Republicans recommend a 10-year ban on state AI regulations for big tech companies
Over the weekend, House Republicans announced a comprehensive budget proposal that included massive cuts to Medicaid, food aid, climate plans, and more. But lawmakers are also buried in the cuts, proposing a decade-long ban on AI regulations at the state level. Despite the slump into continuous innovation, the attempted moratorium is another clear demonstration of the federal government's desire for large-scale technologies.
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, lawmakers proposed: “From the day the proposal is enacted, any state or political segment can enforce any regulatory law that regulates AI models, AI systems or automated decision-making systems.”
The laws included in the listed AI systems will be suspended “substantive design, performance, data processing, documentation, document liability, taxation, expense or other requirements”. However, there are some exceptions, such as the above requirements are caused by federal regulations, or the law also applies to non-AI systems that “provide comparable functionality”. In addition, the suspension does not apply to the provisions of “eliminating legal barriers” or “promoting the deployment or operation of AI systems”.
The proposal was presented shortly after the Commerce Commission’s hearing “winning the AI contest”. Openai CEO Sam Altman said in his testimony that allowing states to assemble a pieced-up regulatory framework “slows us when I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest.” Of course, complying with regulations in 50 different states is difficult. But a) That's how the U.S. works, and each state can have its own unique laws, b) If the federal government actually puts it together, there will be no merger of AI regulations.
Whichever party has the power, the United States lags behind in technology-related legislation. One of the biggest examples is the lack of its own comprehensive federal privacy laws. As a result, the state has no choice but to formulate sporadic legislation to address the rapidly changing environment of new technologies to raise their own unique attention. According to the national legislature, at least 45 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., introduced AI bills.
On Monday, Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), a ranking member of the Business, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, exploded the proposal as a “giant gift for large-scale technologies” and “show Republicans are more concerned about profit than people than people.” Similarly, Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, told Hill that “the so-called “state rights” party rules are “not only hypocritical, but also huge handouts for large-scale technologies.” “It's no surprise that Big Tech is trying to stop,” Haworth added. [efforts to regulate AI] Died on track. ”
Since taking office, Trump has taken a clear stance on making AI wild. In January, he revoked Biden's executive order on AI regulations, and shortly afterwards, he directed the Office of Management and Budget to overhaul the federal directive for AI. Although Trump released his own AI guide last month that replicated Biden’s copy to some areas, his administration’s overall performance in AI has been swift and looser without having to worry about analyzing the impact of its civil rights.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) summed up his dominant attitude toward AI regulations in his opening speech at last week's meeting, noting: “All these busy bureaucracies, whether Biden is in the bargaining exports or guidance on “guidelines” approved by industry and regulators, cannot allow for accountability and innovate or adoption.”
At present, the scope of the proposed moratorium is unclear. “It depends heavily on how clauses are defined,” David Stauss, a lawyer for Husch Blackwell, told the International Association of Privacy Professionals. “Legally, AI is a vague term. Stauss noted that while Colorado’s AI bill adopts a broad definition of an organization based on economic cooperation and development itself, other countries are more limited. But if federal lawmakers have a broad definition, Stous said: “A variety of laws can involve, even product liability and malpractice laws as extreme cases.”
The proposal is entirely possible to be removed from office. If retained, its language may be adjusted in one way or another. However, it is very included in the House Republican budget bill, indicating that the United States will continue to cut AI or the pathways that have been hired without considering the consequences.
