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.
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?
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.
“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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
"How often do you get to touch something that's 1,200 years old?" said Bill Quackenbush
Uh... all the time, if you live in Europe. (And probably elsewhere; I just know Europe best.)
That's not just an American thing. A lot of the artifacts of the Western hemisphere are lost. They used a lot of wood. They did build in stone as well, and some of it is preserved, but they didn't build really monumental structures until around 1,000 years ago. Some older stuff does survive, but yeah, it's not an everyday thing.
In Europe, they've been building monumental structures in stone since forever. Quite a few are still in use, some even just as plain residential dwellings.
Brick and mortar stores still find it helpful to have their customers purchase first and ask for refunds later. They don't put up much of a fight on refunds until their customers start really abusing it.
Which they do, of course. Customers will try to return things still clearly bearing the label from a different store. They'll ask for a refund on a package of food they've eaten all of.
Still, it's easier to put up a minimum wage employee with zero discretionary power to just give them a refund on practically everything. They lose some money to fraud, but it means that many customers feel safe buying things. Often, they won't return it even if they were entitled to, and may well return to the store to buy the same thing in a size that fits. Fighting with them about it doesn't save enough to be worth the hassle.
If it's adults choosing to win a Darwin award, I'm all for it.
But if they're killing off actual children, rather than potential children, I'd rather have that power taken away from them. Kids should not have to suffer just because their parents are monsters.
I have never heard the NYT called "non-smug". The kinds of people who would use the word "smug" almost universally consider the New York Times to be "smug".
The rule for fresh bread varies from state to state because it's not considered interstate commerce, so it doesn't have to follow the federal labeling law. (There's a ton of hypocrisy about the use of the interstate commerce clause, but this part isn't completely stupid.)
It goes for all good produced and consumed in the same state, not just bread. Tobacco and alcohol actually are regulated federally even when produced in the same state (that interstate commerce hypocrisy I mentioned). They don't require ingredients lists but they do require licensing.
Where I live (Maryland), cottage industries have to include ingredients lists. Others require just allergens. Some have no regulations one way or the other.
Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, making up for job losses elsewhere.
Health care is what the market demands, so that's where the jobs get created. If those are framed as women's work, then women will get trained for them and women will get the jobs.
TFA doesn't break down how much of that is nursing and how much is administrative. Both are coded as "women's work", for different reasons.
Even aside from the employment benefits, it would be very helpful to stop thinking that men are doctors and women are nurses. But I've also never seen a male receptionist at a doctor's office.
taxation past the Laffer curve’s point of peak growth,
The Laffer curve doesn't have fixed parameters. You can only tell the peak by experiment.
The Laffer curve only tells you that the optimal taxation point is not 0% or 100%, which you don't need an economist to tell you. And even that is just a trivial model, with the boundaries fixed by assertion rather than measurement. A model with more variables might well have nonzero revenue at 0% and 100%.
A few paragraphs in he misunderstands the word "Communism" -- which is a common enough mistake, and the definition is very fluid, but if you're going to appeal to numerical values you're going to have to do better than an ideologue's misunderstanding of economic terminology.
reply