By Matt Brown and Matt O’Brien
Washington (AP) – The Républicains of the Chamber surprised the observers of the technological industry and indignant states when they added a clause to the signing of the republicans “Big and Beautiful” tax invoice which would prohibit states and localities to regulate artificial intelligence for a decade.
The short but substantial provision, nestled in the radical marking of the energy and trade committee, would be a major boon for the AI industry, which has put pressure for uniform and light touch regulations while technological companies develop a technology that they promise will transform society.
However, while the clause would be a large range if it was promulgated, it faces long chances in the American Senate, where the rules of procedure can condemn its inclusion in the legislation of the GOP.
“I do not know if it will adopt the Byrd rule,” said senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, referring to a provision that requires that all parties of a budgetary reconciliation bill, such as the GOP plan, focus mainly on budgetary issues rather than the general policy objectives.
“It looks like me a change of policy. I will not speculate on what the parliamentarian will do, but I think he is unlikely to do it,” said Cornyn.
The senators of the two parties have expressed interest in artificial intelligence and believe that Congress should take the lead in the regulation of technology. But although legislators have introduced dozens of bills, including certain bipartite efforts, which would have an impact on artificial intelligence, few have seen significant progress in the deeply divided congress.
An exception is a bipartite bill which should be signed by President Donald Trump next week which would promulgate more strict sanctions on the distribution of intimate images of “revenge”, both real and generated by AI, without the consent of a person.
“The AI does not understand the boundaries of the state, it is therefore extremely important that the federal government is that which establishes interstate trade. It is in our constitution. You cannot have a patchwork of 50 states,” said Senator Bernie Moreno, a republican of Ohio. But Moreno said he was not sure whether the ban on the House could reach the Senate procedure.
The provision of AI in the bill stipulates that “no state or political subdivision can apply a law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems or automated decision -making systems.” The language could prohibit regulations on systems ranging from popular commercial models such as Chatgpt to those who help make decisions on which is hired or finds accommodation.
State regulations on the use of AI in business, research, public services, educational circles and the government would be prohibited.
The repression of the Congress against the regulation of the State directed by the State is part of a broader decision led by the Trump administration to eliminate the policies and the commercial approaches which have sought to limit the misdeeds of the AI and the omnipresent bias.
Until now, half of all American states have promulgated legislation regulating Deepfakes in political campaigns, according to a tracker of the Citizen public surveillance organization.
Most of these laws have been adopted in the past year, while incidents in the democratic elections around the world in 2024 highlighted the threat of audio clips, videos and realistic images to deceive voters.
The Senator of the State of California, Scott Wiener, described the republican proposal “really raw” in an article on social networks. Wiener, a Democrat in San Francisco, wrote Landmark legislation last year that would have created first -word security measures for advanced artificial intelligence models. The bill was opposed to his veto by the governor of California Gavin Newsom, a Democratic colleague from San Francisco.
“Congress is incapable of significant AI regulations to protect the public. It is however quite capable of not acting while prohibiting states from acting,” wrote Wiener.
A bipartite group of dozens of state -of -the -art prosecutors also sent a letter to the congress to oppose the bill.
“AI brings a real promise, but also a real danger, and South Carolina has done hard work to protect our citizens,” said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, a republican, in a statement. “Now, instead of intensifying with real solutions, the Congress wants to attach our hands to us and push a unique mandate from Washington without a clear direction. It is not leadership, it is a federal overtaking.”
As the debate takes place, the leaders of the AI industry continue on research while competing with competitors to develop the best AI – and most widely used systems. They pushed federal legislators to uniform rules and without intrusion on technology, saying that they must quickly move to the latest models to compete with Chinese companies.
Sam Altman, CEO of Chatgpt Maker Openai, testified during an audience in the Senate last week that a “patchwork” of regulations on AI “would be quite heavy and considerably altered our ability to do what we have to do”.
“A federal framework, that is to say a light touch, that we can understand and which allows us to move with the speed that this moment calls seems important and well,” Altman told Senator Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican.
And Senator Ted Cruz launched the idea of a 10 -year “learning period” for AI at the same audience, which included three other leaders in technology companies.
“Do you want to support a 10-year learning period on states issuing complete AI regulation, or a form of federal pre-emption to create a uniform playground for AI developers and employers?” asked the Texas Republican.
Altman replied that he was “not sure of what a 10 -year learning period means, but I think that having a federal approach focused on the light touch and a uniform playground seems great.”
Microsoft’s president Brad Smith also offered a measured support to “give the country the time” in the way the limited American regulations allowed the start of trade on the Internet.
“There are a lot of details that must be hammered, but to give the federal government the possibility of directing, in particular in the fields concerning product security and pre-liberation and others, would help this industry develop,” said Smith.
It was a change, at least in tone, for some of the executives. Altman had testified in the congress two years ago on the need for AI regulation, and Smith, five years ago, congratulated Microsoft’s original state in Washington for its “important breakthrough” by passing the first railings of the first in the nation on the use of facial recognition, a form of AI.
Ten GOP senators said they were friendly at the idea of creating a national framework for AI. But if the majority can work with Democrats to find a solution to the test of obstacles is not clear.
“I am not opposed to the concept. In fact, interstate trade suggests that it is the responsibility of the congress to regulate these types of activities and not the states, “said Senator Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican.
“If we are going to do it as a state by state, we will have a real waste in our hands,” said Rounds.
O’Brien reported to Providence, Rhode Island. The AP Ali Swenson writers in New York, Jesse Bedayn in Denver, Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, South Carolina, and Trân Nguyễn in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
