[HN Gopher] Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial ...
___________________________________________________________________
Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/trump-signs-executive-order-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-signs-executive...
Author : andsoitis
Score : 176 points
Date : 2025-12-11 23:56 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.whitehouse.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.whitehouse.gov)
| andsoitis wrote:
| _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 "interstate commerce" was "the
| type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution
| intended to reserve for the federal government to regulate."
|
| At the Oval Office signing ceremony, Sacks said, "We have 50
| states running in 50 different directions. It just doesn't make
| sense."_
| mcdan wrote:
| So much for "states rights" and the "laboratories of
| democracy."
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| We had a pretty decisive event eliminating precicely that
| experiment
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| Could you be more specific?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-
| amendment
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| 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.
| duskwuff wrote:
| 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:
| States also weren't allow to leave the Confederacy ...
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| 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.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Wickard v Filburn rearing its ugly ahead again.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
| rubyfan wrote:
| I'm not a legal scholar but this seems pretty bone headed.
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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:
| Mostly the decision but yeah it's a double whammy of bad
| policy from congress and probably worse ruling from the
| court.
| threemux wrote:
| 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.
| CPLX wrote:
| > Sacks argued that this domain of "interstate commerce" was
| "the type of economic activity that the Framers of the
| Constitution intended to reserve for the federal government to
| regulate."
|
| They did indeed. It's 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.
| cebert wrote:
| I wish this article would include what the details of the
| framework are. It's unhelpful in its current form.
| dang wrote:
| We've since changed the URL to link to the order itself, and
| put links to other articles in the toptext.
| techblueberry wrote:
| A win for states rights!
| dmix wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| noitpmeder wrote:
| The president isnt going to personally enrich himself and
| his cronies by _divesting_ power from his offce
| dmix wrote:
| 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
| https://x.com/justinamash have been very critical of
| Trump's power grabs but he lost political favor doing so
| treetalker wrote:
| Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer --
| https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825
| dav- wrote:
| What does this have to do with executive orders?
| alwa wrote:
| I imagine it's 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
| peterlk wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| twisteriffic wrote:
| I don't know if you've heard, but norms don't matter
| anymore.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Can you guys just read stuff before talking?
|
| > The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create
| an "AI Litigation Task Force" 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.
| mullingitover wrote:
| 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:
| 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"
| Ritewut wrote:
| 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:
| 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:
| > 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 -- 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:
| >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.
| treetalker wrote:
| > My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure
| that there is a minimally burdensome national standard --
| not 50 discordant State ones. ...
|
| 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:
| 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:
| 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. Don't bother
| trying to figure that guy out.
| sterlind wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| zerocrates wrote:
| 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.
| nhaehnle wrote:
| 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.
| treetalker wrote:
| peterlk and lesuorac nail it: the EO purports to preempt
| state law, but EOs aren't law and that's not how preemption
| works.
| ang_cire wrote:
| Probably something to do with the section titled:
|
| > Sec. 7. *Preemption of State Laws* Mandating Deceptive
| Conduct in AI Models.
| kemitchell wrote:
| CRS is really underappreciated. Seeing you link that report
| here made me happy.
| treetalker wrote:
| Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer --
| https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825
| throw0101a wrote:
| 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:
|
| * https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
|
| 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).
| conception wrote:
| Or why bother when no one will stop you from ruling by fiat?
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| Yes, why would you bother not exercising power you possess?
| scythmic_waves wrote:
| Yep. I punch literally everyone I meet in the face.
|
| I have the power to do it. Why would I not?
| janalsncm wrote:
| Is assaulting people going further your goals?
|
| Presumably EOs further the President's goals.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| Many of those goals are to simply hurt the "wrong" type
| of people.
| N_Lens wrote:
| "And then the leopards ate my face"
| gtirloni wrote:
| If it does further my goals then it's fine to punch
| people in the face?
| gopher_space wrote:
| Do you mean "restraint"?
| LPisGood wrote:
| 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.
| Alupis wrote:
| 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.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > 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]: https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-
| nate-sil...
|
| [2]: https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-biden-failed
| mullingitover wrote:
| > 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 -- the economy -- 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] https://www.axios.com/2025/12/12/trump-economy-
| inflation-aff...
|
| [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/699221/trump-approval-
| rating-dr...
| roenxi wrote:
| 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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_president
| ial_app...
|
| [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.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > 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.
| reactordev wrote:
| So it's only downhill from here?
| outside1234 wrote:
| Dude, I'm a swing voter and even I can see his popularity
| ratings are historically low.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| > It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber
|
| No shit?
| gigatree wrote:
| *Extremely unpopular in DC, fwiw
| nemo wrote:
| Also a 31% approval rating, unpopular with a large majority
| of people in the US, fwiw
| rafram wrote:
| 31% _on the economy_ specifically. Unbelievably (to me),
| a full 41% of the country still believes he's doing a
| good job in general.
| N_Lens wrote:
| GOP is a party captured by the very wealthy. It's minority
| rule because of certain elites' 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 America's
| throat.
| cdrnsf wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| 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.
| Refreeze5224 wrote:
| 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:
| SCOTUS has ruled against Trump numerous times.
| thrance wrote:
| 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:
| > _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).
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Everyone will have preemptive pardons. That has already
| been guaranteed to them or we wouldn't see so much open
| lawlessness.
| dboreham wrote:
| That the president can pardon any criminal providing no
| justification is preposterous nonsense. Much reform is
| needed.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _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":
|
| * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
| interactive/2025/aug/...
|
| Also "John Roberts and the Cynical Cult of Federalist No.
| 70":
|
| * https://newrepublic.com/article/204334/john-roberts-
| federali...
|
| And "This Is All John Roberts' Fault":
|
| * https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/11/john-
| roberts-do...
|
| And perhaps "Trump Allies Sue John Roberts To Give White
| House Control Of Court System":
|
| * https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-allies-sue-john-
| rob...
| josh_p wrote:
| Yes, and..
|
| Each EO tests the waters a bit more with what the public and
| other branches will tolerate. As we've 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. He's attempting
| to normalize his behavior. He can't deal with the legislature
| because it turns out white supremacy isn't that popular. Who
| knew?
| noitpmeder wrote:
| 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:
| I think the GOP, the right, etc. do propaganda very well.
| And they're 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 didn't know.
| The felonies, convictions, scandals, the racism and
| transphobia. They were just surprised. And they're not very
| good at thinking critically about much of it.
|
| Instead they're voting for some nostalgia and the idea that
| they felt safer and more secure in their country when they
| were younger.
| exogeny wrote:
| Ross Douthat makes me (figuratively) vomit every time I
| read his nonsensical garbage.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| meanwhile the url is a different, more direct kind of statement:
|
| _eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-
| intelligence-policy_
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Some more discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46239009
| dang wrote:
| We'll merge that thread hither.
| xeonmc wrote:
| In a parallel universe, the government in the 20th century signed
| bills protecting tobacco giants from State regulation to
| encourage investments furthering the country's international
| competitiveness in the tobacco industry.
| sigwinch wrote:
| That does kind of draw a contrast between Jesse Helms, the
| ultimate tobacco Senator, and Trump. They're almost opposites.
| eastof wrote:
| 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:
| I don't think humanity will survive the next war.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I'm hopeful humanity will, but civilization isn't making it
| chrisjj wrote:
| True current title: Trump signs executive order aimed at
| preventing states from regulating AI
| nhaehnle wrote:
| 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.
| chrisjj wrote:
| > Earlier this week, he reiterated that sentiment in a post on
| Truth Social, saying: "We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point
| in the race, but that won't last long if we are going to have 50
| States, many of them bad actors
|
| Has Trump IDed the alleged bad actor states?
| sigwinch wrote:
| It's 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 won't be Federal preemption in their
| way, but what benefits Trump.
| munchler wrote:
| It's the blue ones, of course.
| k310 wrote:
| > Republicans earlier this year failed to pass a similar 10-year
| moratorium on state laws that regulate AI as part of Trump's One
| Big Beautiful Bill Act, with the Senate voting 99-1 to remove
| that ban from the legislation. Trump's 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 technology's development and as a means
| of preventing leftist ideology from infiltrating generative AI -
| 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] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-
| topics/d...
| rubyfan wrote:
| 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.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| > protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to
| take their jobs and displace their incomes
|
| So where is this coalition that's 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 I'm 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:
| 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.
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| That's lobbying simplified, no need to pay lobbyist.
| rchaud wrote:
| 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.
| jfengel wrote:
| 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:
| > does keep a close eye
|
| "kept", I think.
| outside1234 wrote:
| You aren't missing anything. This is oligarchic capture of the
| government.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > 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.
| slg wrote:
| 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:
| Patents and trademarks are the only ways to create legal
| monopolies. They are/were intended to reward innovation but
| despite good intentions are abused.
| lucas_membrane wrote:
| 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.
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| 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.
| bit1993 wrote:
| 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.
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| 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.
| noduerme wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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:
| The idea behind self improving AGI is that it will "get"
| every "new something coming along" before everyone else.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| 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.
| tehjoker wrote:
| We have had the capacity to have zero poverty for many
| decades, maybe over a century. China eliminated extreme
| poverty.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| I don't 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.
| Gud wrote:
| This is completely wrong. Even "the poor" in most parts
| of the world has a pretty good life weight where they
| are.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w&pp=ygUMSGFucyBy
| b3N...
| Arodex wrote:
| >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.
| reeredfdfdf wrote:
| 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:
| 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:
| I believe Sweden is one:
| https://www.sdg16.plus/policies/universal-childcare-
| model-sw...
| petcat wrote:
| That doesn't look free. Subsidized, yes. Lots of
| countries subsidize childcare. Including every US state
| rudedogg wrote:
| > 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? that's 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.
|
| I've always thought Copyright should be way shorter than it
| is, but it's suspect that we're having a coming to Jesus
| moment about IP with all the AI grifting going on.
| zdragnar wrote:
| 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:
| I'm saying if the law was respected _at all_ this
| technology would be banned. I don't know that I prefer
| that outcome, but it is the truth.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United
| _St...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| 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.
| rubyfan wrote:
| 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.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television,
| movies, monopolies, energy, financial services, etc.
|
| Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes?
| windexh8er wrote:
| 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.
| alterom wrote:
| >Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes?
|
| _In addition_ to ones at state level, yes.
| XenophileJKO wrote:
| 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.
| miohtama wrote:
| The latter is called the EU.
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| Why?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Because that's what the people who made all of those
| rules decided to call themselves.
| true_religion wrote:
| Who got hurt before the US banned the export of
| cryptography?
| Cyph0n wrote:
| The CIA, probably.
| naasking wrote:
| Cracking Enigma was a big deal in WW2. Germany got hurt
| real bad.
| XenophileJKO wrote:
| That wasn't in the list above. We were talking primarily
| about consumer/market protections.
| rubyfan wrote:
| It's 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.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo
|
| https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-
| teen-a...
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-teen-confided-in-an-
| ai-c...
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/openai-sued-by-7-families-for-
| all...
|
| https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/chatgpt-murder-
| suicide-...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tens-
| thousand...
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/17/tech/electricity-bill-
| price-i...
| XenophileJKO wrote:
| 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.
| grafmax wrote:
| The question isn't the jobs created but how have workers
| benefited from increased productivity? They haven't
| materially since late 1970s. That's when the American labor
| movement began its decline. Innovation isn't what helps
| workers. The gains from innovation have to be wrenched from
| the hands of the ruling class through organized resistance.
| devmor wrote:
| > 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?
| ch_sm wrote:
| 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 - i.e. before the
| wars.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| There is more to history than ww2.
| milowata wrote:
| The case against this EO is not "banning new technology".
| It's 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:
| It's not even that, as this isn't Federal Law.
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| Not true that US is 100% gas pedal constantly on innovation.
| You're 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 aren't coming here to deal with ICE, and that's
| been the source of half the great minds in our country
| throughout its history, gone because of racism.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| 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 don't know how to
| navigate. Especially not for a 30% salary reduction (or
| more if they go someplace like France or Italy).
| dc396 wrote:
| 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.
| x3ord wrote:
| 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.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> 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.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| What ISNT an American value is Executive Orders trying to
| trump State powers without actual legislation.
| ajross wrote:
| > 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.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| 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 - that's money we taxpayers are losing.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| > _Companies like . . . Anduril are being gifted contracts
| all over the place - that's money we taxpayers are losing._
|
| Can you point to a concrete example of this?
| mikeyouse wrote:
| 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 - https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/1527a7adaff1
| 4a5280fc7...
|
| $140M - https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/c0203e75ec29
| 49e78966f...
|
| $31M - https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/8b0b944955064
| 864942fc...
|
| $1M - https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/86d997fbd8a74d
| 0cb298c...
|
| $642M over 10 years - https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/op
| p/c9878b113f5143cba7edb...
|
| $3.1M -
| https://sam.gov/opp/f15d4b63ebc846cd9f4870cfa0772fff/view
|
| $160M - https://www.anduril.com/news/anduril-awarded-
| contract-to-red...
|
| $86M - https://www.anduril.com/news/special-operations-
| command-sele...
|
| $100M - https://www.anduril.com/news/anduril-awarded-
| usd99-6m-for-u-...
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| 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.)
| esseph wrote:
| 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.
| viccis wrote:
| Just another step towards Russian style naked oligarchy.
| N_Lens wrote:
| Par for the course with this administration.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| 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.
| bparsons wrote:
| For this brief moment in time, crime is legal.
| SXX wrote:
| Whats wrong if US population has voted for this? There was no
| surprises this time - everyone can expect what is going to
| happen.
| wood_spirit wrote:
| Didn't the majority of people vote to "drain the swamp" and
| "bring down the cost of living"?
| krapp wrote:
| 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.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| I actually don't want to suffer just because my neighbor is
| racist.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| 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:
| We still do slavery and it's even kept in the 13th
| amendment as a punishment.
| carabiner wrote:
| This is the most pro-tech admin in decades, and that terrifies
| me.
| mahirsaid wrote:
| 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.
| conartist6 wrote:
| 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.
| seanhunter wrote:
| You don't seem to appreciate: they paid for the ballroom. They
| have a right to set policy. That's how an oligarchy works
| testing22321 wrote:
| That's how campaign contributions have worked for a long
| time. Now it's just a touch more blatant.
|
| The rest of the world has always called it corruption.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| At this point corruption. Is the policy.
|
| Its better to aak how this woll make republicans more money,
| because its not always apparent
| fallingfrog wrote:
| 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.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| 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.
| Animats wrote:
| 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.
| missingcolours wrote:
| > Trump is losing political steam and AI is widely unpopular.
|
| It seems extremely popular based on my LinkedIn feed! /s
| malfist wrote:
| Good thing LinkedIn is such an authentic representation of
| the vox populi
| hcurtiss wrote:
| Where do you get this impression? I don't know anybody who
| thinks that.
| bgwalter wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| ETH_start wrote:
| Very welcome order to prevent the anti-AI movement from stymieing
| the development of AI in the U.S.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Except it does literally nothing since EO can't preempt state
| law
| petcat wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| 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.
| d--b wrote:
| This is hardly readable. What's this about?
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| National ... is it relevant ? And what is the point and why
| republicans do what the democrats do. Wonder.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| And here I thought the GOP was the "states rights" "small gov"
| party.
| justarandomname wrote:
| 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?
| ziml77 wrote:
| 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?"
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZB2ftCl2Vk
| maplethorpe wrote:
| > 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:
| > _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.
| rokoss21 wrote:
| 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.
| aw124 wrote:
| 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.
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| Yes, dominance is preferred. Countries' resources aren't evenly
| distributed, and this fact determines foreign policy more than
| anything else.
|
| There's 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 haven't found an alternative to this yet.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _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."
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| 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.
| DannyBee wrote:
| 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 (I'm a lawyer, so well
| aware) I would put money on this
| resters wrote:
| 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 anti-"ideological" backlash make
| a centralized, tough-sounding fix emotionally satisfying. Big
| Tech and national-security rhetoric also create an illusion that
| "dominance" equals safety and prosperity, short-circuiting
| careful federalism and due process.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-13 23:01 UTC)