Seems pretty vague to me, but IANAL.
"So, hypothetically, in a state with a right-to-compute law on the books, any bill put forward to limit AI or computation, even to prevent harm, could be halted while the courts worked it out. That could include laws limiting data centers as well.
“The government has to prove regulation is absolutely necessary and there’s no less restrictive way to do it,” Wilcox said. “Most oversight can’t clear that bar. That’s the point. Pre-deployment safety testing? Algorithmic bias audits? Transparency requirements? All would face legal challenge. "
My take: This sounds incredibly pro-industry and anti-democratic.
j-bos•1h ago
While I appreciate bringing attention to ongoing changes in the tech/legal landscape, I'll get my rundowns from a source that doesn't blindly repeat this broken assertion. Doesn't speak well of their research practices.
AnthonyMouse•54m ago
Hasn't stopped every authoritarian from parroting the quote whenever they want to censor something.
comex•28m ago
schoen•2m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
AnthonyMouse•1m ago
Is it though? If you're putting on a play, and there is a fire in the script, e.g. in a play criticizing that decision, can the government punish you for putting on the play because of the risk it could cause a panic? If there is actually a fire in the theater, can they punish you for telling people? What if there isn't actually a fire but you believe that there is?
Not only is it useless as an analogy, the thing itself is so overbroad that even the unqualified literal interpretation is more of a prohibition than would actually be permissible.