Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.
Infact, rules only matter when we're talking about people we dont like.
During Covid, their were individual state laws around employment vaccinations.
For example, can a state outlaw public plate/facial recognition cameras, or usage of social network data and AI by local police?
You could still buy AI, but The People decided you can't use it on the public for anything and everything just because big tech profits.
Or has that become the point of the interstate commerce clause, that big companies can maximize profits in cooperation (lobbying) with one federal government, instead of being inconvenienced with the laws of fifty states, in this the richest country of the world?
Unfortunately other people hear the ideas, internalize them, and repeat them, without recognizing any contradictions.
These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.
so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.
Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.
Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.
So not exactly bewildering, I personally saw it as closer to inevitable. The Supreme Court never had the power to legislate, it can only interpret, and a shaky interpretation always has an expiration date no matter how popular it is.
The court invalidated part of an existing law passed by Congress, it didn’t create a national framework in the absence of any law never passed by Congress
The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.
I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.
To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.
If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...
Why do you say this? Going by MAGA types online, they seem extremely willing to rely on it for opinions and to generate political 'art'.
It seems to me that meme usage tells a decidedly different story.
Those of us who want to "unnormalize" porn consider that a feature.
Here are some collected anecdotes, including Adams delighting in an explicit caricature he saw passed around at a dinner in France that portrayed Franklin with a female personification of America.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20090161?seq=9
Also therein:
> Thus, while certainly not a roué, Adams-though he may have envied Franklin's flair for the courtly graces, and may have frowned slightly upon Franklin's way with the ladies-does not really seem to have felt much indignation toward the sage's somewhat uninhibited private life, and neither of these things can be interpreted as being decisive factors in turning Adams against Franklin.
So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?
#2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.
The Republican party under Trump is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same tired old story since the 1990s. Which I guess is my real complaint. You're just throwing out a 30 year old party line to get votes, not to derive any insight, or to engage with any plan to _fight_ this insanity. I mean, what would the solution be, just end the Republican party and move to a one party state?
That it was at the top of the thread I found rather cheap and frivolous.
I think you're operating from a very cherry picked and limited set of facts about political operations over the past 50 years.
They shot JFK and still act like they have no clue how it happened. They murdered a president and felt they didn't have to get justice for him.