>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
> Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
Or abortion, or the right of people to be taught the truth about their own country's history, or the right to support clean technologies, or the right to have public spaces and schools free of religious dogma, and ...
The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.
If we believe that government mostly does the right thing for the people, this is true. One set of rules, simpler, more efficient.
OTOH, if there ever was a hope that government is driven by a desire to do the right thing for the people, that has certainly been shattered lately. It is now completely transparent that they're in it for the grift and personal power, that's it full stop. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore.
So, having laws being as decentralized as possible is the best solution. Having to bribe and corrupt 50 state legislatures is a lot more work than bribing and corrupting a handful of people in DC.
Even more decentralized would be better. Counties should set their own laws without interference from above. There are 3244 counties in the US, it would now take enormous work to bribe and corrupt 3244 legislatures.
Inefficient? Yes, very. So be it. That's still better than a few oligarchs imposing their will for personal benefit from the top.
Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.
I'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality.
California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].
At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.
We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).
There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".
> Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.
Every federal system has a division of responsibility between the federal government and sub-national governments. And education is assigned to the sub-national governments not just in the U.S., but in other federal systems: Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Switzerland, for example, doesn't even have a federal ministry of education: https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-ed....
if its really about development only and not preventing regulations on ai usage then its not a bad idea. but i dont see US politicians doing something like that.
i really think the best way to handle this is federally protect open source code including ai (but also things like hack tools, anonymous crypto payments and breaking drm). that way states can regulate for profit companies as much as they want and it cant hurt free speech for individual people.
15 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 29.7 ms ] thread>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.
Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):
https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-pr...
Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".
From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-pr...
The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)
The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.
If we believe that government mostly does the right thing for the people, this is true. One set of rules, simpler, more efficient.
OTOH, if there ever was a hope that government is driven by a desire to do the right thing for the people, that has certainly been shattered lately. It is now completely transparent that they're in it for the grift and personal power, that's it full stop. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore.
So, having laws being as decentralized as possible is the best solution. Having to bribe and corrupt 50 state legislatures is a lot more work than bribing and corrupting a handful of people in DC.
Even more decentralized would be better. Counties should set their own laws without interference from above. There are 3244 counties in the US, it would now take enormous work to bribe and corrupt 3244 legislatures.
Inefficient? Yes, very. So be it. That's still better than a few oligarchs imposing their will for personal benefit from the top.
California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].
At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.
We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).
There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-f...
Big government for agendas that we're pushing.
(and when we say 'pushing' we mean 'planning to profit from').
Every federal system has a division of responsibility between the federal government and sub-national governments. And education is assigned to the sub-national governments not just in the U.S., but in other federal systems: Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Switzerland, for example, doesn't even have a federal ministry of education: https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-ed....
i really think the best way to handle this is federally protect open source code including ai (but also things like hack tools, anonymous crypto payments and breaking drm). that way states can regulate for profit companies as much as they want and it cant hurt free speech for individual people.