Republicans Try To Cram Decade-Long AI Regulation Ban Into Budget Reconciliation Bill (404media.co) 76
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.
"...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.
The party of small government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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:The party of small government (Score:4, Insightful)
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 irresponsible to forbid a state from regulating things happening in that state, when the federal government won't act.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
no, they just have over 3000 years of history and probably would like to enjoy 3000 more, with ups and downs and all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:The party of small government (Score:4, Interesting)
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: The party of small government (Score:3)
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:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: The party of small government (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
States rights be damned.
And how would this regulation help constituents -- the not-billionaire ones who don't own AI companies?
Prediction (Score:1)
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:2)
Oddly, US Constitution makes this illegal in two different places. Are you anti-woke enough to find them, or do you not read?
Re: (Score:2)
or do you not read?
The punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure weren't enough to give you the answer to that one?
Re: (Score:1)
" letting AI make rational statistically sound decisions."
What if AI persuades you that you can print money for a basic income and index incomes to inflation to eliminate it as a constraint?
ChatGPT (I asked it to format it for slashdot):
What if AI shows that we can fund a basic income not just by "printing money," but by carefully balancing spending with inflation controlsâ"like indexing incomes or investing in public equityâ"so that economic constraints are restructured, not ignored? Would that s
The way this is worded: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The way this is worded: (Score:4, Insightful)
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 can fire you. Again, AI, so can't enforce any law or regulation on it.
https://www.wired.com/story/doge-autorif-mass-firing-government-workers/
They're not sending their best (Score:1)
Any headline that starts "Republicans are trying to cram..." will end in either an eyeroll or forehead slap.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:4, Funny)
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)
Indeed. Who are the retards that write this stuff?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Congress.
Specifically, the Republican majority in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Inflammable means something that can easily catch fire and burn quickly. It is synonymous with flammable,
The English language is just insane.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if I had some flammable cloth that became inflamed?
Re: (Score:2)
WHOOSSSSHH!!!
Re: (Score:2)
But I would consider the merits: Is it a good idea to allow states to regulate AI (whether it comes from R party or D party)?
Personally, I doubt that because I cannot think of a good reason to let a state regulate AI. What could it possibly achieve? But I'd be interested in counter arguments for why it is useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Presently most of the calls to regulate AI seem to be coming from the copyright cabal, and personally, I say "cry me a river".
Now, I realize they've been perpetuating this idea that AI hurts the the little guy too, but the reality is that the creative industry's existing gatekeeping practices are what has prevented most of those folks from making a decent living in the arts. They want you to think it's some guy playing guitar in his garage who is having his dreams crushed by an algorithm, when it's really
I used to reply with a different comment (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:1)
You're getting pretty close to the best protest sign I've seen yet: Oligargle DEEZ NUTS
Re:I'm guessing nobody read the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Suspect the problem is you didn't know that Medicaid was about 1/3 of our healthcare system. Fun fact unless you live in a major city your hospitals are probably only open because they get a ton of funding from Medicaid. The rural hospitals will immediately close if the Republicans get what they want and a lot of the suburban ones are going to go with them.
As for reading the bill it's quoted in the article and it's Crystal clear it prevents the States from doing any regulation of anything related to AI for 10 years. There's nothing really more to it the rest of the language in the bill is just there to prevent various forms of wriggling out of the bills language.
I noticed that you tell everyone to go read the bill while ignoring the fact that the bill was quoted in the article. It's an old rhetorical trick. You are counting on us to not bother reading an entire Bill full of complex legal language and therefore to assume we can stop worrying about what's in the bill because clearly the fact that we didn't sit down and read the entire thing indicates that we can dismiss all concerns about it despite the fact that the article quotes the relevant portion of the bill.
You're using a rhetorical trick that takes advantage of the way human brains work to Short circuit us to the easiest answer which is to stop thinking about the whole thing entirely. It's a surprisingly sophisticated trick and I wonder if you really thought about it when you did it or if you just kind of do this stuff automatically after years of arguing on the internet...
Whatever the case Medicaid is still on the chopping block and that's still something that should be mentioned in every single article addressing the current budget negotiations because, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it's literally 1/3 of our healthcare system.
As always Americans are like house cats, convinced of their fierce Independence while utterly dependent on a system they neither appreciate nor understand...
Forgot to say it's a typical (Score:1)
Republican hierarchy. Polls indicate the overwhelming number of anti-vaxxers are Republican or right leaning. The right wing is never going to get along well with science because the core of the right wing is a belief that some people are better than others and that there is a hierarchy people get placed in based on innate characteristics.
But fundamentally if you strip away everything from the right wing what's your left with is a belief in hierarchy and the divine right of kings.
But the thing about it is t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the entire text of the budget reconciliation bill is this disgustingly long thing [dj.com]. Elizabeth Warren actually posted a rather tragically hilarious video [youtube.com] during the previous Trump administration, where she points out that the GOP doesn't even realistically expect our elected representatives to read the text of a budget bill, either.
You've frequently derided ChatGPT as a tool for 12-year-olds, but it can easily parse through that over bloated mess of a bill (ironically named "The One, Big, Beautiful
Re: (Score:2)
When the Republicans finally shut down the government and our entire economy collapses and people finally find out how much they personally depend on the US government.
Meanwhile Vladimir Putin is laughing his ass off because half the country was so scared of trans kids we put a child rapist in charge of the nuclear arsenal. Again..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
full-retard positions
You correctly used plural, because there is plethora of these. To the point that it is unclear there is anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ever have a moment of self reflection when you realize they are easily manipulating you?
I'm guessing not. I mean Jesus fucking Christ 10 years ago you did not give an ass about trans kids. And you are never going to convince me that you give a fuck about women's sports.
But if they keep telling you what to think long enough you're going to start thinking w
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how many people will give up their entire economic futures because they can't say the n-word in public anymore.
Sandwich Machine (Score:1)
The EV credit is on the chopping block, too (Score:2)
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.
Yawn (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I vote Republican, not Nazi.
There's a difference now?
Re: (Score:2)
If I really felt the round-up were coming any time soon, I'd be working on getting my overseas visa setup and me being gone before shit hits the fan. It is to early to tell how all this will affect 2026 mid-terms.If things are going well 3-6 months before the vote, Republicans could retain or even gain seats. Since Trump is already backpedaling, etc, all the tangible bad stuff will be out of mind well before any elections that really matter.
It also doesn't help that the Democrats aren't polling well either.
Misleading Story (Score:1)
Of the president can ignore laws (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.