I think the actual goal is to destroy and sell off as much as possible of the government before then, turning what remains of democratic accountability into a noop - converting much of our society into foreign-owned "private property", making what core government functions remain effectively just hooks into unaccountable corporate services, and effectively cementing the corporate-authoritarian dystopia that we all thought we might have a chance of avoiding. We've been suffering the ratchet dynamic nibbling away at individual liberty for decades (alternating back and forth between corporate and government pushes), but I think "AI", cryptocurrencies, and filter bubbles have finally given these looters the gall to try kicking over the whole apple cart to divide amongst themselves.
[0] putting aside the whole Democrats talk a good game about chasing the corporate Road Runner but somehow never quite get him dynamic
Not saying the hacks and patches are ideal, but we've come a long way without changing the underlying Constitutional code.
It used to be I could read supreme court opinions for this kind of sincere analysis but it seems like the time for discussions like this time is gone.
The commerce clause is interpreted extremely broadly. It's basically unfixable though, because so many decades of laws rely on it, and passing a constitutional amendment to just directly grant the federal government a bunch of powers, even ones it already has, is politically impossible. (indeed passing any non-trivial amendment at all is very unlikely for the foreseeable future)
"Silicon Valley" isn't aligned with the GOP on any issue but these guys just love it when a few VCs brains break because it gives them a chance to lump every engineer in with the maga chuds.
Sure he's not a "marginal player" but the recent stream of attacks from publications like this to generalize his actions and beliefs out to the general "Silicon Valley" is straight up disinformation.
“This amendment is the direct result of a campaign by Google, Meta, OpenAI, and venture capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz—and their dozens of trade associations […]”
They are hardly saying that all of SV, or all software engineers, espouse trumpism or are otherwise on the same page politically. They don’t have to make up nebulous accusations if those mentioned by name are indeed behind it.
I do think the article could have been better edited for clarity. I can see how someone could struggle to see exactly what allegations they are leveling, given the amount of quite sweeping criticism of AI firms.
I encourage anyone working in tech to do some soul searching here. Are you comfortable putting your effort into a venture that acts the way they allegedly do according to the article? If not, the only sensible way is to look for other employment. As an employee, you will never convince a corporation to act in opposition to the interests of its shareholders. It’s a fool’s errand to try to fix Google’s ethics from within.
Weird priorities.
Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie
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.
That’s the reason it is different for the GOP
"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!)
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?
Because if they were trying to harmonize AI regulations then they would do it federally instead of just banning states from doing anything. (Federal regulations generally trump state regulations, at least wherever the state regulation is weaker or absent.)
I don't see why there would be any more pressing reasons than for other fields, say climate or energy regulation (looking at you, Texas) or of course the classic: personal choices of sexuality and reproduction. Yet no one is trying to ban state laws there, on the contrary.
Notably, it was a hypocritical dishonest mess from the very beginning. For example, slavers used federal power to force other states to allow violent crimes inside their territory, and later the Confederacy's Constitution forever banned member states' rights to not have slavery.
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.
Abortion protection should exist at a federal level because it's healthcare. If a pregnant woman is traveling and has an emergency that requires an abortion she should be able to receive one regardless of what state she's in.
Vaccine mandates are a federal issue because the virus doesn't give a shit about state lines and right of movement is a thing neither states nor the federal government can restrict.
AI is a state issue because it can be contained within a particular state. It works like pornography bans. If you are in a state that bans pornography you can't distribute it nor consume it regardless of whether it originated on a computer outside the state.
Marijuana should be a state issue for the same reason. Whether you're allowed to import it from outside the country or if you move your marijuana from a legal state to an illegal state is a federal issue. Whether states that ban it should have to respect medical cards is a federal issue.
Education is a federal issue because the state has an interest in children getting a quality public education even if they move.
Nobody is all federal or all states rights. To do so would literally be unamerican.
I think the first amendment preserves the right to read and write, including arbitrary computer programs, dare I even say pornographic ones. I agree the rest of your post though.
One thing to note is that this may also be a way to block progressive policies before they end up in the Federal government. Putting a ten year ban would effectively do that.
This feels like a weak argument these days. It can be trivially played both ways, “GOP actually favors limited government, look at abortion,” vs “GOP actually favors powerful government, look at immigration crackdown”
There isn’t consistency on this one way or the other. I don’t think there needs to be but we shouldn’t pretend that there is for the sake of argument.
But both parties are like this - it’s not just Republicans.
It’s all about who gets power? who gets protection? who gets punished?
As established when Phil Zimmerman published PGP, software is speech and any restrictions on that speech must be enacted in a way consistent with the first ammendment.
State governments ignoring the constitution to prevent ai-related speech seems like a problem worth solving.
latentcall•3mo ago
8note•3mo ago
the oil companies are still doing the worst, along with the oil burners like car and plane operators.
ai on nuclear or solar isnt doing much bad for the planet
Hikikomori•3mo ago
treyd•3mo ago
Hikikomori•3mo ago
watwut•3mo ago
sph•3mo ago
Spivak•3mo ago
The combination of being sure they know how the world works (like a business of course), surrounding themselves with sycophants, and being smart enough to convince themselves of anything which makes them get high off the smell of their own farts, leads to terrible garbage like our current administration.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF•3mo ago
The damage has been caused by media and career politicians’ use of such. You’re right that they’re not overtly dangerous in office (doing crazy things means you don’t get re-elected) but that just makes the negative effects of their actions less obvious, not less severe.
> people whose entire career is [dedicated] to public service
I accept this framing for the career administrators who have (or had) a job to do. A person who makes a career out of repeatedly being elected to public leadership positions might fall under that umbrella but seems to have a higher propensity for dishonest behavior. Put another way: a career politician is not necessarily a career civil servant, there just happens to be some overlap.
whyenot•3mo ago
immibis•3mo ago
firesteelrain•3mo ago
I am not sure what circles you operate but I have never heard anyone at the layman level state any sort of distrust of software engineers.
bradlys•3mo ago
End of the day, they’re laborers and they have no choice on what is being built. It’s not like most people in software are making enough to own a home in SV on their own anyway. It’s still a dual (tech) income (or big windfall) market.
firesteelrain•3mo ago
bergie•3mo ago
Which is by itself a moral (immoral?) stance, saying that you don't have problems doing all kinds of evil stuff as long as the money is good.
bradlys•3mo ago
latentcall•3mo ago
bradlys•3mo ago
overfeed•3mo ago
danaris•3mo ago
Not the tech company executives making billions, with a b.
Not Wall Street, that demands infinite, ever-increasing growth.
Software engineers.
Right.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF•3mo ago
To be fair, they did include this group. I’m also not sure the number-goes-up investors are “the” problem (perhaps “a” problem) or if they’re just acting rationally in an inflationary economy, which does seem to be a problem with far-reaching consequences.
But I agree that the problem is pretty far removed from the workers working for a paycheck, regardless of what they do; someone is paying them to do it, maybe criticize that first.
danaris•3mo ago
rcpt•3mo ago
52-6F-62•3mo ago
It soured me on all of it in a big way.
rcpt•3mo ago