only the particular use of them is.
rudedogg wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm saying if the law was respected at all this technology
would be banned. I donât know that I prefer that outcome, but
it is the truth. [1]
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Uni...
(HTM) [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
drivingmenuts wrote 1 day ago:
Maybe it should be. The system here in the US has produced some
great innovations at the cost of great misery among the
non-wealthy. At a time when technology promises an easier life, it
only seems to benefit the wealthy, while trying to discard everyone
else. The light at the end of the tunnel is a 1%-er about to
laughingly crush you beneath their wheels.
hcurtiss wrote 1 day ago:
I donât know about that. The poor from just about every other
country in the world seem desperate to live in America. While
American capitalism has many faults, oppressing the bottom
quintile is not one of them. The US median income is
consistently top ten globally.
reeredfdfdf wrote 1 day ago:
Median income doesn't tell much if you don't factor in the cost
of living. My salary sucks compared to what I would earn in
America, but when I factor in things like free healthcare,
daycare and higher level education, I'm better off here.
petcat wrote 1 day ago:
What countries offer free daycare? I know there are a few in
Europe. It's not super common, so I'm curious to know where
sdenton4 wrote 1 day ago:
I believe Sweden is one:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.sdg16.plus/policies/universal-childcar...
petcat wrote 1 day ago:
That doesn't look free. Subsidized, yes. Lots of
countries subsidize childcare. Including every US state
sdenton4 wrote 14 hours 39 min ago:
Sure, but extremely cheap collared with the us.
Here's a UNICEF report comparing childcare policy
amongst rich countries: [1] Sweden ranks third in the
comparison metric (what good is free childcare if it is
very bad or inaccessible?), and the us ranks 40th out
of 41.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/where...
Arodex wrote 1 day ago:
>The poor from just about every other country in the world seem
desperate to live in America
Immigration to the USA, both illegal and legal, has cratered.
Gud wrote 1 day ago:
This is completely wrong. Even âthe poorâ in most parts of
the world has a pretty good life weight where they are.
(HTM) [1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w&pp=ygUMSGFuc...
noduerme wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think this is the strongest argument. Every technological
revolution so far has initially benefited the wealthy and taken a
generation or two for its effects to lift the masses out of
previous levels of poverty, but ultimately each one has.
To me the stronger argument about AI is that this revolution
won't. And that's because this one is not really about
productivity or even about capital investment in things that
people nominally would want (faster transport, cheaper cotton,
home computers). This one is about ending revolution once and for
all; it's not about increeasing the wealth of the wealthy, it's
about being the first to arrive at AGI and thus cementing that
wealth disparity for all perpetuity. It's the endgame.
I don't know if that's true, but that's to me the argument as to
why this one is exceptional and why the capitalist argument for
American prosperity is inapplicable in this case.
tehjoker wrote 1 day ago:
We have had the capacity to have zero poverty for many decades,
maybe over a century. China eliminated extreme poverty.
dylan604 wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know about for all perpetuity. If history has shown,
anyone that reaches the pinnacle eventually becomes complacent,
technology improves by becoming faster/cheaper/smaller. That
just means it is prime to always be susceptible to a new
something coming along that stands on the shoulders of what
came before without having to pay for it. They start where the
current leader fought to achieve.
Arodex wrote 1 day ago:
The idea behind self improving AGI is that it will "get"
every "new something coming along" before everyone else.
mrwrong wrote 1 hour 52 min ago:
I personally believe magical unicorns are going to save us
Nasrudith wrote 19 hours 32 min ago:
Self-improving AI is a rhetorical sleight of hand to make
you think that.
Just because it can self improve doesn't mean it improves
better than everything else or without substantial costs to
develop improvement.
slg wrote 1 day ago:
The patent system. I know someone will respond detailing why the
patent system is pro-business, but it is objectively government
regulation that puts restrictions on new technology, so it's proof
that regulation of that sort is at least an American tradition if
not fully an "American value".
johnebgd wrote 1 day ago:
Patents and trademarks are the only ways to create legal
monopolies. They are/were intended to reward innovation but
despite good intentions are abused.
bit1993 wrote 1 day ago:
Patents, trademarks, copyright, deeds and other similar
concepts are part of what makes capitalism what it is, without
them capitalism will not work because they are the mechanisms
that enforce private property.
idiotsecant wrote 5 hours 58 min ago:
Good luck with that. When 3/4 of the world laughs at your
patent what is the point of patents? IP only works when
everyone agrees to it. When they don't it's just a handicap
on the ones who do that benefits nobody.
SequoiaHope wrote 1 day ago:
Intellectual property restrictions cause harm even when used as
intended. They are an extreme rest restriction on market
activity and I believe they cause more harm than good.
lucas_membrane wrote 1 day ago:
Not exactly. For example, Major League Baseball has been
granted an anti-trust exemption by the US Supreme Court,
because they said it was not a business. In some cases in
which firms have been found guilty of violating the anti-trust
laws, they were fined amounts minuscule in relation to the
profits they gained by operating the monopoly. Various
governments in the US outsource public services to private
monopolies, and the results have sometimes amounted to a
serious restraint of trade. The chicanery goes back a long
way. For the first decade or so after the passage of the
Sherman Act, it was not used against the corporate monopolies
that it was written to limit; it was invoked only against labor
unions trying to find a way to get a better deal out of the
firms operating company stores and company towns etc, etc.
Then Teddy Roosevelt, the so-called trust-buster, invoked it
under the assumption that he could tell the difference between
good and bad monopolies and that he had the power to leave the
good monopolies alone. 120 years later, we are in the same
sorry situation.
outside1234 wrote 1 day ago:
You aren't missing anything. This is oligarchic capture of the
government.
whynotmaybe wrote 1 day ago:
That's lobbying simplified, no need to pay lobbyist.
jfengel wrote 1 day ago:
Lobbying is tightly regulated, and the FEC really does keep a close
eye.
This is just flat out bribery, using the thinnest of legal fig
leaves. Which would not possibly pass muster if he hadn't also
packed the court with supporters.
davidw wrote 1 day ago:
> does keep a close eye
"kept", I think.
rchaud wrote 1 day ago:
This is a tribute system, way past lobbying. Lobbying is cheap,
Senators can be bought off for 5-figure sums. CEOs pay lobbyists so
they don't have to meet with them personally. What's happening now
involves CEOs appearing at political events and lobbying the
president personally, to the tune of millions of dollars in
declared "donations" for "ballroom construction", in exchange for
security guarantees for their business empires.
AndrewKemendo wrote 1 day ago:
> protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take
their jobs and displace their incomes
So where is this coalition thatâs organized to actually make this
real?
Software engineers are allergic to unionization (despite the recent
id win) and 100% of capital owners (this is NOT business owner and
operators Iâm talking about LPs and Fund Managers) are in support
of labor automation as a priority, the same people also run every
government and overwhelmingly select the politicians available to
vote for, so who will fund and lead your advocacy?
soulofmischief wrote 1 day ago:
Game developers are subject to much more abuse than the average
software engineering job, for less pay. It's a different
environment.
I'm open to the idea of guilds, but personally I do not want others
negotiating for me with the type of work I do, I'd prefer it to be
a contract between me, my employer and nothing else. Unions aren't
always a net benefit for every industry.
Of course, with AI going the way it is, collective bargaining might
become more attractive in our field. But institutions can be slow
to catch up and not everyone always agrees with the outcome.
Personally, if I worked in Hollywood, I'd be upset about the kind
of anti-AI scaremongering and regulation taking place in the WGA
and SAG-AFTRA.
k310 wrote 2 days ago:
> Republicans earlier this year failed to pass a similar 10-year
moratorium on state laws that regulate AI as part of Trumpâs One Big
Beautiful Bill Act, with the Senate voting 99-1 to remove that ban from
the legislation. Trumpâs order resurrects that effort, which failed
after bipartisan pushback and Republican infighting, but as an order
that lacks the force of law. [0]
> Trump has framed the need for comprehensive AI regulation as both a
necessity for the technologyâs development and as a means of
preventing leftist ideology from infiltrating generative AI â a
common conservative grievance among tech leaders such as Elon Musk.
On the other hand ..... Grok and others ...
From the party of "states rights" and "small government"
[0]
(HTM) [1]: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/dem...
chrisjj wrote 2 days ago:
> Earlier this week, he reiterated that sentiment in a post on Truth
Social, saying: âWe are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the
race, but that wonât last long if we are going to have 50 States,
many of them bad actors
Has Trump IDed the alleged bad actor states?
munchler wrote 1 day ago:
Itâs the blue ones, of course.
sigwinch wrote 2 days ago:
Itâs hard to tell if what he says is even relate to what he will
do. A hardline on semiconductors to China faded this week when he
needed some economic stimulation.
So when states without AI data centers seek to ameliorate tax and
zoning obstacles, it wonât be Federal preemption in their way, but
what benefits Trump.
chrisjj wrote 2 days ago:
True current title: Trump signs executive order aimed at preventing
states from regulating AI
nhaehnle wrote 1 day ago:
In particular, the bulk of the substantial text of the order has a
pretty clear culture war bend with all the talk about how truthful AI
is. This is in large part a fight over the political leaning of AI
models.
xeonmc wrote 2 days ago:
In a parallel universe, the government in the 20th century signed bills
protecting tobacco giants from State regulation to encourage
investments furthering the countryâs international competitiveness in
the tobacco industry.
eastof wrote 1 day ago:
In a parallel universe tobacco is critical to the national security
interest of the state. I feel you and other commenters in this thread
are ignoring the fact that the outcome of the next war will likely be
decided on the cyber front.
N_Lens wrote 1 day ago:
I donât think humanity will survive the next war.
spencerflem wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm hopeful humanity will, but civilization isnât making it
ChrisArchitect wrote 2 days ago:
Some more discussion:
(HTM) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46239009
dang wrote 1 day ago:
We'll merge that thread hither.
ChrisArchitect wrote 2 days ago:
meanwhile the url is a different, more direct kind of statement:
eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-p
olicy
throw0101a wrote 2 days ago:
Executive order (EO) count over the last few presidents:
* Bush (41): 166
* Clinton (two terms): 364
* Bush (43; two terms): 291
* Obama (two terms): 276
* Trump (45): 220
* Biden: 162
* Trump (47; <1 year): 218
Source:
* [1] Someone commented that (one of?) the reason that Trump is using
EOs so much is probably because is not willing (or able) to actually
get deals on in the legislature to pass his policies (or what passes
for policy with him).
(HTM) [1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orde...
josh_p wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, and..
Each EO tests the waters a bit more with what the public and other
branches will tolerate. As weâve seen with numerous orders already,
Congress and business will comply early because they think it will
benefit them.
Trump thinks himself a king. He acts like it. Heâs attempting to
normalize his behavior. He canât deal with the legislature because
it turns out white supremacy isnât that popular. Who knew?
noitpmeder wrote 1 day ago:
Apparently popular enough to get him elected. It's not like his
supporters were under any pretense who or what they were voting for
josh_p wrote 1 day ago:
I think the GOP, the right, etc. do propaganda very well. And
theyâre good at spinning scandals into things their voter base
wants to hear. Or just burying them in a way that makes it hard
for their base to find.
Even the centrist TV networks are still treating Trump like a
normal president. News like the NYTimes does the same, while
platforming horrible people in their op ed section.
Edit: anec-data - I have an embarrassing number of family members
that voted for him. I asked why and the surprising common thing
among all of them was they just didnât know. The felonies,
convictions, scandals, the racism and transphobia. They were just
surprised. And theyâre not very good at thinking critically
about much of it.
Instead theyâre voting for some nostalgia and the idea that
they felt safer and more secure in their country when they were
younger.
exogeny wrote 1 day ago:
Ross Douthat makes me (figuratively) vomit every time I read
his nonsensical garbage.
cdrnsf wrote 1 day ago:
EOs also aren't laws, they're instructions on how to execute policy.
This administration treats them as the former.
Everything they do, however, is petty, cruel and nakedly corrupt
while also being marred by a total lack of competence.
sterlind wrote 1 day ago:
I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away
soon.
the Major Questions Doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, the
mandate for Article III courts from Jarkesy, have been building
towards this for a while. the capstone in this program of weakening
the administrative state, overturning Humphrey's Executor when
Trump v. Slaughter is decided, will likely revive the Intelligible
Principle Doctrine, as Justice Gorsuch has hinted. the same trend
is apparent in the IEEPA tariffs case, where non-delegation got a
lot of airtime.
EOs lose a lot of their punch when the Executive's delegated
rulemaking and adjudication powers are returned back to their
rightful owners in the other two branches.
throw0101a wrote 1 day ago:
> I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away
soon.
Perhaps worth reading "The umpire who picked a side: John Roberts
and the death of rule of law in America":
* [1] Also "John Roberts and the Cynical Cult of Federalist No.
70":
* [2] And "This Is All John Robertsâ Fault":
* [3] And perhaps "Trump Allies Sue John Roberts To Give White
House Control Of Court System":
*
(HTM) [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/...
(HTM) [2]: https://newrepublic.com/article/204334/john-roberts-fede...
(HTM) [3]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/11/john-robert...
(HTM) [4]: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-allies-sue-john...
Refreeze5224 wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know where you get the confidence that any of that
matters to SCOTUS. They know their role, and they are playing.
parineum wrote 1 day ago:
SCOTUS has ruled against Trump numerous times.
thrance wrote 1 day ago:
But they rule in his favor more often than not. They gave him
freaking immunity for any crimes he may commit. This alone
enables him to disregard the law without any fear of
repercussions.
throw0101a wrote 1 day ago:
> This alone enables him to disregard the law without any
fear of repercussions.
That does not apply to his lackeys though (unless there's a
preemptive pardon).
If (!) there's a change in the President eventually, there
needs to be a reckoning for everyone that didn't push back
on instructions/orders (including all the folks down the
line who are blowing up (alleged) drug boats).
dboreham wrote 1 day ago:
That the president can pardon any criminal providing no
justification is preposterous nonsense. Much reform is
needed.
jeremyjh wrote 1 day ago:
Everyone will have preemptive pardons. That has already
been guaranteed to them or we wouldn't see so much open
lawlessness.
Hnrobert42 wrote 1 day ago:
I fear by reducing control over executive power to one, squishy
standard like the Intelligible Principle Doctrine will let SCOTUS
pick and choose which laws have intelligible principles. When
conservatives are in power, suddenly all laws will have them. And
swing back when liberals are in control.
LPisGood wrote 1 day ago:
I once heard it said that Trump governs like a dictator because he is
too weak to govern like a president. He is extremely unpopular and
his party holds one of the smallest house majorities ever.
N_Lens wrote 1 day ago:
GOP is a party captured by the very wealthy. Itâs minority rule
because of certain elitesâ trillion dollar plans to control all
three branches of government and the courts have come to fruition
after decades in the works.
After Nixon a lot of lessons were learned, on how to handle
scandals and how to ram unpopular policy down Americaâs throat.
gigatree wrote 1 day ago:
*Extremely unpopular in DC, fwiw
nemo wrote 1 day ago:
Also a 31% approval rating, unpopular with a large majority of
people in the US, fwiw
rafram wrote 1 day ago:
31% on the economy specifically. Unbelievably (to me), a full
41% of the country still believes heâs doing a good job in
general.
Alupis wrote 1 day ago:
There is a very vocal opposition to Trump. However, by almost any
way you can present "popularity" of a president - be it approval
ratings, polling figures, popular vote, electoral vote, etc. - he
is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber of like-minded
individuals and assume everyone disagrees with his policies - but
that is far from reality.
jeremyjh wrote 1 day ago:
> It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber
No shit?
outside1234 wrote 1 day ago:
Dude, I'm a swing voter and even I can see his popularity ratings
are historically low.
mullingitover wrote 1 day ago:
> he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
Published today: "Trump's approval rating on the economy hits
record low 31%"[1]
> President Trump's approval rating on his longtime political
calling card â the economy â has sunk to 31%, the lowest it
has been across both of his terms as president, according to a
new survey from The Associated Press-NORC.
"Trump's Approval Rating Drops to 36%, New Second-Term Low" [2] >
his all-time low was 34% in 2021, at the end of his first term
after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
The man is only two points above where he was when every
reputable institution on the planet was running away from him as
fast as possible, and he was nearly convicted in the senate. Less
than a year into the term. [1]
(HTM) [1]: https://www.axios.com/2025/12/12/trump-economy-inflation...
(HTM) [2]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/699221/trump-approval-ratin...
reactordev wrote 1 day ago:
So itâs only downhill from here?
roenxi wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah it'd be a wild view to call him among the most popular.
But he is actually [0] pretty standard for a modern president -
probably the least popular [1] but he doesn't stand out that
much among the Bush/Biden/Obama polling except that it appears
people understood what he was going to do before he entered
office instead of discovering it on the way through.
And there is an interesting argument that most modern
presidential approvals have more to do with the media
environment and better visibility on just how bad their
policies are.
[0] [1] I'd argue better than that loser Bush who was probably
the worst president in modern US history and who's polling
showed it, but for the sake of keeping things simple.
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidenti...
mullingitover wrote 1 day ago:
> And there is an interesting argument that most modern
presidential approvals have more to do with the media
environment and better visibility on just how bad their
policies are.
I think you can go further, the ratings are also heavily tied
to things like gasoline prices and the overall economy, and
generally things the president has little control over. So
actually not much to do with their policies at all. I think
Trump knows this and it's why he's done some strategically
stupid things to the US fossil fuel industry in order to
tactically bring down gasoline prices to juice his ratings.
This likely also explains the 2024 election, because it
happened in the context of vast sums of money being sucked
out of the economy as the fed tried to fight inflation.
Incumbents globally got an absolute thrashing that year
regardless of what their actual policies were.
lesuorac wrote 1 day ago:
> However, by almost any way you can present "popularity" of a
president - be it approval ratings, polling figures, popular
vote, electoral vote, etc. - he is one of the more popular
presidents in US history.
You might want to look up those data yourself because uh he's
actually unpopular in those metrics.
Approval - 42.5% [1]. Much better than Trump's love interest
Biden's 37.1% [2] but being below 50% is unpopular.
Popular Vote / Electoral Vote - 49.8%, 312. I may need to tell
you this so I will. 50% is greater than 49.8%; a majority of
voters (nevermind the country) did not want Trump. As before,
this is better than Biden's 306 and Trump1's 304 but worse than
Obama2 (332), Obama1 (365) and in general 312 (57%) is nothing to
write home about.
[1]
(HTM) [1]: https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate...
(HTM) [2]: https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-biden-failed
conception wrote 1 day ago:
Or why bother when no one will stop you from ruling by fiat?
nh23423fefe wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, why would you bother not exercising power you possess?
gopher_space wrote 1 day ago:
Do you mean ârestraintâ?
scythmic_waves wrote 1 day ago:
Yep. I punch literally everyone I meet in the face.
I have the power to do it. Why would I not?
janalsncm wrote 1 day ago:
Is assaulting people going further your goals?
Presumably EOs further the Presidentâs goals.
gtirloni wrote 1 day ago:
If it does further my goals then it's fine to punch people in
the face?
estimator7292 wrote 1 day ago:
Many of those goals are to simply hurt the "wrong" type of
people.
N_Lens wrote 1 day ago:
âAnd then the leopards ate my faceâ
treetalker wrote 2 days ago:
Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer â
(HTM) [1]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825
treetalker wrote 2 days ago:
Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer â
(HTM) [1]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825
kemitchell wrote 1 day ago:
CRS is really underappreciated. Seeing you link that report here made
me happy.
dav- wrote 1 day ago:
What does this have to do with executive orders?
ang_cire wrote 1 day ago:
Probably something to do with the section titled:
> Sec. 7. *Preemption of State Laws* Mandating Deceptive Conduct
in AI Models.
treetalker wrote 1 day ago:
peterlk and lesuorac nail it: the EO purports to preempt state law,
but EOs aren't law and that's not how preemption works.
peterlk wrote 1 day ago:
The link is highly relevant to the executive order because this
executive order attempts to place limitations on what laws US
states can create.
lesuorac wrote 1 day ago:
EOs aren't law though. They're guidance for the rest of the
executive branch on how to execute the laws written by congress.
The Legislative branch (Congress) not the Executive branch (White
House) can preempt states.
nhaehnle wrote 1 day ago:
That's the whole point. They aren't law, and they were
(probably) never meant to be so far-reaching, and yet the clear
purpose of this Executive Order is to tell the states what laws
they can enact. The EO doesn't have the legal power to do that
directly, but it clearly outlines the intention to withdraw
federal funding from states that refuse to toe the line.
twisteriffic wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know if you've heard, but norms don't matter anymore.
lesuorac wrote 1 day ago:
Can you guys just read stuff before talking?
> The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an
âAI Litigation Task Forceâ within 30 days whose "sole
responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" that
clash with the Trump administration's vision for light-touch
regulation.
The EO isn't about Federal Preemption. Trump's not creating a
law to preempt states. So a question about how Federal
Preemption is relevant is on point.
zerocrates wrote 1 day ago:
It's right in the text of the EO: they intend to argue that
the state laws are preempted by existing federal
regulations, and they also direct the creation of new
regulations to create preemption if necessary, specifically
calling on the FCC and FTC to make new federal rules to
preempt disfavored state laws. Separately it talks about
going to Congress for new laws but mostly this lays out an
attempt to do it with executive action as much as possible,
both through preemption and by using funding to try to
coerce the states.
There's a reasonable argument that nationwide regulation is
the more efficient and proper path here but I think it's
pretty obvious that the intent is to make toothless
"regulation" simply to trigger preemption. You don't have
to do much wondering to figure out the level of regulation
that David Sacks is looking for.
sterlind wrote 1 day ago:
the Task Force can try to challenge state AI laws. they can
file whatever lawsuits they want. they will probably lose
most of their suits, because there's very little ground for
challenging state AI regulations.
TylerE wrote 1 day ago:
Those suits will be seen by the worst judges the Heritage
Foundation could ram through. I would not be nearly so
confident of a sane outcome.
treetalker wrote 1 day ago:
> My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure
that there is a minimally burdensome national standard â
not 50 discordant State ones. â¦
Sounds like leaving it up to Congress! But then the
administration vows to thwart state laws despite the vacuum
of no extant preemption, so effectively imposing a type of
supposed Executive preemption:
> Until such a national standard exists, however, it is
imperative that my Administration takes action to check the
most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States
that threaten to stymie innovation.
So preemption link is relevant, I think; and at any rate,
helpful to give background to those not familiar with the
concept, which constitutes the field against which this is
happening.
Loughla wrote 1 day ago:
Also why are they small federal government states rights
for things but big federal government centralized power
for this? It doesn't make sense to me.
josh_p wrote 1 day ago:
When you start thinking of the political elite as out
of touch sociopathic aristocrats, it becomes easier to
understand their behavior.
Their goal is to make money and enrich their own lives
at the expense of everyone else.
Stephen Miller is just super weird though. Donât
bother trying to figure that guy out.
Ritewut wrote 1 day ago:
This is quite literally going to lead to a Supreme Court
case about Federal Preemption. Bondi will challenge some CA
law, they will lose and appeal until they get to the
Supreme Court. I don't have any grace to give people at
this point, you have to be willingly turning a blind eye if
you do not see where this will end up.
dmix wrote 1 day ago:
Federal preemption requires federal law (aka laws written
by congress). How else would it get to the supreme court?
The EO mentions congress passing new law a few times in
addition to an executive task force to look into
challenging state laws based on constitutional violations
or federal statues. That's the only way they'd get in
front of a judge.
If the plan is for the executive to invent new laws it's
not mapped out in this EO
treetalker wrote 1 day ago:
> Federal preemption requires federal law (aka laws
written by congress). How else would it get to the
supreme court?
1. No federal preemption currently. (No federal law,
therefore no regulation on the matter that should
preempt.)
2. State passes and enforces law regarding AI.
3. Trump directs Bondi to challenge the state law on
nonsense grounds.
4. In the lawsuit, the state points out that there is
no federal preemption; oh yeah, 10th Amendment; and
that the administration's argument is nonsense.
5. The judge, say Eileen Cannon, invalidates the state
law.
6. Circuit Court reverses.
7. Administration seeks and immediately gets a grant of
certiorari â and the preemption matter is in the
Supreme Court.
> passing new law ⦠only way they'd get it in front
of a judge.
The EO directs Bondi to investigate whether, and argue
that, existing executive regulations (presumably on
other topics) preempt state legislation.
Regardless, the EO makes it a priority to find and take
advantage of some way to challenge and possibly
invalidate state laws on the subject. This is a new
take on preemption: creation of a state-law vacuum on
the subject, through scorched-earth litigation (how
Trumpian!), despite an utter absence of federal
legislation on the matter.
krapp wrote 23 hours 19 min ago:
>2. Trump preemptively threatens to withhold all
Federal funding to any state that intends to pass any
laws he doesn't like.
>2.5 If it's a blue state, maybe the National Guard
and ICE suddenly show up in force for the people's
own protection.
>3. States choose entirely of their own volition to
comply in advance.
That's probably how this is really going to go.
mullingitover wrote 1 day ago:
I think the message between the lines is what's important,
and it goes like this:
"We in the executive branch have an agreement with the
Supreme Court allowing us to bypass congress and enact
edicts. We will do this by sending the Justice Department
any state law that gets in the way of our donors, sending
the layup to our Republican Supreme Court, who will dunk on
the States for us and nullify their law."
We don't have to go through the motions of pretending we
still live in a constitutional republic, it's okay to talk
frankly about reality as it exists.
mindslight wrote 1 day ago:
It goes deeper than that - the Supreme Council will
issue non-binding "guidance" on the "shadow docket", so
that when/if the fascists/destructionists [0] lose the
Presidency, they can go back to being obstructionists
weaponizing high-minded ideals in bad faith. As a
libertarian, the way I see it is we can disagree
politically on what constitutes constructive solutions,
but it's time to unite, stop accepting any of the
fascists' nonsense, and take back the fucking government
- full support for the one remaining mainstream party
that at least nominally represents the interests of the
United States, while demanding they themselves stop
preemptively appeasing the fascists. The Libertarian,
Green, or even new parties can step up as the opposition.
Pack the courts with judges that believe in America first
and foremost, make DC and PR states to mitigate the
fascists' abuse of the Senate, and so on. After we've
stopped the hemorrhaging, work on fundamental things like
adopting ranked pairs voting instead of this plurality
trash.
[0] I'd be willing to call them something else if they
picked an honest name for themselves - they are most
certainly not "conservatives"
alwa wrote 1 day ago:
I imagine itâs a nod to the way the stated goal would normally be
pursued, but in this case is not.
It sounds like a good idea to establish a uniform national policy!
And the federal government can do that (although only for the very
specific purposes spelled out in the Constitution). The right way
to do that is to pass a law through both houses of Congress, and
the president to sign it into law. Maybe the law even specifies a
broad framework and authorizes the executive branch to dial in the
specific details (although the court seems to be souring on that
kind of thing too).
The god-king proclaiming a brand new framework governing a major
new sector of the economy To Be So is.. not the normal way
techblueberry wrote 2 days ago:
A win for states rights!
dmix wrote 1 day ago:
Just like the last time Trump was president he is far from a
traditional conservative regarding small government. People pretend
the 2010 tea party is the same thing as Trump as some sort of gotcha,
but he's never been that way. He's always been very assertive
regarding expanding executive and federal power.
yks wrote 1 day ago:
No one is surprised about that guy, those comments usually point
out how "the 2010 tea party", and everyone else from the decades,
if not centuries, of the conservative milieu, are suddenly all in
on this.
dmix wrote 1 day ago:
I agree, the main reason is he has been very effective with his
cult of personality to get most of the republican congressmen in
line. They lose elections if they don't and politicians aren't
known for sticking to their values once in power.
The actual small government republican congressmen like [1] have
been very critical of Trump's power grabs but he lost political
favor doing so
(HTM) [1]: https://x.com/justinamash
noitpmeder wrote 1 day ago:
The president isnt going to personally enrich himself and his
cronies by _divesting_ power from his offce
cebert wrote 2 days ago:
I wish this article would include what the details of the framework
are. Itâs unhelpful in its current form.
dang wrote 1 day ago:
We've since changed the URL to link to the order itself, and put
links to other articles in the toptext.
andsoitis wrote 2 days ago:
White House AI czar and Silicon Valley venture capitalist David Sacks
elaborated on the rationale for the executive order in a post on X.
Sacks argued that this domain of âinterstate commerceâ was âthe
type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution intended
to reserve for the federal government to regulate.â
At the Oval Office signing ceremony, Sacks said, "We have 50 states
running in 50 different directions. It just doesn't make sense."
CPLX wrote 1 day ago:
> Sacks argued that this domain of âinterstate commerceâ was
âthe type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution
intended to reserve for the federal government to regulate.â
They did indeed. Itâs explicitly delegated to congress which
declined to pass a law like this.
The EO is just obviously null and void in the face of any relevant
state law.
jandrewrogers wrote 1 day ago:
Wickard v Filburn rearing its ugly ahead again.
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
threemux wrote 1 day ago:
Many of the ills currently befalling the US can be traced to the
New Deal era. Including, of course, an HN favorite: our system of
employer-sponsored health insurance.
rubyfan wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm not a legal scholar but this seems pretty bone headed.
lesuorac wrote 1 day ago:
Which part?
The "The U.S. government had established limits on wheat
production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize
wheat prices and supplies." seems like quite the federal
overreach never mind the court decision.
rubyfan wrote 1 day ago:
Mostly the decision but yeah itâs a double whammy of bad
policy from congress and probably worse ruling from the court.
mcdan wrote 1 day ago:
So much for "states rights" and the "laboratories of democracy."
AndrewKemendo wrote 1 day ago:
We had a pretty decisive event eliminating precicely that
experiment
TimorousBestie wrote 1 day ago:
Could you be more specific?
schmidtleonard wrote 1 day ago:
He probably means the civil war.
I'd like to point out that the South was only a fan of States
Rights exactly insofar as they let them do slavery. The
millisecond it came to forcing Northern states to return
escaped slaves, they suddenly weren't the same principled
supporters of devolving and federating power. Funny how that
works.
TimorousBestie wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, I just wanted them to cut out the coy vagueposting and
say out loud how bad they think Reconstruction was.
So in that respect, mission accomplished.
duskwuff wrote 1 day ago:
And just in case it wasn't clear enough already: one of the
first acts of the Confederacy was to draft a provisional
constitution which explicitly authorized slavery, and which
prohibited either Congress or any state from passing laws to
the contrary.
lesuorac wrote 1 day ago:
States also weren't allow to leave the Confederacy ...
AndrewKemendo wrote 1 day ago:
(HTM) [1]: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amen...
(DIR) <- back to front page