White House Unveils National AI Policy Framework To Limit State Power 78
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The Trump administration on Friday issued (PDF) a legislative framework for a single national policy on artificial intelligence, aiming to create uniform safety and security guardrails around the nascent technology while preempting states from enacting their own AI rules.
The six-pronged outline broadly proposes a slew of regulations on AI products and infrastructure, ranging from implementing new child-safety rules to standardizing the permitting and energy use of AI data centers. It also calls on Congress to address thorny issues surrounding intellectual-property rights and craft rules "preventing AI systems from being used to silence or censor lawful political expression or dissent."
The administration said in an official release that it wants to work with Congress "in the coming months" to convert its framework into a bill that President Donald Trump can sign. The White House wants to codify the framework into law "this year" and believes it can generate bipartisan support, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an interview with Fox News on Thursday evening. That won't be easy in a deeply divided Congress where Republicans hold thin and often fractious majorities, and where Trump has already urged GOP lawmakers to prioritize his controversial voter-ID bill above all else ahead of the November midterms. BCLP has an interactive map that tracks the proposed, failed and enacted AI regulatory bills from each state.
The administration said in an official release that it wants to work with Congress "in the coming months" to convert its framework into a bill that President Donald Trump can sign. The White House wants to codify the framework into law "this year" and believes it can generate bipartisan support, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an interview with Fox News on Thursday evening. That won't be easy in a deeply divided Congress where Republicans hold thin and often fractious majorities, and where Trump has already urged GOP lawmakers to prioritize his controversial voter-ID bill above all else ahead of the November midterms. BCLP has an interactive map that tracks the proposed, failed and enacted AI regulatory bills from each state.
The party of the selective states' rights (Score:2, Insightful)
A.K.A. the trump scumbag pedo party of constant war for fake causes.
Hehehe.
Re:The party of the selective states' rights (Score:4, Insightful)
TL;DR
An AI lobby group paid (bought Trumpcoin) in order for Trump to sign a worthless guidance framework that presses all the trigger buttons: Child protection, copyright protection, free speech and censorship protection, and american worker dominance. He alludes that he will promote this to congress (as soon as the next payment clears).
The only thing Trump understands about AI is that it makes great videos of him in fighter jets shit bombing journalists.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny as fuck when you argue with yourself... what side wins?
Re: (Score:1)
Who knew education and voting had consequences?
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides of your self-contradiction can lose by being false. It is only forbidden that both sides be true. But when you find the self-contradiction you've already spotted the liar without checking anything.
Time to review my ontology of lies? The first three levels actually started with Heinlein, but the YOB forced me to rethink and expand the scale.
Level 1: Counterfactual. Any fool can check the facts.
Level 2: Partial truth. Where normal lawyers and politicians usually work, but it can require a lot of ef
Re: (Score:1)
And, you didn't post any examples... this is your "international forum"... make your point stick!
So much for state's rights. (Score:5, Interesting)
And I get all politicians lie and blah blah blah but if they're going to sit there and lie to you about fundamental principles what makes you think that they're going to not fuck you over? What makes you think you're part of the club?
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The lesser of two evils.
Start where you stand, and work with whatever tools you may have at your command, and better tools will be found as you go along.
I think the actual Christian bible has a few things to say about those though. Like:
"Abstain from all evil"
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..."
and "And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."
Yeah but they don't look at it like that (Score:4, Informative)
It's such a common phenomenon that there's a entire meme about it called leopards eating faces that comes from a old Twitter post about a woman sobbing because she never thought the leopards would eat her face after voting for The leopards eating faces party...
Re: Yeah but they don't look at it like that (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the page referred to about leopards eating faces: https://www.reddit.com/r/Leopa... [reddit.com]
It's a bunch of stories about people who voted for Trump and who then suffer unforeseen (by them but not by anyone with at least two neurones) consequences for it. It's very depressing.
Re: (Score:3)
What does it feel like to be a manbaby?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because Trump is the result of a backlash against Obama's policies, so anyone who voted for Obama got eaten. I think the world would be a better place if we had elected Romney.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, that... you, of course, realize they're all the same... Republicans or Democrats (or any other party)... they use the military as a global police force, push through policies that make money for "the right people", don't help the "little people" like they 'said', don't follow through with much/most of what they campaign on.
What's so much more wrong with Trump than any other President?
(and... proof is good, excluding any of rsilvergun's posts and anything from Fark) Maybe you'd rather the cartel mov
Re: Yeah but they don't look at it like that (Score:1)
I think the world would be a better place if we had elected Romney.
Bill Maher made the same observation when he regretting treating Romney the way he did in the election.
But don't you remember, Romney put a beloved family dog in a cage on top of his car when driving to family vacations, once purportedly forced an unwanted haircut on a gay classmate and (this is the big one) as governor of Massachusetts had the audacity to gather up the resumes of highly-qualified professional women he wanted to consider for important state offices IN BINDERS! Which, apparently is the same
Re: (Score:3)
It's not depressing. It's hilarious. They wanted to stick to the libs, and here we are. That they were too stupid to understand what was going to happen is fully on them.
As the saying goes, actions have consequences.
Re: Yeah but they don't look at it like that (Score:2)
I mean, it can be both at the same time. I don't really enjoy the funny side of it myself these days, but knock yourself out. Mostly I find it depressing that there is so much hate and stupidity. I still think it's good that someone is keeping track.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll play devil's advocate here. You know what has "happened" to your average Republican these days? Higher prices on stuff. None of it has really changed our lives all that much. In fact, my life is pretty much the same for the past 5 years. Biden or Trump, prices have gone up. The reasons are different but in a practical sense, it all feels the same.
The main difference is which talking head is in charge. People like to hear things they agree with. Democrats will nod along with Biden/Harris while Republica
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly... whoever is in office, it makes _almost_ no difference.
The immigration push may well nudge the cost of living down a bit... it's most likely not going to be happening tomorrow.
As for the "hurting us in the long run"... if I could get a ride to a nearby farm, I'd happily spend my days planting and harvesting corn or whatever for $8 an hour... any money I make drives my rent up ($51 right now... HRA owned... a third of my income, $51 minimum... a one-bedroom apartment, power and sewer and garbage in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who works around a lot of Mexican-American citizens that are 3rd generation, you'd be surprised how little love-loss their is for those south of the border. They don't give two shits about South of Mexico. Many don't even care about Mexico at this point. It's not like Latin America is some big happy family. Same as Asia is not some big happy family. These are individual cultures that have history.
Also, a lot of Cubans that made it here, aka got to dry land, really do not like the Cuban government
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's just the modern Democrats that want authoritarianism. Republicans also seem to be okay with it as well. They both want to control the federal government and tell the rest of us how to live. The Democrats have always seemed this way to me but the Republicans have caught up the last 15 years. Neither party seems to really value freedom over authoritarianism these days.
That's regardless of whether you want to label it communism or fascism or whatever *ism they want to trot out.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, no disagreement then. The only good thing that can come from a blue wave is to impeach Trump and remove him from office. But then we're stuck with that for two years, which is probably worth it.
I'm sick of all the shit I see from them daily in California. The moment you start doing well here, as I've been doing lately, the system here treats you like you're the bad guy. Republicans complain about Gavin Newsom, who I don't like myself either, but he seems to be the only thing preventing his party from go
Re: (Score:2)
"Leopards eating faces"
The original citation for the Leopards Eating Faces Party, by author Adrian Bott: https://x.com/Cavalorn/status/... [x.com]
"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."
It's a reference to people being surprised by consequences of their actions that are not just obvious side effects but the the entire point, and thereby eliciting no sympathy.
And now I've explained the joke, so I'll go sit in the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: understanding is increased, but the frog dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda hard to take you seriously when you don't even know about leopard eating faces. Speaks to a great confidence but zero domain knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
And, what... pray tell... does just another internet meme have to do with a conversation about how the US government wants to limit AI... which, conversation-wise, got derailed into how Republicans are evil/wrong.
Re: Yeah but they don't look at it like that (Score:1)
With regards to the article... is 'Republicans trying to put a limit on AI' a bad thing? Would Harris have done better?
Because the Trump administration is proposing working with Congress to draft a national A.I. policy Democrats are obliged to declare it, what, Jim Crow 3.0?
The ability to not reflexively object to anything and everything Trump says or Does has got Democrats in the street DEMANDING convicted pedophiles, spousal abusers, armed robbers, rapists, even murderers who happen to have entered the country illegally need to stay in their community because, wait for it, keeping them in their neighborhoods makes them fe
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, if the Dems introduced a candidate who looked like Ronnie Raygun, you'd vote for him. Anyone to the left of that, who more than half the country wants, you don't want, even if it would actually benefit *you*, personally. (Medicare for all?)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah... and memes (or is it meme's) don't do anything to back your argument up, at all.
Does it apply to the Democrats, also?
We are able to vote for whoever the f**k we want... and, still, we can like some policy or whatever that the other person ran their campaign on.
Even after the fact.
So... is it strictly limited to only Trump that sets you off, or is it when someone speaks out in some way that isn't your specific way of thinking?
Re:So much for state's rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, but letting the states regulate this within their borders would interfere with Trump and his donors getting even richer, probably at our expense.
Re: (Score:1)
So... roll the tape back a bit.
Before the release of the Epstein Files, there wasn't anyone ever who did anything bad, ever, in the Office?
Did Obama or Clinton or Bush or anyone ever do anything "under the radar"? Proof?
Did Trump? Proof?
Without proof, you're just spouting nonsense...
I just for the "most likely to make a difference" person... whether that person is R or D, I don't care.
Re: (Score:1)
I shouldn't say anything... but it's kinda fun to egg'em on.
At what point did I say anything about making America/"everything" as shitty as Russia?
Hail to our Russian folks! (Nostrovia! My friends!)
AC... (and rsilvergun... still haven't proved you aren't one and the same)... your viewpoint is way too narrow...
Putinites? New term, there... you're saying America is no better than (or exhibits traits or something closer to) 1/2 Russia?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
"The thing I don't get about Republican voters, the politically aware of ones not the ones who are just clueless and trying" = I'll give you a second chance on that one... grammar is a thing, buddy... and it can make the difference between intelligible and nonsense.
So, ignoring all the responses since you posted your post... you have a free second chance here... okay, everyone?
You can reformulate your post as you like (I hate the no edit a post thing here, too... so, you have a chance)
The second sentence...
Re: (Score:2)
The second sentence... you need a grammar check, there.
If you insist on being a grammar Nazi, you should at least clean up your own grammar first. The comma in the sentence I quoted is both redundant and awkward.
I hate the no edit a post thing here, too...
Really? Anyone with even the most modest pretensions of being a grammarian would blanch at that sentence. I suggest that you put your own house in order before criticizing the grammar of others.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how nothing flags that comma as wrong.
The 'no edit' part was in parentheses, considering it wasn't part of the main post (as in, it was an afterthought).
I don't have "modest pretentions of being a grammarian" or anything similar, I was pointing out how "The thing I don't get about Republican voters, the politically aware of ones not the ones who are just clueless and trying" doesn't make any kind of sense... 'aware of ones not the ones'... that's a big "Huh?".
Plus, I love getting rsilvergun and his c
Re: (Score:2)
A number of them are caught in the mentality (excuse) that everyone else would act the same way if given the opportunity while at the same time taking it for granted, unstated, that public opinion must be dictated to the unthinking masses (who, for the purposes of this rationalisation, definitely don't do more or better work than an executive). Therefore the only possible explanation is that their personal political enemies have fooled the people into hating them, and that's the whole mechanism in play.
Whet
Re: (Score:2)
States have no rights in the American system. They have powers, insofar as they exercise them.
Humans have rights, granted by God, as the default religious basis for the Natural Rights Republic.
You'll notice that Regulating AI appears nowhere in Article I , and Federalist 10 explains why these powers were strictly limited.
Yet the Political/Parasite class is happy to abrogate their power for power and money and ensure a government school child never hears about The Federalist Papers in thirteen years of compu
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you sound just like a Republican. Politicians of any stripe only wail on about state's rights when they don't control the Federal government. California has been enjoying some state's rights on several issues lately. Texas does the same when the Democrats take over.
It would be nice if we had more individuality for each state, though we do have that now to a lesser extent then was originally envisioned.
Regarding AI. A single framework for the whole country would make the most sense. It's a large enough
Re:So much for state's rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who grew-up in a conservative household and listened to conservative talk radio, the point is this: owning the libs. It's ideological sadism-- deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others as a means of upholding or enforcing a specific belief system, ideology, or social structure. That's the whole point of Trump. That's why he keeps "winning". How else would a crude, pathological liar, insurrectionist, and unrepentant felon get re-elected? He makes people like you miserable. Not only that, Trump proves Niccolo Machiavelli was right. 500 years ago he observed an uncomfortable truth about human psychology and power dynamics that organizational psychologists have since confirmed: malignant narcissism, not competence, is often the strongest predictor of who emerges as a leader.
Personally, I suspect American civilization peaked ~10 years ago. Trump's first term should have been a one and done, but here we are. Democrats may win the upcoming mid-terms and next presidency, but I wouldn't be surprised if the successor of MAGA finds a bigger, more evil idiot. They can't help themselves. It's pathological.
Rampant AM Radio Propaganda (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Republican voters don't have a platform, the only have a side. Their principles can be shut on and off according to what will get them the most power over others.
What counts as 'prevention'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does a DoS attack count as prevention?
Shannon-Hartley's theory-- Capacity Limit: As noise approaches infinity relative to signal, capacity approaches zero, meaning reliable communication becomes impossible without increasing power.
So, DoS attacks effectively prevent communication.
Is AI slop a DoS attack? It sure as heck feels that way...
Sauce for the Goose (Score:2)
"preventing AI systems from being used to silence or censor lawful political expression or dissent."
Meaning no interfering with dangerous and antidemocratic expression from the right.
On the other hand AI providers MUST enable mass surveillance of American citizens and use of AI for autonomous weapons and targeting.
State rights! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it another optional law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good Luck (Score:2)
Good fucking luck getting that over the line after mid-term elections.
Good fucking luck getting anything over the line after mid-term elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Midterm elections? What midterm elections! Those were eliminated.
muh states rights (Score:1)
States' rights are only for slavery
In other words no regulation (Score:2)
The TLDR of the policy framework is don't regulate AI and states should not be able to either.
The one thing from Europe's AI scheme I really liked was the ban on judgement of humans by unaccountable unexplainable bags of weights otherwise I generally also oppose regulation. Any attempt to do so will be hopelessly captured to hoard technology and advance corporate interests.
In a future where AI actually is broadly competitive with human labor rather than just cosplay it won't be the tech companies shoveling
Good move, Donald! (Score:2)
Make life harder for whoever will come after you
I identify as an AI (Score:2)
Although the Administration believes that training of AI models on copyrighted
material does not violate copyright laws, it acknowledges arguments to the contrary
exist and therefore supports allowing the Courts to resolve this issue. Similarly,
Congress should not take any actions that would impact the judiciary’s resolution of
whether training on copyrighted material constitutes fair use.
My argument. If it's ok to use copyrighted material without compensation to train an AI model. I am an AI model and t
Re: (Score:1)
Magas are morons (Score:2)
Filibuster time (Score:2)
Of course the party in power can always vote to eliminate the filibuster provided enough money changes hands or senate leadership is voted out and replaced with someone who will gut the filibuster.
All we really need is one simple rule (Score:2)
1. Computers are not responsible.
Thus AI or any other decisioning system run by a computer should not be making suggestions, giving guidance, or worse taking action in a manner on their own. In all scenarios it should have to be associated with a responsible party (human or company) and that entity is merely using the output of the computer for guidance, as with any other advice, and the decision followed by consequences thereafter is in the hands of that entity — this really doesn't need to be spelle
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the typo (their doing).
No jokes on the big target? (Score:2)
Sadness?