No, I am directly addressing the parent's implication that for things "we care about", small (central) government is somehow bad or a curious choice or hypocrisy.
I'd like to make a cleaner point, but the parent itself is very vague.
> Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.
Every federal system has a division of responsibility between the federal government and sub-national governments. And education is assigned to the sub-national governments not just in the U.S., but in other federal systems: Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Switzerland, for example, doesn't even have a federal ministry of education: https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-ed....
The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
The whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too.
I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.
> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws
What if the feds won't let a state outlaw policing using AI? Or insurance companies setting rates based on AI interpretation of their driving, phone location, browsing and/or credit card data? Or public license plate and face tracking by private companies?
Why do the feds want to interfere with the states setting implementation rules for themselves? What if the federal rules are really bad, or non-existent, perhaps due to lobbying/corruption?
Who is helped by uniform federal regulation? The public in all fifty states? Or big tech AI companies?
If federal regulations allow communities to ban data centers I am all for it. But I think the federal regulation that will emerge will block communities from doing their thing.
> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
If we believe that government mostly does the right thing for the people, this is true. One set of rules, simpler, more efficient.
OTOH, if there ever was a hope that government is driven by a desire to do the right thing for the people, that has certainly been shattered lately. It is now completely transparent that they're in it for the grift and personal power, that's it full stop. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore.
So, having laws being as decentralized as possible is the best solution. Having to bribe and corrupt 50 state legislatures is a lot more work than bribing and corrupting a handful of people in DC.
Even more decentralized would be better. Counties should set their own laws without interference from above. There are 3244 counties in the US, it would now take enormous work to bribe and corrupt 3244 legislatures.
Inefficient? Yes, very. So be it. That's still better than a few oligarchs imposing their will for personal benefit from the top.
> Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.
In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.
$2.60 per W [1]. Seems on the lower side of the average. Maybe you have an actual answer to why FL is so onerous compared to other state, because I haven't found anything to indicate that, yet. My mind is open to hearing the reality but I can't find it.
In 2025 they specifically streamline the permitting process because it was prohibitive (HB 683). The legacy of the prior system is isn’t erased because the rules suddenly changed.
Requiring a grid connection doesn’t impact every install equally but it was specifically there to subsidize grid operators at the expense of people who would have happily done without. Further if you are required to connect to the grid then having a system capable of 24/365 independent operation isn’t nearly as cost efficient.
It’s those kinds of issues that slowed adoption. Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.
In 2026 it’s not necessarily that bad, but 2016 was a meaningfully different story.
> Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.
Shouldn't that also have 2nd (etc) order effects like reducing house fires and other fuck ups from installations by people who reckon they can do the job correctly, but actually can't?
Also, Florida I believe gives you market rate for electricity you send to the grid, where most give you a reduced rate like 75% or nothing or offset credits. So it's a higher ROI state than most.
Installation costs where I am at are 50% higher, still require a permit, and I get 75% of market rate for my generated power. So, Floridians complaining about their onerous regulations irk me.
The baseline isn’t zero certification requirements. Florida specifically tacked on a Business and Financial Management exam because their goal wasn’t safety.
Or abortion, or the right of people to be taught the truth about their own country's history, or the right to support clean technologies, or the right to have public spaces and schools free of religious dogma, and ...
> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
Well, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.
Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.
We’re currently in the process of revoking California’s exception. However that’s a more complicated legal issue than the feds get to do whatever they want.
Does the interestate commerce clause preclude state laws pertaining to implementation and usage?
For example, can a state outlaw public plate/facial recognition cameras, or usage of social network data and AI by local police?
You could still buy AI, but The People decided you can't use it on the public for anything and everything just because big tech profits.
Or has that become the point of the interstate commerce clause, that big companies can maximize profits in cooperation (lobbying) with one federal government, instead of being inconvenienced with the laws of fifty states, in this the richest country of the world?
States already have a wide range of very restrictive laws on the sale and use of firearms and alcohol. Neither of these categories get challenged on interstate commerce grounds, if they get challenged.
amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
They are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.
You can agree or disagree with the consequences, but the voting rights act never had any explicit provisions about districting, this was something conjured entirely by the courts. It was even framed as a temporary measure at the time of the original ruling.
So not exactly bewildering, I personally saw it as closer to inevitable. The Supreme Court never had the power to legislate, it can only interpret, and a shaky interpretation always has an expiration date no matter how popular it is.
The court invalidated part of an existing law passed by Congress, it didn’t create a national framework in the absence of any law never passed by Congress
Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.
The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.
I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.
To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.
If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...
“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.
haven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?
It's not different and it should also be done on a federal level, instead of 50 different governments passing random crazy internet laws. When you have to do compliance for hundreds of laws in 50 different states it basically becomes impossible to do it and you end up in this weird position where you're probably breaking a law somewhere and you don't even know about it.
The founders' conception of "freedom" was different than the modern "anything goes" version. It was closer to the idea that moral and disciplined people could be trusted with freedom. As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Would you say growing wheat to feed your own farm animals should be regulated by the federal government? SCOTUS decided in Wikard v Filburn [1] that a farmer growing wheat for private use was in fact inter-state commerce. This decision has been used to uphold all manner of federal laws that on their face appear to regulate private conduct totally within the confines of a single state.
Unfortunately, there's always someone to blindly inject party politics into HN threads.
So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?
#1 this is literally a thread about laws in the US Congress, how is this not about party politics?
#2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.
Laws can have bipartisan support or disapproval. So just because a law was passed does not mean "party politics" were involved, or that fealty to a president was the motivation. If you automatically think these things I think you're depriving yourself of the deeper understanding that _money_ controls politics.
The Republican party under Trump is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same tired old story since the 1990s. Which I guess is my real complaint. You're just throwing out a 30 year old party line to get votes, not to derive any insight, or to engage with any plan to _fight_ this insanity. I mean, what would the solution be, just end the Republican party and move to a one party state?
That it was at the top of the thread I found rather cheap and frivolous.
Trump's gop has been extreme to levels not seen for generations so yes it is quite new. Previously Republicans attempted to pretend they cared about a number of things, now if they hate gays and Democrats and foreigners enough publicly, that's the only thing they need to be elected
if its really about development only and not preventing regulations on ai usage then its not a bad idea. but i dont see US politicians doing something like that.
i really think the best way to handle this is federally protect open source code including ai (but also things like hack tools, anonymous crypto payments and breaking drm). that way states can regulate for profit companies as much as they want and it cant hurt free speech for individual people.
Why is federal rules forcing states to host business they don’t want a good thing? AI isn’t a protected class. Nothing about a datacenter provides benefit to local communities. It increases their water and electricity bills so that someone on the other side of the country can either replace them with a computer or just get rich off their natural resources.
And then those same rich a-holes use their profits to attack any political momentum that would see them actually having to pay a remotely fair amount in taxes.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
they often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
If there is such a topic or situation, we can always fall back to the "national security" rationale. That covers everything else the federal government wants to impose on states.
It's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
My understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
Congress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
I'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality.
California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].
At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.
We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).
There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".
Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.
Big government for agendas that we're pushing.
(and when we say 'pushing' we mean 'planning to profit from').
Not sure I follow. What happened to student attainment after the DoEd was introduced?
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/18/nx-s1-5607221/education-depar...
https://www.ed.gov/about/initiatives/returning-education-sta...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/doge-educati...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/us-education-departme...
Right, but you didn't answer my question. How are you measuring impact of the DoEd?
https://edsource.org/2024/california-should-follow-mississip...
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/26/03/what-mississi...
You’re trying to change the subject, not trying to understand the parent.
No, I am directly addressing the parent's implication that for things "we care about", small (central) government is somehow bad or a curious choice or hypocrisy.
I'd like to make a cleaner point, but the parent itself is very vague.
> Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.
Every federal system has a division of responsibility between the federal government and sub-national governments. And education is assigned to the sub-national governments not just in the U.S., but in other federal systems: Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Switzerland, for example, doesn't even have a federal ministry of education: https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-ed....
The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
The whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too.
I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.
> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws
What if the feds won't let a state outlaw policing using AI? Or insurance companies setting rates based on AI interpretation of their driving, phone location, browsing and/or credit card data? Or public license plate and face tracking by private companies?
Why do the feds want to interfere with the states setting implementation rules for themselves? What if the federal rules are really bad, or non-existent, perhaps due to lobbying/corruption?
Who is helped by uniform federal regulation? The public in all fifty states? Or big tech AI companies?
If federal regulations allow communities to ban data centers I am all for it. But I think the federal regulation that will emerge will block communities from doing their thing.
> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
If we believe that government mostly does the right thing for the people, this is true. One set of rules, simpler, more efficient.
OTOH, if there ever was a hope that government is driven by a desire to do the right thing for the people, that has certainly been shattered lately. It is now completely transparent that they're in it for the grift and personal power, that's it full stop. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore.
So, having laws being as decentralized as possible is the best solution. Having to bribe and corrupt 50 state legislatures is a lot more work than bribing and corrupting a handful of people in DC.
Even more decentralized would be better. Counties should set their own laws without interference from above. There are 3244 counties in the US, it would now take enormous work to bribe and corrupt 3244 legislatures.
Inefficient? Yes, very. So be it. That's still better than a few oligarchs imposing their will for personal benefit from the top.
Would people have the same reaction if it were solar tech, nuclear?
States do restrict those things quite heavily without much comment from the general public.
Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.
> Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.
In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.
> they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back
how much do you suppose that costs?
$2.60 per W [1]. Seems on the lower side of the average. Maybe you have an actual answer to why FL is so onerous compared to other state, because I haven't found anything to indicate that, yet. My mind is open to hearing the reality but I can't find it.
[1] https://solarcalculatorhq.com/guides/solar-panel-cost-by-reg...
In 2025 they specifically streamline the permitting process because it was prohibitive (HB 683). The legacy of the prior system is isn’t erased because the rules suddenly changed.
Requiring a grid connection doesn’t impact every install equally but it was specifically there to subsidize grid operators at the expense of people who would have happily done without. Further if you are required to connect to the grid then having a system capable of 24/365 independent operation isn’t nearly as cost efficient.
It’s those kinds of issues that slowed adoption. Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.
In 2026 it’s not necessarily that bad, but 2016 was a meaningfully different story.
> Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.
Shouldn't that also have 2nd (etc) order effects like reducing house fires and other fuck ups from installations by people who reckon they can do the job correctly, but actually can't?
Also, Florida I believe gives you market rate for electricity you send to the grid, where most give you a reduced rate like 75% or nothing or offset credits. So it's a higher ROI state than most.
Installation costs where I am at are 50% higher, still require a permit, and I get 75% of market rate for my generated power. So, Floridians complaining about their onerous regulations irk me.
The baseline isn’t zero certification requirements. Florida specifically tacked on a Business and Financial Management exam because their goal wasn’t safety.
You can compare various states here: https://irecusa.org/solar-licensing-database/
Or abortion, or the right of people to be taught the truth about their own country's history, or the right to support clean technologies, or the right to have public spaces and schools free of religious dogma, and ...
Sure sign that we are not dealing with a coercive situation! :)
> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-pr...
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-pr...
Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
Sarcasm right?
It's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.
Well, before they lost the Civil War they believed that "states rights" should apply to the administration of slavery but not the non-administration of slavery (the Fugitive Slave Laws). The hypocrisy runs deep.
Such “beliefs” are cooked up by people who are mostly self-serving and insincere. We’d call them “political operatives” today I guess.
Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
Just call them racist. They don't like that
Don’t think they care that much about that anymore.
Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.
Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.
Not really. The only reason California was able to do this is because it got waivers for the federal law preemption rule (in the Clean Air Act).
We’re currently in the process of revoking California’s exception. However that’s a more complicated legal issue than the feds get to do whatever they want.
Who is “we” in this sentence?
America. It’s going through the courts which means California is involved as are other interested parties.
Does the interestate commerce clause preclude state laws pertaining to implementation and usage?
For example, can a state outlaw public plate/facial recognition cameras, or usage of social network data and AI by local police?
You could still buy AI, but The People decided you can't use it on the public for anything and everything just because big tech profits.
Or has that become the point of the interstate commerce clause, that big companies can maximize profits in cooperation (lobbying) with one federal government, instead of being inconvenienced with the laws of fifty states, in this the richest country of the world?
States already have a wide range of very restrictive laws on the sale and use of firearms and alcohol. Neither of these categories get challenged on interstate commerce grounds, if they get challenged.
Do you have an example of an AI state rule that does not obey the interstate commerce law?
Thanks for confirming what we always knew - you never actually gave two shits about states rights, thus confirming OPs point.
I'd love to see Wickard v. Filburn overturned, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. This is the reality we live in.
Most state laws would also run a foul of Bernstein v DOJ: computer code is free speech just like French is.
amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
They are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.
You can agree or disagree with the consequences, but the voting rights act never had any explicit provisions about districting, this was something conjured entirely by the courts. It was even framed as a temporary measure at the time of the original ruling.
So not exactly bewildering, I personally saw it as closer to inevitable. The Supreme Court never had the power to legislate, it can only interpret, and a shaky interpretation always has an expiration date no matter how popular it is.
It fits the pattern perfectly
The court invalidated part of an existing law passed by Congress, it didn’t create a national framework in the absence of any law never passed by Congress
Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.
The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.
I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.
To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.
If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...
The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA
Why do you say this? Going by MAGA types online, they seem extremely willing to rely on it for opinions and to generate political 'art'.
>The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA,
It seems to me that meme usage tells a decidedly different story.
“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.
haven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?
It's not different and it should also be done on a federal level, instead of 50 different governments passing random crazy internet laws. When you have to do compliance for hundreds of laws in 50 different states it basically becomes impossible to do it and you end up in this weird position where you're probably breaking a law somewhere and you don't even know about it.
>it basically becomes impossible to do it
Those of us who want to "unnormalize" porn consider that a feature.
Why do you hate freedom?
The founders' conception of "freedom" was different than the modern "anything goes" version. It was closer to the idea that moral and disciplined people could be trusted with freedom. As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Moral regulation is the domain of the states, so that example is in fact different.
Would you say growing wheat to feed your own farm animals should be regulated by the federal government? SCOTUS decided in Wikard v Filburn [1] that a farmer growing wheat for private use was in fact inter-state commerce. This decision has been used to uphold all manner of federal laws that on their face appear to regulate private conduct totally within the confines of a single state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I think Wickard was wrongly decided.
Unfortunately, there's always someone to blindly inject party politics into HN threads.
So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?
the last one. states rights only when convenient :)
#1 this is literally a thread about laws in the US Congress, how is this not about party politics?
#2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.
Laws can have bipartisan support or disapproval. So just because a law was passed does not mean "party politics" were involved, or that fealty to a president was the motivation. If you automatically think these things I think you're depriving yourself of the deeper understanding that _money_ controls politics.
The Republican party under Trump is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same tired old story since the 1990s. Which I guess is my real complaint. You're just throwing out a 30 year old party line to get votes, not to derive any insight, or to engage with any plan to _fight_ this insanity. I mean, what would the solution be, just end the Republican party and move to a one party state?
That it was at the top of the thread I found rather cheap and frivolous.
Trump's gop has been extreme to levels not seen for generations so yes it is quite new. Previously Republicans attempted to pretend they cared about a number of things, now if they hate gays and Democrats and foreigners enough publicly, that's the only thing they need to be elected
if its really about development only and not preventing regulations on ai usage then its not a bad idea. but i dont see US politicians doing something like that.
i really think the best way to handle this is federally protect open source code including ai (but also things like hack tools, anonymous crypto payments and breaking drm). that way states can regulate for profit companies as much as they want and it cant hurt free speech for individual people.
Why is federal rules forcing states to host business they don’t want a good thing? AI isn’t a protected class. Nothing about a datacenter provides benefit to local communities. It increases their water and electricity bills so that someone on the other side of the country can either replace them with a computer or just get rich off their natural resources.
And then those same rich a-holes use their profits to attack any political momentum that would see them actually having to pay a remotely fair amount in taxes.
Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
Probably the Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
So then wouldn’t cover open source
they often argue that allowing something in one state, even limited to that state, impacts commerce in other states. I think they would use a similar argument here.
Yes, AI regulation is squarely in the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause.
I don't think we've found any topic or situation that doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause.
If there is such a topic or situation, we can always fall back to the "national security" rationale. That covers everything else the federal government wants to impose on states.
This one seems more well founded than some. AI by companies is commerce, no? And uniform regulation of commerce is under the clause.
It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.
How does the inter states commerce clause block a state from blocking data center buildout?
It's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.
My understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.
And you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"
Congress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.
I'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality.
California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].
At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.
We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).
There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-f...
Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
The case established that code is speech.
Software is not protected as speech.
Thanks for the correction, I had misunderstood that and thought it applied more broadly but it is indeed just "source code".
Given that, I'm glad to see something that protects software more broadly.