Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 288 posts

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#71

Post by sterlind »

lesuorac wrote: post #50
twisteriffic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've heard, but norms don't matter anymore.

Can you guys just read stuff before talking? > The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose "sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" that clash with the Trump administration's vision for light-touch regulation. The EO isn't about Federal Preemption. Trump's not creating a law to preempt states. So a question about how Federal Preemption is…

the Task Force can try to challenge state AI laws. they can file whatever lawsuits they want. they will probably lose most of their suits, because there's very little ground for challenging state AI regulations.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#72

Post by rubyfan »

roenxi wrote: post #60
rubyfan wrote: post #34

Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

[flagged]

I’m not an expert but my understanding is a slow migration from agriculture oriented jobs to industrial to information jobs. Yes we all have more cheap junk but also economic disparity and a hollowing out of the middle class. That will get worse faster than new types of jobs can be created. Will the new jobs even replace the same levels of income? It seems impossible.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#73

Post by sterlind »

cdrnsf wrote: post #70
throw0101a wrote: post #8

Executive order (EO) count over the last few presidents: * Bush (41): 166 * Clinton (two terms): 364 * Bush (43; two terms): 291 * Obama (two terms): 276 * Trump (45): 220 * Biden: 162 * Trump (47; Source: * https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or... Someone commented that (one of?) the reason that Trump is using EOs so much is probably because is not willing (or able) to actually get deals on in…

EOs also aren't laws, they're instructions on how to execute policy. This administration treats them as the former. Everything they do, however, is petty, cruel and nakedly corrupt while also being marred by a total lack of competence.

I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away soon.

the Major Questions Doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, the mandate for Article III courts from Jarkesy, have been building towards this for a while. the capstone in this program of weakening the administrative state, overturning Humphrey's Executor when Trump v. Slaughter is decided, will likely revive the Intelligible Principle Doctrine, as Justice Gorsuch has hinted. the same trend is apparent in the IEEPA tariffs case, where non-delegation got a lot of airtime.

EOs lose a lot of their punch when the Executive's delegated rulemaking and adjudication powers are returned back to their rightful owners in the other two branches.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#74

Post by TrainedMonkey »

roenxi wrote: post #60
rubyfan wrote: post #34

Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

[flagged]

> we need a hyper-productive world where someone working a few hours a year generates enough wealth to secure a comfortable lifestyle up there with the best of them.

This is naive, productivity increases had decoupled from compensation a long time ago. See https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. I think more likely than not, AI will further stratify our society.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#75

Post by rchaud »

whynotmaybe wrote: post #59
rubyfan wrote: post #34

Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

That's lobbying simplified, no need to pay lobbyist.

This is a tribute system, way past lobbying. Lobbying is cheap, Senators can be bought off for 5-figure sums. CEOs pay lobbyists so they don't have to meet with them personally. What's happening now involves CEOs appearing at political events and lobbying the president personally, to the tune of millions of dollars in declared "donations" for "ballroom construction", in exchange for security guarantees for their business empires.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#76

Post by [deleted] »

roenxi wrote: post #60
rubyfan wrote: post #34

Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#77

Post by IncreasePosts »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #74
roenxi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> we need a hyper-productive world where someone working a few hours a year generates enough wealth to secure a comfortable lifestyle up there with the best of them. This is naive, productivity increases had decoupled from compensation a long time ago. See https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. I…

But humans aren't more productive for the most part. What had made people more productive is, for the most part, mechanization, computerization, and other tech tree improvements.

Even though everyone didn't get rich from the industrial revolution, ultimately people led easier lives, more stuff, and less work.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#78

Post by chroma205 »

gtirloni wrote: post #51
janalsncm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is assaulting people going further your goals? Presumably EOs further the President’s goals.

If it does further my goals then it's fine to punch people in the face?

[flagged]

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#79

Post by oceanplexian »

rubyfan wrote: post #34

Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

> This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.

Where did you get the idea that banning new technology that could eliminate jobs is even remotely an American value?

Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption, which has in turn created millions of jobs that didn't exist before and led to the US running the world's largest economy.

Re: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

#80

Post by Loughla »

treetalker wrote: post #57
lesuorac wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you guys just read stuff before talking? > The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose "sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" that clash with the Trump administration's vision for light-touch regulation. The EO isn't about Federal Preemption. Trump's not creating a law to preempt states. So a question about how Federal Preemption is…

> My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones. … Sounds like leaving it up to Congress! But then the administration vows to thwart state laws despite the vacuum of no extant preemption, so effectively imposing a type of supposed Executive preemption: > Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that…

Also why are they small federal government states rights for things but big federal government centralized power for this? It doesn't make sense to me.
Post reply on HN