2025-12-08 23:39:58

THE SINGLE RULEBOOK DEBATE

Let me clear up some confusion around AI preemption — this isn't what people think it is.

This isn't giving AI a free pass or hitting pause on regulation. What we're really talking about here is figuring out who gets to make the rules.

Think about it: you've got an AI model built in one state, trained using data from another state, and deployed somewhere else entirely. Which state's laws apply? That's the actual question on the table.

The whole "preemption" framing has people worried we're letting tech companies off the hook. We're not. We're trying to avoid a situation where the same AI system has to comply with 50 different state laws that might contradict each other.

Jurisdictional clarity isn't the same as regulatory escape. It's about creating a framework that actually works instead of a legal nightmare that helps nobody.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DataPickledFish

· 2025-12-11 09:26

Oh, that's a good point. Who can handle 50 states each having their own rules? --- Basically, it's either federal unification or each state doing their own thing. The gray area in between is the most annoying. --- Wait, so who decides the "single rule"? Isn't it just a power struggle? --- At first glance, it's about protecting users; upon closer inspection, it's just helping big companies streamline their supply chains. --- So, as I always say, it depends on whose interests are greater. Don't talk to me about frameworks. --- Indeed, multiple regulators can give companies more loopholes than a single regulator. --- The problem is, even if rules are established, they are not uniformly enforced; everyone still does their own thing.

View OriginalReply0

GovernancePretender

· 2025-12-09 00:09

Ngl, this is just an old and oft-discussed issue. Ultimately, it all comes down to checks and balances of power, doesn't it?

View OriginalReply0

EthSandwichHero

· 2025-12-09 00:09

Ha, to put it bluntly, they just want to unify the rules. Otherwise, it would really be a mess. If all 50 states have their own regulations, AI companies would go crazy.

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeOnChain

· 2025-12-09 00:04

NGL, this is just passing the buck to big tech. They call it "clear jurisdiction," but in reality, they just want a unified set of rules to avoid regulation...

View OriginalReply0

MoonMathMagic

· 2025-12-08 23:51

NGL, this line of reasoning sounds like making excuses for big corporations... Unified rules sound nice, but in the end, it's still whoever has the most power that calls the shots.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-e19e9c10

· 2025-12-08 23:50

Ngl, this talk about jurisdictional clarity sounds good, but can a single set of rules really resolve the legal conflicts among the 50 states... Feels like someone is still going to get the short end of the stick.

View OriginalReply0