This is so short sighted... autonomous vehicles including buses and trucks are on their way to our streets. We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads? It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans?
We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... there are many options for setting rules that autonomous vehicles must follow which is in the best interests of the public not just the rider.
munificent · 8h ago
> We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads?
Correct, the Republican Party does not want anyone to be able to regulate that.
> It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans?
The vehicles will follow whatever rules are in the best interest of the corporations that made them.
I think the simplest, clearest way to interpret this legislation is that it's a straight transfer of power from individual citizens to AI corporations.
sershe · 2h ago
Where do individual citizens come in here? This is a transfer to corporations and citizens, from governments and bureaucracies.
The latter, when allowed to regulate, mostly prevent things from happening - housing, for example. Or new meds. Or wind farms. So, a good call imo
soraminazuki · 1h ago
Individual citizens get screwed over without adequate regulation, as we've witnessed over and over again. Deregulation has brought you crappy internet access, broken healthcare, airplane crashes, and lack of meaningful consumer protection. And now you want what, an "intelligent" robot that comes up with a bunch of bullshit reasons to auto-reject your health insurance claims faster than a human can? How in the world can you call that "good"?
Jtsummers · 2h ago
This would eliminate the right of citizens at the local or state level to regulate these things as they see fit.
sershe · 1h ago
That to me seems like amazing mental gymnastics. It would eliminate the right of distant citizen proxies to take away the actual rights from actual individual citizens. The proxies who, especially in single party states, can do whatever they or the loudest groups of nimbys and activists want, with impunity.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like either party. But in this case they are doing a good thing even if for questionable reasons. Although also, I do think that fear of having California regulate ai innovation known to the state of California to cause cancer, combined with the large market "veto power", causing harm vs e.g. China with regard to ai progress, is pretty credible.
bitshiftfaced · 8h ago
> We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc...
I can only see this working if we jump straight to 100% self-driving. Otherwise, you'll have to make transitory guidelines for drivers without driverless tech, such as "yield in x situation when you see the rapid transit public bus." But if you do this, you're making the driving rules more complex and less predictable. That means you're creating more dangerous situations for drivers.
But of course, we're not going to go straight to 100% driverless. We're going to have some portion of people driving their own cars for a long time, especially in the USA.
mikeweiss · 8h ago
Could have special lanes for self driving cars that adhere to certain protocols, like we have today for HOV lanes.
Gormo · 6h ago
Is this constitutional? It sounds like a pretty clear breach of the anti-commandeering doctrine. The federal government can't simply issue commands to state legislatures.
Federal law might supersede state law in areas where the federal government has express powers, e.g. interstate commerce, but if a state is adding AI-related provisions to existing policy in an area it already has authority over, I can't imagine how Congress could attempt to suppress that.
Sure, federal law could likely supersede state law if a state is trying to restrict AI as a commercial service in itself, as that would cross into interstate commerce territory. But if a state already has regulatory authority over e.g. how insurance companies operate within their jurisdiction, adding provisions that relate to how AI is used in the process of providing insurance coverage doesn't seem like something the Congress could legitimately intervene in.
DebtDeflation · 9h ago
> automated decision systems
So if a bank has an automated loan approval system that consists of a series of IF-THEN statements, and one of those statements amounts to IF (applicant.race != "White"), loan.reject; this ban would forbid a state from taking action?
tantalor · 9h ago
No because there are other laws that have nothing to do with "automated decision systems" which prohibit discrimination based on protected class.
hiatus · 8h ago
How could you prove discrimination if you can't audit the decision making system? The article mentions NY regulations regarding bias audits in systems used to make hiring decisions as one casualty of this new law.
> New York's 2021 law mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions would also be affected, 404 Media notes.
tantalor · 8h ago
Just change the law to mandate bias audits for all hiring decision software, whether it is automated or not.
Smeevy · 8h ago
Wouldn't that changed law encompass the automated software as well, thereby being in violation? I am not a lawyer, but the ridiculously broad language in the spending bill doesn't seem to leave much room for that sort of thing.
tantalor · 7h ago
The spending bill thing says the law can't target X, so you target a superset of X instead.
Suppose the bill said "no laws about horses!". Okay then if you want to make a law regulating the manufacture of horse shoes, you target the law to "odd-toed ungulates" instead.
AbrahamParangi · 8h ago
You sue them and can find out in discovery.
dymk · 8h ago
Oh cool all I have to do is go sue a giant bank, I’ll let you know how that goes
juansebastianl · 8h ago
This is going to be disastrous for hospitals and doctors, because they're facing a massive surge of (likely AI powered) denials and individual states are regulating it - this would ban that.
It's not like the laws prohibit any use of AI, it's literally basic safeguards and human in the loop provisions but the text of the bill as written would make those laws illegal.
Which is not surpsing considering it comes coupled with massive cuts in Medicaid - private Medicaid plans are some of the most egregious players in terms of denials.
The court system is responsible for interpreting law so playing semantic games doesn't work very well unless you have a corrupt judge who sides with you and is willing to interpret it in this way
root_axis · 8h ago
I don't think it'd be difficult to blur the lines in terms of implementation details in order to "AI launder" desired functionality in such a manner where the "AI" distinction becomes a philosophical debate between SMEs.
nabakin · 6h ago
I think you can blur the lines to an extent and if the judge isn't very capable, pull one over on them, but to say an LLM or ML model is not artificial intelligence to a capable judge with a prosecution who points out there is an LLM, it would be hard to get around imo
tantalor · 8h ago
"playing semantic games" is a euphemism for the entire practice of law.
ndiddy · 9h ago
I suppose favoring "state's rights" over federal regulation is only a concern for the GOP when they're not getting big tech lobbyist money.
tdb7893 · 8h ago
I think it's good to realize that many people's commitment to "American" values is weak at best. Things like state's rights, equal representation in government, and even "freedom of speech" are often political tools rather than actual values.
Reading basic history shows it's always been this way. As a simple historical example the soon to be Confederate states complained about "state's rights" for slavery but when they seceded they enshrined slavery in their constitution and notably didn't leave it up to their states (so clearly that institution was more important to them than state autonomy). It's always been a convenient veneer over policy.
drewbug · 8h ago
Very interesting, but are you sure about that example?
Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power:
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
The next section similarly restricted the states' power to "pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law" but did not reference slavery.
tdb7893 · 2h ago
Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know).
Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority:
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
There are some differences between the Constitutions and I'm not convinced, partially because the vice president of the Confederacy himself seemed to think that it was "unmistakably" protected in the Constitution:
"I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying).
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves.
Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."
tdb7893 · 1h ago
Huh, it never got tested in the Confederacy but it's interesting their Constitution might not have protected it. I'm very curious what the Confederate Supreme Court would have said if it ever had existed.
I wonder if that it's not clearly protected based on US jurisprudence is an oversight because apparently the Barron v Baltimore decision wasn't well known at the time according to the wiki article you linked on it and the VP was so adamant that it is.
> In thus constructing the fundamental law, of course, a struggle has occurred in the secret sessions of the Montgomery Congress, in which those refusing to close the door against the reception of anti-slavery States have achieved a victory.
lesuorac · 8h ago
One things consistent though, a bunch of rich guys banding together to lower their taxes.
notfromhere · 9h ago
its most about where they have and don't have power. the goal is acquisition of power, not some kind of principled stand.
9283409232 · 8h ago
The point they are making is that for decades GOP would cry states' rights whenever Democrats did something at the federal level but whenever they are in power, states' rights suddenly don't matter.
spencerflem · 8h ago
And we should ignore those cries and not discuss them like there is anything deeper.
9283409232 · 8h ago
That's not possible. The Republican propaganda machine is very effective and there are many supporters who will vote with the GOP because "states' rights" but will simultaneously vote for all these policies. I don't think the fiercely logical part of HN understands politics and thinks you can just out debate someone into changing their mind but if it was that simple, the GOP would've died out decades ago.
vrosas · 8h ago
People who love dunking on conservatives on twitter don’t realize that saying absurd stuff and then watching liberals wind themselves into a tizzy is like 95% of the GOP’s media strategy.
9283409232 · 8h ago
You're being downvoted but you're right and if people spent any time in conservative spaces they would know this. "Owning the libs" has become a meme but this is the point to a lot of what Republicans do.
AuryGlenz · 9h ago
This is far too sweeping, but when you have California seemingly intent on smothering our AI industry in its crib it makes sense that they’re scared.
That said, I think it’d be smarter of the GOP to let California do just that. It’s a chance to move that tech money out of California and into another more regulation friendly state.
linkregister · 8h ago
Waymo seems to be operating smoothly in San Francisco. OpenAI's headquarters are also there. Many AI startups are also based in San Francisco, California.
AuryGlenz · 6h ago
Right, but you might want to look at the regulations their lawmakers have been proposing. If put in place it would put a stop to that pretty much immediately.
th0ma5 · 9h ago
Or California could trailblaze proper regulation! Thanks for posting about the efforts! I'm going to see if I can support them in any way.
AuryGlenz · 8h ago
If you could get the whole world on board, sure. However, many other countries aren't going to play ball. When there's a chance (even if it's tiny) that AGI is coming that becomes a huge matter of national security, nevermind economic dominance.
xp84 · 8h ago
California is not a reliable entity to entrust with such lofty ambitions.
This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! They allowed plastic bags to be replaced with... Super thick plastic bags! Which I assure you, stores go through at least 80% as many as before because people usually don't bring bags, but now they're 4-5x the plastic.
And they added a ton of regulation on straws based on that literal child's insane napkin math that went viral, that claimed that America uses 7 or 8 straws per man, woman, and child, per day. Now we get to use multiple paper straws that dissolve in your cup immediately.
California is awash in best-intentions, but utterly useless and counterproductive, regulation. Just another downside to one-party rule. Neither party does a good job with zero counterbalance to their power and ideas.
ceejayoz · 8h ago
> This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No!
"When the UK Environment Agency did a life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags (PDF) they found that non-woven polypropylene bags needed to be re-used at least 11 times to have lower global warming potential than single-use HDPE, or High-Density Poly-Ethylene, bags. Cotton shopping bags need to be used at least 131 times. Paper bags were the big losers. They aren't likely to survive the 4 uses needed to reach the same global warming potential, but are much more toxic to produce than plastic."
11 uses out of a reusable bag is not a tough threshold to hit. I've got one I know is from 2018 in daily use still and has crossed the Pacific several times.
intermerda · 8h ago
"States's rights" has always been coded language. Lee Atwater's post Nixon interview gave away the playbook. The hypocrisy is easy to see in that lens. First it started with racial slurs, then welfare queens, racial slurs, big government, states rights, occasional "liberty and freedom" thrown in for good measure. Currently it's DEI and trans.
The states do have rights though, Madison wrote a federalist paper about it and these so called "States" even got their own amendment.
But now that you have let me know I am racist and transphobic because I believe the 10th amendment exists, I've got to do some soul searching to do. My whole life is a lie, will someone let Pennsylvania know gently they don't have rights?
ceejayoz · 8h ago
Sure, states have rights.
But the political slogan "states' rights" has historically significant usage and connotations that go far beyond that simple fact.
vrosas · 8h ago
It’s not coded, it’s just bs. Watching democrats cry hypocrite while also resharing the article/tweet/news clip is literally their media strategy.
mjparrott · 9h ago
States rights don't include control over federal spending, even for someone in the GOP
ceejayoz · 8h ago
I mean, obviously. But the provision says:
> no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
States never got to control Federal spending, AI or otherwise.
But the Tenth Amendment pretty strictly limits how much the Feds can control state spending and legislation, too.
twoodfin · 6h ago
This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does).
This is a straightforward declaration of Commerce Clause authority. This SCOTUS has made it clear the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is not stirring awake, so if Congress wants to preempt state regulation of interstate commerce they have to do so explicitly.
ceejayoz · 6h ago
> This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does).
The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They can apply "reasonable conditions" along the lines of "if you do x we will take away related funding y" but the entire point of the Tenth Amendment is that states have more rights than the Feds unless otherwise stated.
Federalism as protected by the Tenth means California can require things like "may contain lead" on labels, even though some of those products may be sold outside of California.
TrackerFF · 8h ago
The people that are championing this sort of stuff, what's your take on social credit systems (like in China), or just total surveillance?
I'm asking, because my take is that totally unregulated AI will sooner or later lead to such applications. And you can't really advocate that privacy laws will stop that - after, that would hinder the progress of things like "automated decision systems".
nimbius · 8h ago
if you ever wanted to obliterate any consumer confidence in a market thats already routinely mocked, loathed and derided...i can think of no better way than to ensure it is fecklessly unaccountable to any sort of regulation.
agentultra · 8h ago
What could possibly go wrong? is no longer an exclusion but an enumeration I guess. Everything you can think of probably will. Could things like this be repealed when someone who knows what they’re doing steps in?
BXlnt2EachOther · 7h ago
Since it's a reconciliation bill, is this likely to make it past the "Byrd bath"? It's looped in with a $500M AI modernization fund but my simplified understanding is that items not related to budget can be challenged and removed. Couldn't find reference to this in any of a few news articles.
State and local governments cannot regulate. This means that the leader still can issue executive orders, e.g., against AI wokeness. Republicans very much wanted to regulate just one year ago:
The GOP is trying anyway they can to bring about the end times
9283409232 · 5h ago
They don't realize they're all going to hell.
henning · 9h ago
Queue the usual remarks about "automated decision systems": is the PID controller in an espresso machine an automated decision system, is a pacemaker, Cochlear implant, fuzzy logic controller in a rice cooker, etc.
unsnap_biceps · 9h ago
If a company has the ability to say some magic words and remove all regulation, those words are gonna be said in every possible case.
magicalist · 8h ago
> Queue the usual remarks about "automated decision systems": is the PID controller in an espresso machine an automated decision system, is a pacemaker, Cochlear implant, fuzzy logic controller in a rice cooker, etc.
Almost certainly yes. The provision defines it as
> The term "automated decision system" means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, to materially influence or replace human decision making.
The big difference here is that leading AI companies are primarily data companies. If Amazon, Meta, Google, what have you decides they want to develop AI products for that insurance market, and they get to do so with zero oversight - in the name of "but we have to beat China!" - I can foresee a number of ways it will end up badly for the consumer.
dudeinjapan · 8h ago
Startup idea #34932: AI-enabled espresso-machine which adjusts caffeine levels based on biometrics (heart rate, dark circles under eyes, jitters, etc)
cmeacham98 · 9h ago
Any lawyers on HN - Is this even legal in the first place? Surely this is a 10th Amendment violation?
delichon · 9h ago
The interstate highway system was considered to be allowed under the power to legislate for national defense. AI development doesn't seem to be less relevant to defense than roads.
ceejayoz · 8h ago
The interstate system is not exclusively under Federal control.
For example, states can allow people to drink under age 21, on the interstate highways they own.
But the Feds can refuse to pay for the highways if they do.
That system depends on pulling funding for roads if they don’t follow the rules. Technically any state can opt out if they don’t receive any highway funding. Given the government isn’t giving large AI funding to states, they can’t do the same here.
myko · 6h ago
> AI development doesn't seem to be less relevant to defense than roads.
Seems much less relevant to me but maybe my thinking is too small minded (probably because I don't believe LLMs are a path to AGI).
spencerflem · 8h ago
That sorta thing doesn't really matter anymore
pfdietz · 9h ago
AI regulation arguably falls under the Commerce Clause.
jandrewrogers · 9h ago
The Commerce Clause has been read so broadly thanks to Wickard v Filburn that almost everything falls under it by default. The current Supreme Court seems at least skeptical of that interpretation but it is difficult to say if they will ever change it.
pfdietz · 8h ago
We're talking about AI use by corporations, right? That's pretty directly a commerce issue.
xboxnolifes · 7h ago
That's the broad interpretation they are talking about. The Commerce Clause isn't just "is it commerce". The federal government doesn't (didn't) have control of all commerce by default.
pfdietz · 7h ago
Establishing uniform standards for regulation of commerce is squarely within the wheelhouse of the Commerce Clause. It's not the stretch you're trying to portray it as.
mjparrott · 8h ago
It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent. Why is this wrong? States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit. If they want federal funding, then they must cooperate with federal rules. Seems logical.
ceejayoz · 8h ago
> It is federal government making rules about how federal money can be spent.
This is an outright lie. The relevant bit of legislation is cited in the article:
"no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act"
> States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit.
The language above very clearly forbids them from spending said tax revenue on regulating AI.
We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... there are many options for setting rules that autonomous vehicles must follow which is in the best interests of the public not just the rider.
Correct, the Republican Party does not want anyone to be able to regulate that.
> It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans?
The vehicles will follow whatever rules are in the best interest of the corporations that made them.
I think the simplest, clearest way to interpret this legislation is that it's a straight transfer of power from individual citizens to AI corporations.
The latter, when allowed to regulate, mostly prevent things from happening - housing, for example. Or new meds. Or wind farms. So, a good call imo
Don't get me wrong, I don't like either party. But in this case they are doing a good thing even if for questionable reasons. Although also, I do think that fear of having California regulate ai innovation known to the state of California to cause cancer, combined with the large market "veto power", causing harm vs e.g. China with regard to ai progress, is pretty credible.
I can only see this working if we jump straight to 100% self-driving. Otherwise, you'll have to make transitory guidelines for drivers without driverless tech, such as "yield in x situation when you see the rapid transit public bus." But if you do this, you're making the driving rules more complex and less predictable. That means you're creating more dangerous situations for drivers.
But of course, we're not going to go straight to 100% driverless. We're going to have some portion of people driving their own cars for a long time, especially in the USA.
Federal law might supersede state law in areas where the federal government has express powers, e.g. interstate commerce, but if a state is adding AI-related provisions to existing policy in an area it already has authority over, I can't imagine how Congress could attempt to suppress that.
Sure, federal law could likely supersede state law if a state is trying to restrict AI as a commercial service in itself, as that would cross into interstate commerce territory. But if a state already has regulatory authority over e.g. how insurance companies operate within their jurisdiction, adding provisions that relate to how AI is used in the process of providing insurance coverage doesn't seem like something the Congress could legitimately intervene in.
So if a bank has an automated loan approval system that consists of a series of IF-THEN statements, and one of those statements amounts to IF (applicant.race != "White"), loan.reject; this ban would forbid a state from taking action?
> New York's 2021 law mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions would also be affected, 404 Media notes.
Suppose the bill said "no laws about horses!". Okay then if you want to make a law regulating the manufacture of horse shoes, you target the law to "odd-toed ungulates" instead.
It's not like the laws prohibit any use of AI, it's literally basic safeguards and human in the loop provisions but the text of the bill as written would make those laws illegal.
Which is not surpsing considering it comes coupled with massive cuts in Medicaid - private Medicaid plans are some of the most egregious players in terms of denials.
Here is a simple website which uses the 5calls API to get your reps and gives you a script to talk to them about this https://www.deny-ai.com/call-your-representatives
Seems trivial to work around since there is no legal definition of AI.
Instead of making your law specific to AI system, you can simply make it slightly broader in scope so it includes AI systems in practice.
For example, prohibition on AI facial recognition in public spaces -> prohibition on any computerized facial recognition
Reading basic history shows it's always been this way. As a simple historical example the soon to be Confederate states complained about "state's rights" for slavery but when they seceded they enshrined slavery in their constitution and notably didn't leave it up to their states (so clearly that institution was more important to them than state autonomy). It's always been a convenient veneer over policy.
Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power:
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
The next section similarly restricted the states' power to "pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law" but did not reference slavery.
Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority:
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
"I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying).
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves.
Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."
I wonder if that it's not clearly protected based on US jurisprudence is an oversight because apparently the Barron v Baltimore decision wasn't well known at the time according to the wiki article you linked on it and the VP was so adamant that it is.
> In thus constructing the fundamental law, of course, a struggle has occurred in the secret sessions of the Montgomery Congress, in which those refusing to close the door against the reception of anti-slavery States have achieved a victory.
That said, I think it’d be smarter of the GOP to let California do just that. It’s a chance to move that tech money out of California and into another more regulation friendly state.
This is the same state that banned plastic bags to "save the environment" - did they mandate paper bags then? Renewable, compostable, organic paper? No! They allowed plastic bags to be replaced with... Super thick plastic bags! Which I assure you, stores go through at least 80% as many as before because people usually don't bring bags, but now they're 4-5x the plastic.
And they added a ton of regulation on straws based on that literal child's insane napkin math that went viral, that claimed that America uses 7 or 8 straws per man, woman, and child, per day. Now we get to use multiple paper straws that dissolve in your cup immediately.
California is awash in best-intentions, but utterly useless and counterproductive, regulation. Just another downside to one-party rule. Neither party does a good job with zero counterbalance to their power and ideas.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460
"When the UK Environment Agency did a life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags (PDF) they found that non-woven polypropylene bags needed to be re-used at least 11 times to have lower global warming potential than single-use HDPE, or High-Density Poly-Ethylene, bags. Cotton shopping bags need to be used at least 131 times. Paper bags were the big losers. They aren't likely to survive the 4 uses needed to reach the same global warming potential, but are much more toxic to produce than plastic."
11 uses out of a reusable bag is not a tough threshold to hit. I've got one I know is from 2018 in daily use still and has crossed the Pacific several times.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
But now that you have let me know I am racist and transphobic because I believe the 10th amendment exists, I've got to do some soul searching to do. My whole life is a lie, will someone let Pennsylvania know gently they don't have rights?
But the political slogan "states' rights" has historically significant usage and connotations that go far beyond that simple fact.
> no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
States never got to control Federal spending, AI or otherwise.
But the Tenth Amendment pretty strictly limits how much the Feds can control state spending and legislation, too.
This is a straightforward declaration of Commerce Clause authority. This SCOTUS has made it clear the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is not stirring awake, so if Congress wants to preempt state regulation of interstate commerce they have to do so explicitly.
Sure it does.
It's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole again.
The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They can apply "reasonable conditions" along the lines of "if you do x we will take away related funding y" but the entire point of the Tenth Amendment is that states have more rights than the Feds unless otherwise stated.
Federalism as protected by the Tenth means California can require things like "may contain lead" on labels, even though some of those products may be sold outside of California.
I'm asking, because my take is that totally unregulated AI will sooner or later lead to such applications. And you can't really advocate that privacy laws will stop that - after, that would hinder the progress of things like "automated decision systems".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/21/artificial-i...
Almost certainly yes. The provision defines it as
> The term "automated decision system" means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, to materially influence or replace human decision making.
https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Subtitle_C_Communicati...
For example, states can allow people to drink under age 21, on the interstate highways they own.
But the Feds can refuse to pay for the highways if they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Seems much less relevant to me but maybe my thinking is too small minded (probably because I don't believe LLMs are a path to AGI).
This is an outright lie. The relevant bit of legislation is cited in the article:
"no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act"
> States are free to raise their own taxes and spend them how they see fit.
The language above very clearly forbids them from spending said tax revenue on regulating AI.
The same folks have long been salty that California sets higher standards for vehicle emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard#State-level_...) and are looking to kneecap that sort of action here.