this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
124 points (98.4% liked)

politics

24218 readers
2753 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

House Republicans tucked the measure into a section ordering the Commerce Department to deploy funds to “modernize and secure Federal information technology systems through the deployment of commercial artificial intelligence.” The measure has remained largely unchanged since its consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month, though lawmakers on the House Committee on Rules recently added an exemption so that the moratorium would not apply to the enforcement of any law that “carries a criminal penalty.”

Widely rejected by Democrats, the push is also facing opposition from some Senate Republicans, who would largely need to unite on the legislation to get it passed. At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) poured cold water on the idea, expressing concern that the bill would override legislation to protect artists from deepfakes in her state.

“Speaking to the states and their actions, I do want to mention that Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act, which is like our first generation of the NO FAKES Act,” said Blackburn, “And we certainly know that, in Tennessee, we need those protections, and until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can't call for a moratorium on those things.”

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 46 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This still has to go to the Senate so please for the love of god if you care about your rights and privacy tell your senator to vote NO!

My city is currently in the midst of an AI facial recognition/predictive policing thanks to a secret city partnership with Palantir, dystopian nightmare

Frankly I would be happy to see my state ban facial recognition completely, but they definitely aren't going to, but please take this as a warning of what is definitely coming for you next!

We should have federal regulations and state regulations! There is absolutely no need for them to ban regulation at the state level other than the argument it will halt progress.

In reality they are invading your privacy and generating valuable data for these stupid AI data centers and they don't want you to be able to decide this sucks and I want it to stop in my state!

Not only would it ban laws for the next 10 years, it would remove existing laws. Some places already have a facial recognition ban, and this would repeal it!

It's nuts this seems to actually have some bipartisan support in the Senate, bc everyone is "so concerned" about America winning the AI race.

News flash, we probably won't win it. It was a dumb fucking idea in the first place, and yeah they put all of our eggs into the AI basket and it's probably going to tank the economy even more, but why TF should we be giving them even more control of our lives in the hopes that just maybe they can make a lot of money by further invading our privacy and doing some really evil shit with our data that will make the world an even worse place?

Here is an article about the May 8, 2025 hearing.

Altman, during the hearing, said that Texas had been “unbelievable” in incentivizing major AI projects. “I think that would be a good thing for other states to study,” Altman said. He predicted that the Abilene site would be the “largest AI training facility in the world.” But Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

“It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

Here is a quote from Peter Thiel protege, Michael Kratsios regarding AI regulation in 2019

“A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

They have no values, I support a federal regulation too, but in case you haven't noticed, the people who want you to vote to remove state regulations in favor of a "light touch" federal regulation are also in charge deciding what that "light touch" federal regulation will be and if it gets enforced at all.

Most of what we attribute to Elon Musk/DOGE including using protected government data banks full of our private data to train AI, can actually be traced back to Thiel and Kratsios, as early as 2018!

I cannot believe I actually agree with Marsha Blackburn on something, but she's right! Why TF would you believe you don't need state regulations bc there is the possibility the same party that just tried to sneak in this nightmare, might enact some federal protections.

Government deregulation has been in the works for a very long time. Do not let them keep taking our protections away!

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago

Exactly my stance. Federal regulation makes sense when there's a common ground, but my first response when seeing the quote about a "light touch" was, it can't get any lighter than it is. If you want to push for federal over state enforcement, then present something that is actually protecting more than the profit interests of those economically invested in AI. Like human species interests, preservation, not opening something we can't close.

And before the "LLM isn't AGI" comes into play, of course it isn't. But if we're treating LLM R&D with a full throttle and safety concerns on the shelf, we're doing the same with any related field. And even LLMs can have alignment issues and be misused or misguided while connected to crucial or even life-threatening conditions. "We wouldn't do that." Of course we would. Money.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What about state’s right though?

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

Some states are right, and some states are wrong.

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's like a fucked up doctor Seus rhyme

States rights for me, and none for you, not if blue states might get them too

But if we all think about it you will see

On banning state regulations, we can't agree

They say the only regulation needed is a federal light touch

Because these stupid assholes spent way too much.

They put all our eggs into one AI basket

Why trust them now that the economy is in a casket?

Our economy is fucked either way

But handing over our rights won't make it magically ok

They'll have to figure it out, like we do with tariffs and inflation

Tell them to eat our AI regulations

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

States rights huh?

Just keep letting them take it all from you.

Good thing you’ve planned small protests once a month or so on weekends.

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Well large or small be sure to cover your face at protests (or even anytime you walk outside) bc my state is now using facial recognition AI to track and profile people on a watchlist or even people that maybe kind of look like them

If this passes the Senate your state will be doing it too, and if my theory about why they are starting all this here in my city is correct, then when they use the various states national guardsmen to march across state lines and enforce Trump's federal immigration laws, even the bluest state will be forced to comply

Blue cities within red states being used to test run full scale U.S. authoritarian takeovers?

[–] tla@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I raise your facial recognition with biometric gait analysis. Covering your face doesn't hack it. https://www.biometricsinstitute.org/types-of-biometrics-gait/

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Also doesn't hack what my city apparently quietly allowed as of 2022 when they rolled back previous bans on predictive policing tech and created a new ordinance with very bare minimum regulations (which the city still violated)

That provision could, for the first time, give the city explicit permission to use a whole host of surveillance technology in certain circumstances, including voice recognition, x-ray vans, “through the wall radar,” social media monitoring software, “tools used to gain unauthorized access to a computer,” and more.

Through the wall x-ray surveillance?! Oh yeah also created the initial ban after it was revealed they were secretly partnering with Palantir for several years, so probably not a coincidence

I just found this all out a few days ago, but if we all learn to shimmy and wear sheets of lead 24/7 maybe we'll be able to get around it

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Guess I can let my AI robot with gun mount roam and fire at will with zero consequences now, huh?

[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you work for a corporation, sure why not?

If you're just firing as a citizen absolutely not!

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

Incorporate the mobile autonomous gun platform as an LLC. Problem solved

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

"states rights"

[–] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

AI is going to be T-1000s in ten years! WTAF. Let's take something moving at light speed and ignore laws for it for a decade. WCGW?

[–] shaquilleoatmeal@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

I thought they were really big on “state’s rights?”