The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted.

Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy.

So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a friend.

The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties. (§70302, p.562)

It is almost as if the tech bros have gotten what they paid for.

This will soon be settled once the Butlerian forces get organize.

""" ... IN GENERAL .—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act...

"""

(It goes on)

That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

Right, because more regulation makes things so much better.

I’d rather have unrestricted AI than moated regulatory capture paid for by the largest existing players.

Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.

So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.

This is "more regulation" on the states (from the "states' rights" party, no less), and concentrates the potential for regulatory capture into the largest player, the Feds. Who just accepted a $400M gift from Qatar and have a Trump cryptocurrency that gets you access to the President.

  « (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. »

Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state passing their own laws on that topic.

> 70302. Restriction of funds No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the injunction or order has to post a bond as security?

Ok. From the party of “states rights” that’s a bit hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.

The strong federal government that bans regulation?

They're not banning regulation, they want total control over it.

Dobbs did not force states to regulate abortion. It allowed them to.

They in fact are banning regulation at the state and local level.

Yes, the required security is proportional to the costs and damages of all parties the court may find wrongfully impacted.

Yes, which is a big fat regulation on what states and local governments can do.

Yes, that's the hypocrisy.

Abortion: "Let the states regulate! States' rights! Small government! (Because we know we'll get our way in a lot of them.)"

AI: "Don't let the states regulate! All hail the Feds! (Because we know we won't get our way if they do.)"

It's unsurprising this stuff gets flagged. Half of the Americans on this site voted for this because "regulation bad" or some such. As if mega corps have our best interest at heart and will never do anything blatantly harmful to make a buck.

Would removing their regulation to ban regulation be banning regulation or not?

I agree that the policy approach is inconsistent with regards to states' rights. I was simply pointing out that your statement about the effects of Dobbs was false.

Ah, so it would need to be so steep as to be prohibitive for most small plaintiffs?

You cannot possibly be that uninformed. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/qatar-plane-t...

I haven't followed those discussions (assuming there have been any kind of public discussions) but I guess the justification behind this is that IA is such a strategic industry for the USA that no state should dare to interfere.

Like, say, the development of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't that have been awfull for the US people if, for instance, say the state of Nevada or the Marshall Islands could have banned nuclear tests..? /s

Prosecutors, too. They're also movants.

Yes, you're certainly right about that, without the /s.

> Who is Mullin?

A blowhard who shouldn't be in the Senate. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/stand-your-butt-up-gop-sen-m...

> When did Qatar start the process of gifting that jet from Boeing?

As far as anyone can determine, very recently. There's no evidence backing Mullin's transparent effort at redirecting blame.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics/trump-adminstration-...

"The Trump administration, however, wanted a replacement plane much faster, and the Air Force was exploring different options for doing so. At the same time, Trump tasked his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff with finding a list of viable planes, a senior White House official told CNN."

Trump publicly bragged about being the one to decide to accept it, as well.

> Cancel your NYT sub.

I don't have one.

Not my statement.

ah correct, the statement I was replying to.