As it stands this bill sets the stage for AI governance, “no state” means just that, that no state can stop AI if this bill passes as is.
3 Likes
I view things like AI, drones, encryption and other “dangerous” technologies as essentially similar to firearms. They can be used by the militia or individuals for defense, and there is little way to effectively control their spread.
Rather than try to control them, which will only affect the law-abiding and put them at a disadvantage compared to lawbreakers and foreigners, it is better to deregulate the technologies, at least within the US, and allow the market to develop countermeasures without bureaucratic burdens, as the public and interested groups may demand.
By regulating the firearms industry, we have stunted the development of firearms technology. Research into better full-auto has mostly frozen in favor of technically inferior workarounds like bumpstocks and FRTs. Rather than optimize suppressors for a single caliber, heavy taxes have steered the market to compromise on weight and performance in order to make bombproof, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none cans. Likewise, PDW development was severely hampered by the NFA regulation of SBRs.
If we allow AI to be regulated, a few giants in the industry will control the entire AI market, which is exactly what Biden planned to do. This would give the government control over what the AI is allowed to learn and say, but would stifle competition and development.
This preemption clause for AI seeks to do the same thing as 2A preemption laws in gun-friendly states. In anti-gun states, individual communities can make their own gun restrictions, so that the state is a patchwork of laws that change wildly from one town to the next. It extremely difficult for gun owners in those areas to know if they are complying with the law when they commute, and it discourages carry. To stop this, gun-friendly states preempted smaller jurisdictions from making their own gun laws; only the state is allowed to make such laws, making the gun-carry landscape simpler and easier to understand.
Preemption is even more important for apps on the internet, since internet is basically global. In the case of gun sites, we are seeing new annoying age popups everywhere, not because our jurisdiction requires them, but because some jurisdiction somewhere requires them, and the site basically has to comply with all the jurisdictions at once.
2 Likes
Lead by the NRA, and now all gun sites follow suit, guess whats next?
Identity verification to be online, and then?
AI policing of the content you view.
Let me break it down for you with pictures, and then some etymology
This is AI
This is a computer programmer
Well skilled computer programmers have created AI
AI will always give you what the programmers give it
Programmers give it woke, you get woke
You are already programmed if you believe this is about keeping you safe, 180*, it’s about limiting your right to fight back when the program says you must work on Sabbath because its more efficient, why?
Federal law supersedes state law, preemption, and preemption in this case means their automated decision system
(4) AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEM.—The term “automated decision system” means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, to materially influence or replace human decision making.
based on programming, can and will change everything and no state can create any law that prohibits it.
Lets ask for an AI image on the subject
Ok, wish I’d not have looked
BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL MY ASS
First article, food, with a lot of scary things, but, moving on, this bill is supposed to end welfare (wasteful spending on non citizens) but lets just view food stamps
Note the “and”
you should always look for the and if or but
If you’ve never considered being a citizen and resident are not the same thing just read that a few times, make sure you grasp the and
then read it over, understand, in this case (chapter 51 the intended change), resident is not defined, definitions are per chapter and important, you can find resident defined other places (CFR helps but don’t get lost) but can not assume that to be the same as intended here, and to further press the intent, view (B) and note “no intention of abandoning” is added to define those who are excluded.
You have to still want to belong to the nation you immigrated from to be excluded.
In short, I don’t see any firm resolution to not feed anyone despite what the left is railing, or, in short, it is as the title reads
an ACT
Nope, not gonna waste a minute reading their crap, same coin just a different side.
1 Like
This is a big bad bill, if Elon can affect it’s being implemented all the better, well, until next time.