Trump considers order to override state regulations on artificial intelligence

Geoff Bennett:

The Trump White House is reportedly drafting an executive order that would override state regulations on artificial intelligence. The order would establish a task force inside the Justice Department to sue and potentially withhold federal funding from states that pass their own A.I. laws.

In a social media post earlier this week, the president wrote — quote — "We must have one federal standard, instead of a patchwork of 50 state regulatory regimes. If we don't, then China will easily catch us in the A.I. race."

Joining us now to break it all down is veteran tech journalist Jacob Ward, founder of The Rip Current.

Jake, it's always good to see you.

Jacob Ward, Founder, The Rip Current:

Geoff, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Geoff Bennett:

Sure.

So, as first reported by The Washington Post, this draft executive order specifically targets new A.I. laws in Colorado and California. What do these laws actually do? What argument do the states make that they are even necessary?

Jacob Ward:

Well, I think the first argument here, Geoff, is that these are absolutely the only laws we have. There are no federal regulations around A.I. at the moment. And so the states have stepped in, right?

There's that famous saying that the states are the laboratory of law, and that is absolutely what's been happening here. So, in a place like, let's say, Colorado, nearly six million people there are protected against discrimination that might come through A.I. when it comes to employment or housing or job applications, health insurance, all of that stuff.

In California, we have a very robust law here that's just been signed by the governor that essentially says that we get to look inside the security and safety protocols of these companies. And big protections are extended to whistle-blowers. These are the kinds of things that you would imagine that would be a federal law.

But in the absence of that, the states have had to get involved here. And for some reason, suddenly, now we're in a position where the federal government, without really proposing any kind of replacement for these laws, is saying that these laws can't stand, Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, let's talk more about the why, because we have seen a number of top tech executives from Nvidia, from Google and Apple have regular access to the White House.

Based on your reporting, is this reflective of their wishes? I mean, how much influence do these companies have in shaping A.I. policy?

Jacob Ward:

Well, I think there's no doubt here that these companies forever have wanted there to be a federal standard, so that they don't have to deal with the patchwork of state laws.

We also can draw some sort of connective tissue here between these being the companies that — whose heads have attended the inauguration, have been at a state dinner with Mohammed bin Salman recently, and who have contributed money to the renovation of the White House ballroom.

Certainly, what no one is responding to here is public sentiment. Not only did the last effort to put this kind of moratorium into a bill in front of Congress go down in flames 99-1, but Americans don't feel this way.

A Gallup poll that came out in September found that 80 percent of U.S. adults believe the government should maintain rules for A.I. safety and data security, even if it means developing A.I. capabilities more slowly, which flies right in the face of what President Trump is arguing here in this leaked memo obtained by all of these outlets that somehow we will fall behind China and it's as a result worth doing away with the laws that we have here, Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

What President Trump is arguing and what Elon Musk is predicting — Elon Musk said something, as you well know this week, that raised a lot of eyebrows.

He predicted that, with A.I. advances, work will eventually become optional. For a lot of people, that's not exciting. That's terrifying that the average American could be replaced by any number of robots and the corporations are all just focused on the productivity.

Jacob Ward:

Yes, the rhetoric that you hear from the leaders of these companies really is quite ideological. They really seem to have this kind of faith-based idea that on the far side of a huge amount of disruption is going to come this utopia in which we are all suddenly doing watercolors in our gardens.

What I think we have seen over the course of American history is that we don't tend to like to pay people to make watercolors in their gardens. We tend to like to pay people for work. And one way to look at what Musk is saying here is the idea that we won't have to work.

But the practical effect, as we have heard from the heads of these companies, could truly be widespread displacement in jobs. Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, has said in the same sentence that we might cure cancer, we might balance the budget, but we also might have 20 percent unemployment.

That's the kind of thing that could be happening here. And so if you believe, as these heads of the companies seem to, that there's a utopia on the far side of this that's going to make it all worth it, then OK. But I think economists and historians would tell you that this is going in a different direction, Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

Twenty percent unemployment possibly.

All right, Jacob Ward, always great to see you with The Rip Current.

Jacob Ward:

Appreciate it. Thanks.