6 ms·

Let me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual s

Let me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states. Weird priorities.

baq 1y ago
Follow the money. Once you realize nothing makes sense, everything suddenly makes sense.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
Paraphrasing - Their one principle is that laws should protect them and bind everyone else, and not bind them, and not protect anyone else. Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie
jaoane 1y ago
[flagged]
- moomin 1y ago
  Accurate way of phrasing it. Even Dobbs vs JWHO accepted that this is the point.
  - bayarearefugee 1y ago
    Grammatically incorrect way of phrasing it, though I'm not sure if that's the problem the person you are responding to was raising. "that woman's health" (which woman are we talking about?) is quite different from "that women's health".
Gigachad 1y ago
[flagged]
Thorrez 1y ago
[flagged]
- chneu 1y ago
  That's not at all what they're saying. By the GOPs logic there shouldn't be an either or decision here.
  - Thorrez 1y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean "an either or decision here"?
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      I think what they're saying, is that, for there to be logical consistency within the concept of states' rights, that it should be both, or neither, in the context of the original statement: > that states should be allowed to regulate AI, but should not be allowed to regulate health? To rephrase this: States should be allowed to regulate both AI and health, or neither. This is not my argument, but I do intend it to be a good faith interpretation of what I think OP had in mind. Either/or is a somewhat confusing phrasing due the way it causes sentences to become hard to follow, and because it can refer to two different concepts. I think most of the time and in this case, either/or refers to exclusive or, but it can also refer to logical disjunction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For However, it's possible that they meant logical disjunction, in the sense that the GOP doesn't think that states' rights to regulate AI and health should be an either/or distinction simply in order to not be hypocritical, because the GOP sees no problem with legislation and lawfare to achieve the goals of the GOP; the GOP will use arguments that may be lacking ideological justification or consistency out of pragmatism. The ends don't justify the means in this GOP reading, but rather, the means are the ends: states' rights as a concept can be a means to a particular end legally or legislatively, and an end unto itself as a way to preserve bastion states of GOP rule and jurisprudence during periods of non-GOP federal power. So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions?
immibis 1y ago
That's because what they actually want is for their policies to be applied everywhere. Sometimes there's a reason they can't just apply the policy everywhere at the highest level. In these cases, what they do is they make sure there's no policy at the highest level, so that as many instances of the lower levels as possible can apply the policies they want. The reason they said abortion law should be a state issue is they knew they couldn't get a federal abortion ban. By making it a state issue they ensure they get to at least ban abortion in half the country rather than none of the country. By now they probably can get a federal abortion ban, though, so I expect them to do that sooner or later. Don't expect consistency from their public statements - "abortion should be up to the states" will simply be memory-holed.
firesteelrain 1y ago
In practice, "states’ rights" is sometimes used strategically, not ideologically. AI though is viewed as as a technological and economic issue, requiring national coordination to maintain US competitiveness and adding a patchwork of States laws impedes that goal That’s the reason it is different for the GOP
- lantastic 1y ago
  My cynical take is this is regulatory capture on part of the most lucrative tech sector in the next few years, in return for campaign contributions.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Someone might still commit to campaign contributions if it aligns with their philosophy or goals. But I don’t think that’s what is going on here
- danaris 1y ago
  IMO, you're almost there. "States' rights" has only ever been used as a smokescreen. The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery. More recently, it's been a cover for other far-right reactionary positions specifically during center-left administrations that would otherwise seek to impose regulations preventing them from oppressing people at the state level. AI is not being "protected" this way because it's Just Too Important To Leave To The States; it's being protected because Musk and other mega-wealthy Silicon Valley types have pushed to exempt it from all regulation. (Notice that this bill does nothing to regulate AI at the federal level, nor is there any particular proposal to do so from the people pushing for this clause!)
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    You are probably right. Let’s look at it differently though: even if the federal preemption push is cynical, is there still a valid, public-interest reason to avoid fragmented AI regulation? That’s the only place your argument could be stress-tested: not in exposing the hypocrisy. But there isn’t an introduction of like AI ethics rules or policy or directing a federal agency to establish any so that’s a valid criticism. What if we take the viewpoint that they are trying to get there?
briandear 1y ago
AI can be a legitimate interstate commerce issue. If my code runs on a data center in Virginia, am I, someone located outside of Virginia now subject to Virginia AI laws? Do I control network routing so that my application requests won’t inadvertently cross some state line? If a state hypothetically made possessing an AI app a felony, but the app weren’t on my phone but instead stored in iCloud — am I guilty of “possession” even though the actual bits and bytes are in some outside data center? If I am a California company and California banned AI, but one of my workers lived in Nevada, could that company still use AI if the work were completed outside of California? It’s a Pandora’s box, luckily that scenario is covered by the Commerce Clause. On your illustration about abortion: the same people who wanted national vaccine mandates now want AI to be left up to the individual states? The same people that defend the Department of Education’s national influence over public schools are now states rights advocates when it suits their agenda? There is hypocrisy on all sides. The media and pundits frame budget reconciliation thusly: When Republicans do it, it’s a “threat to Democracy” when Democrats do it, it’s “protecting democracy.” As a practical matter an AI federal law shouldn’t be in a budget bill: it should go through the normal lawmaking process. But there are a lot of things that don’t belong in a budget bill that end up there. The process is rotten. Democrats and Republicans use federalism as it suits their agenda. Let’s not be surprised anymore. Democrats typically support strong central governments — until they aren’t the majority in Washington. Then they become fervent supporters of the strong states rights used by the Confederacy to justify slavery. When they have power in Washington, they’re now Abraham Lincoln. And vice versa. When Florida wants to strongly enforce immigration law, blue states sue. When California doesn’t want to follow immigration law, that’s somehow heroic? Some states have even passed laws prohibiting law enforcement from following federal laws while simultaneous accepting federal funding for their law enforcement then suing when those funds are withheld. My basic view is this: there are enumerated powers, the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. Let’s use those to decide who should be doing what. We can (and should) disagree on the issues, but it would be delightful if we could at least all follow the same processes. Drug laws: unless you’re crossing a state line, state. Immigration: federal (Commerce Clause) AI: states — until there is an interstate commerce nexus (i.e. data centers, internet) By the way the author laments the budget reconciliation process for AI laws, but that same process was used to pass Obamacare. Is using reconciliation acceptable when it suits one’s agenda? Again: hypocrisy on all sides. The Constitution already covers this stuff, if anyone bothers to follow it. The constitution has been bent and beaten to within an inch of its life. We need to push back on that even if it results in outcomes we might not like in the short term.
UncleMeat 1y ago
Don't worry, they also don't think that women's health should be left to the states. Given the opportunity to ban abortion federally they'll take it.

Let me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states. Weird priorities.

baq 1y ago

Follow the money. Once you realize nothing makes sense, everything suddenly makes sense.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

Paraphrasing - Their one principle is that laws should protect them and bind everyone else, and not bind them, and not protect anyone else. Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie

jaoane 1y ago

[flagged]

moomin 1y ago
Accurate way of phrasing it. Even Dobbs vs JWHO accepted that this is the point.
- bayarearefugee 1y ago
  Grammatically incorrect way of phrasing it, though I'm not sure if that's the problem the person you are responding to was raising. "that woman's health" (which woman are we talking about?) is quite different from "that women's health".

Gigachad 1y ago

[flagged]

Thorrez 1y ago

[flagged]

chneu 1y ago
That's not at all what they're saying. By the GOPs logic there shouldn't be an either or decision here.
- Thorrez 1y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean "an either or decision here"?
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I think what they're saying, is that, for there to be logical consistency within the concept of states' rights, that it should be both, or neither, in the context of the original statement: > that states should be allowed to regulate AI, but should not be allowed to regulate health? To rephrase this: States should be allowed to regulate both AI and health, or neither. This is not my argument, but I do intend it to be a good faith interpretation of what I think OP had in mind. Either/or is a somewhat confusing phrasing due the way it causes sentences to become hard to follow, and because it can refer to two different concepts. I think most of the time and in this case, either/or refers to exclusive or, but it can also refer to logical disjunction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Either%2For However, it's possible that they meant logical disjunction, in the sense that the GOP doesn't think that states' rights to regulate AI and health should be an either/or distinction simply in order to not be hypocritical, because the GOP sees no problem with legislation and lawfare to achieve the goals of the GOP; the GOP will use arguments that may be lacking ideological justification or consistency out of pragmatism. The ends don't justify the means in this GOP reading, but rather, the means are the ends: states' rights as a concept can be a means to a particular end legally or legislatively, and an end unto itself as a way to preserve bastion states of GOP rule and jurisprudence during periods of non-GOP federal power. So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions?

immibis 1y ago

That's because what they actually want is for their policies to be applied everywhere. Sometimes there's a reason they can't just apply the policy everywhere at the highest level. In these cases, what they do is they make sure there's no policy at the highest level, so that as many instances of the lower levels as possible can apply the policies they want. The reason they said abortion law should be a state issue is they knew they couldn't get a federal abortion ban. By making it a state issue they ensure they get to at least ban abortion in half the country rather than none of the country. By now they probably can get a federal abortion ban, though, so I expect them to do that sooner or later. Don't expect consistency from their public statements - "abortion should be up to the states" will simply be memory-holed.

firesteelrain 1y ago

In practice, "states’ rights" is sometimes used strategically, not ideologically. AI though is viewed as as a technological and economic issue, requiring national coordination to maintain US competitiveness and adding a patchwork of States laws impedes that goal That’s the reason it is different for the GOP

lantastic 1y ago
My cynical take is this is regulatory capture on part of the most lucrative tech sector in the next few years, in return for campaign contributions.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Someone might still commit to campaign contributions if it aligns with their philosophy or goals. But I don’t think that’s what is going on here
danaris 1y ago
IMO, you're almost there. "States' rights" has only ever been used as a smokescreen. The original "states' rights" argument was a cover for slavery. More recently, it's been a cover for other far-right reactionary positions specifically during center-left administrations that would otherwise seek to impose regulations preventing them from oppressing people at the state level. AI is not being "protected" this way because it's Just Too Important To Leave To The States; it's being protected because Musk and other mega-wealthy Silicon Valley types have pushed to exempt it from all regulation. (Notice that this bill does nothing to regulate AI at the federal level, nor is there any particular proposal to do so from the people pushing for this clause!)
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  You are probably right. Let’s look at it differently though: even if the federal preemption push is cynical, is there still a valid, public-interest reason to avoid fragmented AI regulation? That’s the only place your argument could be stress-tested: not in exposing the hypocrisy. But there isn’t an introduction of like AI ethics rules or policy or directing a federal agency to establish any so that’s a valid criticism. What if we take the viewpoint that they are trying to get there?

briandear 1y ago

AI can be a legitimate interstate commerce issue. If my code runs on a data center in Virginia, am I, someone located outside of Virginia now subject to Virginia AI laws? Do I control network routing so that my application requests won’t inadvertently cross some state line? If a state hypothetically made possessing an AI app a felony, but the app weren’t on my phone but instead stored in iCloud — am I guilty of “possession” even though the actual bits and bytes are in some outside data center? If I am a California company and California banned AI, but one of my workers lived in Nevada, could that company still use AI if the work were completed outside of California? It’s a Pandora’s box, luckily that scenario is covered by the Commerce Clause. On your illustration about abortion: the same people who wanted national vaccine mandates now want AI to be left up to the individual states? The same people that defend the Department of Education’s national influence over public schools are now states rights advocates when it suits their agenda? There is hypocrisy on all sides. The media and pundits frame budget reconciliation thusly: When Republicans do it, it’s a “threat to Democracy” when Democrats do it, it’s “protecting democracy.” As a practical matter an AI federal law shouldn’t be in a budget bill: it should go through the normal lawmaking process. But there are a lot of things that don’t belong in a budget bill that end up there. The process is rotten. Democrats and Republicans use federalism as it suits their agenda. Let’s not be surprised anymore. Democrats typically support strong central governments — until they aren’t the majority in Washington. Then they become fervent supporters of the strong states rights used by the Confederacy to justify slavery. When they have power in Washington, they’re now Abraham Lincoln. And vice versa. When Florida wants to strongly enforce immigration law, blue states sue. When California doesn’t want to follow immigration law, that’s somehow heroic? Some states have even passed laws prohibiting law enforcement from following federal laws while simultaneous accepting federal funding for their law enforcement then suing when those funds are withheld. My basic view is this: there are enumerated powers, the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. Let’s use those to decide who should be doing what. We can (and should) disagree on the issues, but it would be delightful if we could at least all follow the same processes. Drug laws: unless you’re crossing a state line, state. Immigration: federal (Commerce Clause) AI: states — until there is an interstate commerce nexus (i.e. data centers, internet) By the way the author laments the budget reconciliation process for AI laws, but that same process was used to pass Obamacare. Is using reconciliation acceptable when it suits one’s agenda? Again: hypocrisy on all sides. The Constitution already covers this stuff, if anyone bothers to follow it. The constitution has been bent and beaten to within an inch of its life. We need to push back on that even if it results in outcomes we might not like in the short term.

UncleMeat 1y ago

Don't worry, they also don't think that women's health should be left to the states. Given the opportunity to ban abortion federally they'll take it.