GOP sneaks decade-long AI regulation ban into spending bill
118 comments
·May 13, 2025mikeweiss
munificent
> 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.
bitshiftfaced
> 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
Could have special lanes for self driving cars that adhere to certain protocols, like we have today for HOV lanes.
newZWhoDis
[flagged]
TimorousBestie
And that opinion is why the public transit system in almost every American city is barely functional.
We’re not allowed to have nice things because some car driver might be slightly inconvenienced on occasion.
ceejayoz
What about fire engines?
null
ndiddy
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
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
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.
null
lesuorac
One things consistent though, a bunch of rich guys banding together to lower their taxes.
notfromhere
its most about where they have and don't have power. the goal is acquisition of power, not some kind of principled stand.
9283409232
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
And we should ignore those cries and not discuss them like there is anything deeper.
AuryGlenz
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
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
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
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
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
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.
intermerda
"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.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
hermannj314
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
Sure, states have rights.
But the political slogan "states' rights" has historically significant usage and connotations that go far beyond that simple fact.
vrosas
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
States rights don't include control over federal spending, even for someone in the GOP
ceejayoz
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
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.
DebtDeflation
> 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
No because there are other laws that have nothing to do with "automated decision systems" which prohibit discrimination based on protected class.
hiatus
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
Just change the law to mandate bias audits for all hiring decision software, whether it is automated or not.
AbrahamParangi
You sue them and can find out in discovery.
Gormo
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.
juansebastianl
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.
juansebastianl
Here is a link to some info about what states have been doing: https://stateline.org/2025/03/25/states-try-to-rein-in-healt...
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
tantalor
> regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems
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
layer8
“Automated decision systems” seems pretty broad to me. It would potentially also include a lot of non-AI systems. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_decision-making.
nabakin
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
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
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
"playing semantic games" is a euphemism for the entire practice of law.
TrackerFF
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
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
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
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.
parliament32
I like how this is the exact opposite of what the EU's doing: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
rickydroll
The GOP is trying anyway they can to bring about the end times
9283409232
They don't realize they're all going to hell.
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.