Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans AI

Republicans Try To Cram Decade-Long AI Regulation Ban Into Budget Reconciliation Bill (404media.co) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the would-you-look-at-that dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: Late last night, House Republicans introduced new language to the Budget Reconciliation bill that will immiserate the lives of millions of Americans by cutting their access to Medicaid, and making life much more difficult for millions more by making them pay higher fees when they seek medical care. While a lot of attention will be justifiably given to these cuts, the bill has also crammed in new language that attempts to entirely stop states from enacting any regulation against artificial intelligence.

"...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," says the text of the bill introduced Sunday night by Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The text of the bill will be considered by the House at the budget reconciliation markup on May 13.

That language of the bill, how it goes on to define AI and other "automated systems," and what it considers "regulation," is broad enough to cover relatively new generative AI tools and technology that has existed for much longer. In theory, that language will make it impossible to enforce many existing and proposed state laws that aim to protect people from and inform them about AI systems. [...] In theory none of these states will be able to enforce these laws if Republicans manage to pass the Budget Reconciliation bill with this current language.

Republicans Try To Cram Decade-Long AI Regulation Ban Into Budget Reconciliation Bill More | Reply

Republicans Try To Cram Decade-Long AI Regulation Ban Into Budget Reconciliation Bill

Comments Filter:

  • The party of small government (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BroccoliKing ( 6229350 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @04:44PM (#65374227)
    States rights be damned.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      States rights be damned.

      Yes, you are right about the hypocrisy. That checks out.
      But the sheer idea that a state could regulate development of artificial intelligence is so laughable. That's not like control over education in your state or car emissions in your state.
      I can't even think of a good analogy. Something both global and digital that's in no way tied to a particular physical location... Maybe similar to regulating pornography production in a state (and I don't mean performer work conditions which do have a physical tie

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MachineShedFred ( 621896 )

        You think California couldn't regulate AI, as it's largely being done in California, by companies headquartered in California?

        The datacenters sucking down electricity like water in order to run the AI isn't tied to a particular physical location? That's probably news to the utility companies that upgraded all the power transmission to that physical location.

        Is it problematic for a state to try to step into the regulatory vacuum, and potentially create a patchwork of regulation? Sure. But it's even more i

        • Re:The party of small government (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @05:43PM (#65374405)
          China has no such regulations, so that's where AI will be developed.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by znrt ( 2424692 )

            in china the state is the whole of china, and they do have regulations at that level and some regional leeway too, even at the municipal level, for example the "beijing ai innovation development pilot zone".

            then again their regulations usually don't have serving corporate greed as a primary goal.

            • then again their regulations usually don't have serving corporate greed as a primary goal.

              That and oppressing anybody who isn't down with authoritarian corporatism are basically the only goals of any Chinese regulation. It's honestly shocking that the CCP and the Republican Party are at odds, they're both far-right authoritarian parties post-Nixon.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by znrt ( 2424692 )

                except for the equivalence with the republican party i would agree.

                i agree because power is self perpetuating and abusive in nature. however, there is much more to the way power does that and its means and goals are important too. in the west authoritarianism is anathema, and i am a democrat at heart (i'm actually an anarchist at heart but anarchy simply doesn't scale at all and democracy is the next best thing) but i would make the case that true democracy is actually a very rare jewel in the world (and wh

                • except for the equivalence with the republican party i would agree.

                  You realize the CCP went off the far-right deep end after Nixon, right? The CCP is today what the Republicans wished they were. What China is now is what the Republican Party wants for America. The Republican Party directly influenced the CCP.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by znrt ( 2424692 )

                    let me get this straight: the ccp was shaped by the republicans but the republicans wished to be like the ccp today. is that right? so ... are you implying that china's roaring success since nixon till today is actually the work of the republican party? and further, that the demise and growing isolation of the us is just the result of the republicans loosing their own script? based.

                    ok, i could go on with this nonsense forever, let's just enjoy some nice music instead.

                    yesterdaaay,
                    all my troubles seemed so fa

                    • Nixon put it in the CCP leadership's head that it's good to run a corporatocracy for their own benefit. The CCP taught Republicans to be authoritarian. They're the chocolate and peanut butter of political ideologies that belong only as a cautionary footnote in history.

          • China has no such regulations, so that's where AI will be developed.

            The worst part of "But what about China!" arguments ,is not only that they are lazy and "Well if they do bad thing why cant we do bad thing?" hypocracy, they are almost always fundamentally incorrect.

            China regulates the shit out of AI development. because china regulates the shit out of everything. Big brother state and all that.

            Theres a list here from 2023 (laws outlawing deepfakes, and regulating algorithms and enforcing privacy laws etc)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shaitan ( 22585 )

              "China regulates the shit out of AI development. because china regulates the shit out of everything. Big brother state and all that.

              Theres a list here from 2023 (laws outlawing deepfakes, and regulating algorithms and enforcing privacy laws etc). That list has grown significantly since then."

              I think you'll find none of that regulation applies to the chinese state.

          • China has no such regulations, so that's where AI will be developed.

            Do you actually believe this?
            Ignoring the fact that it simply isn't true, shouldn't China have run circles around every other country already if that was the case?
            Regulations for cattle and beef? China has no regulation so that's where all the beef will be coming from.
            Hardware and chip tech, China has no regulation so they will definitely be the ones to leading development.
            Finance and fintech, China has no regulation so they will be the financial Mecca of the world.

            Why hasn't any of this happened already? H

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shaitan ( 22585 )

              There are internal rules/regulations on INDUSTRY in China but none of them apply to the state and state sponsored research/development and very few apply to services provided to people outside of China. This is a common theme, China doesn't let companies abuse their people [at least not their elite] and MIGHT have regulations applicable to outward facing service but even if they do they won't enforce those.

              "Hardware and chip tech" Because China started in the rears on pretty much everything is and playing c

        • You speak as if dollars in the billions range matter to these companies, and that’s enough to upgrade any local infrastructure. Has everyone failed to notice the companies involved are worth TRILLIONS now? California’s edge has always been the weather and Human Resources. Perhaps they are similarly in a FAFO situation?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          "But it's even more irresponsible to forbid a state from regulating things happening in that state, when the federal government won't act."

          Not when the action *you* want is the counterproductive and shortsighted thing they are explicitly trying to prevent.

          AI in it's current form is network based for any functional usage so it is multi-state commerce. And the reality is that the technology is rapidly evolving, it makes no sense to make regulations now when the status quo can change from month-to-month. Furth

      • Re:The party of small government (Score:4, Insightful)

        by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @05:29PM (#65374369)

        States rights be damned.

        Yes, you are right about the hypocrisy. That checks out.

        But the sheer idea that a state could regulate development of artificial intelligence is so laughable. That's not like control over education in your state or car emissions in your state.

        The bill attempts to regulate AI, not just the development of AI. I'm not sure what's so laughable about regulating the use of computer systems in general and AI specifically. I'm guessing few people have any problems with regulating the use of cars. If those cars use AI, it doesn't seem unreasonable to regulate the use of AI in cars. AI is only useful when embedded in a larger system that does something. We already have lots of laws and regulations for those larger systems, so regulating AI seems like a no brainer. In fact, forbidding AI in those system implies the regulation of the larger systems, so this bill is very likely to conflict with existing laws and regulations.

        Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment argument that AI regulation is reserved for the states will almost certainly find its way into the courts. So, we'll see if the courts allow this bill/law or not.

        • Re:The party of small government (Score:4, Interesting)

          by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @06:12PM (#65374493) Journal

          I don't think it will ever see a court, because they're trying to move this as part of a fiscal reconciliation package that has procedural rules applied to it to prevent this kind of bullshit from being attached without debate.

          The parliamentarian will undoubtedly scratch this, as it has no fiscal impact at all, which is one of the rules to prevent people from hanging policy amendments on a fiscal package. Or, the whole package no longer goes through reconciliation and is subject to filibuster / cloture votes requiring 60.

          No way the leadership lets this floating turd sink the whole boat.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            "The parliamentarian will undoubtedly scratch this, as it has no fiscal impact at all, which is one of the rules to prevent people from hanging policy amendments on a fiscal package."

            Right. I think they are right that Gram can score the existing tax cuts cost as a continuation of existing policy despite Democrats wish that Byrd would apply. But this isn't that, this is solidly something the parliamentarian can and should axe.

            As for constitutionality, this is solidly within bounds of the commerce clause even

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          "Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment argument that AI regulation is reserved for the states will almost certainly find its way into the courts. So, we'll see if the courts allow this bill/law or not."

          Pretty much all AI use transits interstate networks so this is a fairly slam dunk commerce clause application... which should be obvious when the conservatives are the ones pitching it. BUT... the real question is how will it all play out in the senate.

          • "Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment argument that AI regulation is reserved for the states will almost certainly find its way into the courts. So, we'll see if the courts allow this bill/law or not."

            Pretty much all AI use transits interstate networks so this is a fairly slam dunk commerce clause application... which should be obvious when the conservatives are the ones pitching it. BUT... the real question is how will it all play out in the senate.

            Cloud-based AI arguably crosses state lines, although that argument is weaker in the age of mega-data centers, as users in those states likely don't have their traffic cross state lines. However, I wonder if the courts would allow interstate commerce creep. That is, if some systems and uses of AI cross state lines, does that taint all systems and uses of AI such the non interstate systems are regarded legally as interstate system?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shaitan ( 22585 )

              "Cloud-based AI arguably crosses state lines"

              That's all AI, locally hosted AI isn't a thing for production use. Also, the current interpretation of interstate commerce covers everything that MIGHT cross state lines OR cause an impact across state lines. Things like the FDA, DEA, ATF, and the entire concept of federal authority to regulate substances which when first regulated were primarily formulated and distributed entirely within the borders of a state not central manufacturers is dependent on that inter

      • It's easy to regulate AI art the state level.

        "Any job offer for a job based in California must adhere to the following AI disclosure".

        "Any mortgage offered in a Californian property must satisfy the following AI disclosure"

        etc.

        AI regulation need not be about regulating AI innovation; it's enough merely to make sure it's applied fairly. And almost all real-world applications are indeed local.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        Right, which is why this isn't hypocrisy at all... it is actually a rare legitimate application of the commerce clause. AI is innately multi-state, at least the way it exists and is implemented now. Offline deployment is technically possible but isn't useful for any sort of productive purpose.

        That's part of why this is a time limited measure. The other part is that this is only intended to create a window in which AI can advance unhindered by regulation which could and should be obsolete by the time it hits

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

      Wickard v. Filburn allowed the federal government to claim that growing wheat for your own personal consumption constituted "interstate commerce." AI development and use seems like far less of a stretch.

      I'm really hoping we come out of the current unpleasantness with a broad consensus that an overly powerful federal government is bad for the American people... but I hoped we'd come out of Covid with the sense that "globally distributed supply chains are a terrible idea" so I don't hold out much hope.

      • I'm really hoping we come out of the current unpleasantness with a broad consensus that an overly powerful federal government is bad for the American people...

        Well we are currently testing that hypothesis, even if it's not how exactly I am sure you'd want to see it play out. I think by the end of this the broad consensus is that a strong Federal government is actually quite important and has a great effect on our lives. I think folks have just not experienced that and when they lose it they are not going to be happy.

        My hope is that people come out this thinking "institutions are actually important and we shouldn't allow them to be so easily meddled with" and th

      • One of the worst SCOTUS rulings of all time. Funny how we donâ(TM)t see the conservative âoeoriginalistâ judges clamoring for a chance to overturn that, huh.

    • States rights be damned.

      And how would this regulation help constituents -- the not-billionaire ones who don't own AI companies?

    • In a decade and so from now, univ kids will be writing papers on just how badly the Democrats have been utterly owned in the game of politics during the 2020’s. I say this as someone who would never be a fanboy of one particular party and I think a healthy two (at the VERY least) party competition is mandatory for democracy. I WANT the Democrats to do better.

      Everyone knows politics is a game of lies and spin. Watching the current NHL playoffs has reminded me of this (don’t hate me for the spo

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      I know it's tempting to think of what's happening as hypocrisy, but that really is a mischaracterisation of it. The GOP is absolutely consistent in using every available lever at every available point to further its agenda. Hypocrisy implies some level of giving a shit if one lever pull is in a different direction to another. The GOP left such concerns behind a long time ago. All that it cares about is exercising power. It's impervious to being embarrassed, to feeling shame, and it sure as shit doesn't worr

  • The way this is worded: (Score:5, Informative)

    by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @04:49PM (#65374243)

    ...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,

    The way this is worded, essentially anything with an if-then statement, so basically, software, can't be regulated for ten years? Wow. The broligarchy are really getting what they paid for here. If you declare "automated decision systems" off limits from regulation, you're really just opening up the universe and saying, "Let 'er buck."

    Yeah, healthcare getting ever more expensive sucks too, but I've been priced out of healthcare for most of the time since the ACA came into effect. As much as I'd like to see it change, I just expect it to keep escalating until healthcare is flat out not an option for anyone outside the owner class. It's the American way. Money first, everyone else can suck it.

    • Hell even a spreadsheet would count. That's pretty wacky.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Don't worry, the EU will (again) enforce some sanity. Well, as long as the US underclass (i.e. everybody except the rich) gets the same products as everybody in the EU, that is.

    • Wow. The broligarchy are really getting what they paid for here.

      Can't wait to see what the foreign ones get. For example, a $400M (before the palace upgrades) Boeing 747 is a lot of cheddar on the plate - I mean tarmac.

    • It is exactly like death panels, except Rich people are running them.

      • It is exactly like death panels, except Rich people are running them.

        So, the death panels we have (insurance companies) as opposed to the ones everyone fears (government run)? Or more of a marriage between the two?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kitkoan ( 1719118 )
      Not surprised. Doge wants to replace over 70,000 government workers with AI.

      https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/how-doge-plans-to-use-ai-to-cut-70000-jobs/91185538

      This will allow them to without worry as its AI, the new untouchable.

      And that is just the tip of the Doge AI iceberg.

      https://fortune.com/2025/04/09/musks-doge-reportedly-deploys-ai-to-monitor-federal-workers-for-anti-trump-sentiment-the-willingness-to-skirt-laws-is-brazen/
      AI thought police. It's AI, so above the law.

      And when you are discovered, AI c

  • Any headline that starts "Republicans are trying to cram..." will end in either an eyeroll or forehead slap.

    • Especially since this is the exact kind of thing that isn't allowed in a reconciliation bill. Reconciliation is a process meant to avoid the filibuster on fiscal bills, and anything not fiscal related gets red-lined by the parliamentarian.

      There is no fiscal element to banning AI regulation for 10 years. That is a policy, and not a fiscal policy.

  • Funny (Score:1, Troll)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 )

    Republicans seem to be on a banning spree. Banning calling them out for their lies (otherwise known as misinformation), banning of books, banning women from having control of their bodies, banning teaching of history, and the list goes on.

    Now they want to ban controls on AI. It's almost as if they're against freedom.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      But think of the children! If they see a single fruity word in a book their life is then ruined from then on. A Liberty University study proved it.

    • I heard that theirs is the party of "small government" yet they keep trying to big-government stomp anything that offends their delicate sensibilities.

  • All software and circuitry (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @04:54PM (#65374263) Homepage Journal

    no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating .. automated decision systems

    Pretty sure I can make an "automated decision system" out of a couple NAND gates. And now, to get around municipal building codes, I can use inflammable materials when constructing that daycare center. The NAND chips make it legal.

    (Why did I use inflammable materials? To avoid the flammable ones!)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Who are the retards that write this stuff?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ls671 ( 1122017 )

      no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating .. automated decision systems

      Pretty sure I can make an "automated decision system" out of a couple NAND gates. And now, to get around municipal building codes, I can use inflammable materials when constructing that daycare center. The NAND chips make it legal.

      (Why did I use inflammable materials? To avoid the flammable ones!)

      Inflammable means something that can easily catch fire and burn quickly. It is synonymous with flammable, despite the prefix "in-" which can be misleading.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Inflammable means something that can easily catch fire and burn quickly. It is synonymous with flammable,

        The English language is just insane.

        • Classical Latin verb inflammo,inflammare from in+flammo, literally "to be in flames". With a privative in-, the pair is inflammable/ininflammable ("in" is used twice with different meanings). It's like that in all languages that derive from Latin. English tried to resolve the ambiguity by avoiding "in", giving the new pair flammable/nonflammable. Which quite a good idea. But then one should never use flammable and inflammable in the same sentence, because it indeed looks insane.

      • WHOOSSSSHH!!!

  • I used to reply with a different comment (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @05:11PM (#65374307)

    I used to say how nuts it was that the US Constitution allows bills of appropriation to consider anything other than appropriation. Most sane countries limit these bills so you cannot attach unrelated riders to it.

    But that was the past. These days I don't think it's nuts the Constitution doesn't address this because who even cares about that document these days. So now I just recommend everyone sit down, shut up and hope you don't do anything to get you deported without due process.

    • For the most part, the reconciliation process does that as well, in order to skip cloture (read: filibuster). There is a very good chance the Parliamentarian shitcans this out of the bill for not having any fiscal impact.

      • There is a very good chance the Parliamentarian shitcans this out of the bill for not having any fiscal impact.

        That was my first thought as well.

        But, my next thought was to remember the Parliamentarian is appointed by the Speaker of the House, who is totally beholden to The Orange One. So if Jason Smith were to rule that way, my guess is Trump would immediately brand him a member of the "Deep State" and order Johnson to toss Smith out on his ear.

    • These days I don't think it's nuts the Constitution doesn't address this because who even cares about that document these days.

      We do still have a Constitution, it's just that the interpretation has gotten a bit wonkier in recent years. Things like "Deplatform the entire US population? Totally cool with the 1A, because the founding fathers didn't have social media!"

      The neat part is no logical consistency is required anymore, either: "But what about those assault weapons, the founding fathers didn't have those!"

      "But if the founding fathers did, I'm sure they'd have absolutely loved them. Hey invading British soldiers, say hello t

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        "We do still have a Constitution, it's just that the interpretation has gotten a bit wonkier in recent years. "

        And it doesn't apply to the President since he has absolute immunity. And it doesn't apply to the executive branch, because it doesn't apply to the President.

        The Constitution is merely law, and law doesn't apply any more.

      • We do still have a Constitution, it's just that the interpretation has gotten a bit wonkier in recent years.

        Yes. The whole "ignore it completely" is very wonky. But good work citizen. You're on the list of not being stripped from your rights and sent to a torture prison in a country you couldn't locate on a map. Hail Trump.

    • Don't forget to throw your own wrench into the mechanism...

  • So they took a Bill meant to cause pain, misery, poverty, and death for billions of people, and tacked on a rider that would allow good things to happen? AI is capable of creating medical components, increasing quality control in everything from car components to chicken disembowelling, to creating matter not found in nature. AI is very much something that is good for America and the human race, IF the people using it know how to do so. And like any tool, are willing to use it for good results instead of ca

  • I'm kinda surprised the AI aspect is bigger news than the EV credit possibly going away. [reddit.com] Unlike this AI rider, this does directly relate to the budget, which gives it a high likelihood of passing.

  • Both Republicans and Democrats do the same shit every year.

    Both sides will try to cram some pet-project or no-chance-in-hell-it-passes-as-a-standalone-bill into something like the Defense Spending Bill
    or some other " must pass " legislation.

    Lots of finger pointing ensues from whichever party isn't in charge at the time.

    Wash - Rinse - Repeat every single year.

    It's neither new nor news.

    • Both sides will try to cram some pet-project or no-chance-in-hell-it-passes-as-a-standalone-bill into something like the Defense Spending Bill
      or some other " must pass " legislation.

      And it works. That's how we got the TikTok ban, which the current administration made go away with a wave of dear leader's magic Sharpie. Don't get me wrong, the TikTok ban is stupid, but so is how our current Republican leadership decided undo it.

  • If the president can ignore laws and court orders. So can the states and cities.

    • If the president can ignore laws and court orders. So can the states and cities.

      They kind of already do. Marijuana is still illegal at a federal level, but some states have legalized it.

  • Trump and the Republicans seem to love America, they just hate Americans

Slashdot Top Deals

You can not win the game, and you are not allowed to stop playing. -- The Third Law Of Thermodynamics

Close