The AI creates alliances so unlikely that even George RR Martin couldn’t have seen them coming. Politicians on both sides are criticizing an executive order signed last week by President Trump that aims to limit states’ ability to regulate AI.
Critics from both sides differ on key points, but indicate that the future of AI regulation will not be as simple as “left” and “right.” And the decree itself indicates that the the conflict has started.
What does the EO do? It aims to prevent states from adopting their own AI regulations in favor of a “single national framework” for managing the technology. The White House says a patchwork approach to regulating AI would stifle innovation and make it harder to compete with China — a position also taken by the tech companies that have pushed for such regulation.
Nearly half of all U.S. states have some form of AI Regulationaccording to BCLP, including laws that limit algorithmic pricing and prohibit commercial use of certain AI creations. Legal challenges are expected.
AI fault lines ≠ party lines
The consequences relate to a familiar dynamic: Democrats are advocating for greater consumer protectionand Republicans, including Trump, say it’s important to streamline regulations to promote innovation in business. But several GOP leaders have publicly expressed their disagreement:
- Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called the order a “big tech subsidy” and expressed concern that it would dilute states’ rights.
- MAGA stalwart Steve Bannon says AI needs more regulation, calling it “the most dangerous technology in human history” that will lead to a “jobs apocalypse.” This reflects some of the same concerns expressed by left-wing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
What does the public think? According to a September Gallup poll, 80% of Americans believe that the government should give priority AI security, even if it leads to slower growth. But the Wall Street Journal reports that concerns about AI have reached “no level of prominence in voter surveys,” despite the fact that companies are “collectively committing billions of dollars to the technology.”British Columbia