Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.

unless it involves abortions, then it's whatever the Republican parties want to punish women. Or minorities. or black people.

Infact, rules only matter when we're talking about people we dont like.

Do you plan on selling the fetuses? This is associated with commerce and inter-state use.

During Covid, their were individual state laws around employment vaccinations.

Not really. The only reason California was able to do this is because it got waivers for the federal law preemption rule (in the Clean Air Act).

We’re currently in the process of revoking California’s exception. However that’s a more complicated legal issue than the feds get to do whatever they want.

Who is “we” in this sentence?

America. It’s going through the courts which means California is involved as are other interested parties.

Does the interestate commerce clause preclude state laws pertaining to implementation and usage?

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?

States already have a wide range of very restrictive laws on the sale and use of firearms and alcohol. Neither of these categories get challenged on interstate commerce grounds, if they get challenged.

Do you have an example of an AI state rule that does not obey the interstate commerce law?

Thanks for confirming what we always knew - you never actually gave two shits about states rights, thus confirming OPs point.

I'd love to see Wickard v. Filburn overturned, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. This is the reality we live in.

Most state laws would also run a foul of Bernstein v DOJ: computer code is free speech just like French is.