Congress must be in charge of regulating artificial intelligence on a national basis. Otherwise, the state will endanger the “patchwork” of competing state law, as would have happened in data privacy without federal lawsuits.
Rep. Jay Obernolte – a California Republican who co-chaired the House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, which published a lengthy report on how lawmakers approach technology late last year – AI “very clearly has an interstate commerce issue.” He said that. It must take priority over state law. Without them, he said, could see a continuing disruption in regulations.
“If we allow 50 different state regulations to exist, what we created is a major barrier to entry into innovation,” Obernolte said this week at the Net Conference stage in Washington, DC. “If you’re Google, instead of choosing them, they have a building full of lawyers. They can actually navigate that complex regulatory environment. People who can’t navigate , two people in the garage that are about to start the next Google.”
State House lawmakers across the country have proposed hundreds of bills related to AI, with many regulating in areas such as consumer protection, deepfakes and how governments use technology. That’s what I mean. Meanwhile, most governors have issued executive orders and other guidance to regulate the use of state AI and to help agencies make the most of it at work.
In addition to these efforts, the possibility that continues this year has created a “substantial science fair” in the United States, said Abhi Nemani, former chief data officer of Los Angeles, senior vice president of product strategy at software company Euna. It states. Solution. However, Congress may feel the need to intervene in national regulations to ensure a level of uniformity.
Of more than 80 unanimously approved recommendations, the bipartisan House Task Force explores federal and state laws that could affect AI development and use, and where Congress is ahead of its state law. He said that he should understand. The report said the federal government’s preemption is “complicated” and has both positive and negative.
“Federal preemption in state law provides uniformity and clarity, reduces the burden of compliance and otherwise implements Congressional policy goals,” the report said. “However, state-level regulations have the advantages of experiments that provide information related to flexibility, customization for different state populations, preserving state authority, and policy choices.”
Advance allows Congress to set up a floor or ceiling under state law, whether it meets federal minimum standards or does not exceed federal maximum standards. But the House report says that preemption could be “very multifaceted,” meaning the federal government cannot choose to preempt some state laws.
However, parliamentary inaction can lead to chaos. Obernolte was portrayed in parallel with data privacy laws. This failed to gain traction at the federal level despite extensive public support and bipartisan efforts in both chambers. Without federal data privacy laws, the condition led to a headache for businesses in their own way as states navigate through various frameworks.
“We can never allow that to happen with AI,” Obernolte said. “Frankly, you’re watching these states act at the federal level to fill the void left in AI regulations, giving people confidence that Congress can act on this issue. It needs to be.”
Already, federal lawmakers have introduced several bills that deal at least several aspects of AI, and are likely to follow that. And in the state, the state legislature’s national meeting said AI will continue to work, taking into account lawmakers’ interest in the potential and already impacts that technology has.
Congress must act, Obernolte said, otherwise the current trend in state law will only accelerate. “We can’t preempt anything without anything, so we need to give that confidence to the nation,” he said.
