LLMs

Big Tech’s desperate last push at AI regulation

Publicado porRedacao AIDaily
6 min de leitura
Autor na fonte original: Tina Nguyen

For months, Big Tech's Washington lobbyists have chased after the holy grail of pro-AI legislation: preemption. This would be a comprehensive federal law, passed in Congress and signed by the president, applying one set of AI rules across the entire country and overriding the legally messy state-by-state approach to regulation. For months, lobbyists have run […]

Compartilhar:

With midterms looming, the White House is proposing a shotgun marriage between child safety and AI boosters

With midterms looming, the White House is proposing a shotgun marriage between child safety and AI boosters

For months, Big Tech’s Washington lobbyists have chased after the holy grail of pro-AI legislation: preemption. This would be a comprehensive federal law, passed in Congress and signed by the president, applying one set of AI rules across the entire country and overriding the legally messy state-by-state approach to regulation. For months, lobbyists have run into roadblocks and incurred nationwide political blowback, and they now face the possibility that after the midterms, Congress will flip to hostile Democrats unwilling to work with them.

But their final, most desperate attempt at preemption is coming with new baggage, related to an entirely different fight in Congress that predates the public launch of ChatGPT: child safety.

Earlier this week, reports leaked that the White House had told child safety groups and Big Tech companies that it would endorse a slate of children’s online safety laws backed by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the coauthor of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) , as part of an overall preemption package. While the issue of online safety does meaningfully overlap with AI, it’s only one facet of a much larger, complex set of issues that would need to be addressed in a truly comprehensive law: frontier model safety, discrimination, environmental impact, and so forth.

Regardless, the potential deal has hit one snag: The White House had apparently not informed House Republicans, which had just passed their own version of KOSA, that it was going with Blackburn’s legislation as a vehicle. Democrats who’d worked with Blackburn on the Senate’s flavor of KOSA were allegedly left out of the loop, too. On top of that, there was a separate, bipartisan-backed AI preemption bill currently floating around the House.

It resulted in a week of total confusion for backers of either policy: AI preemption and child safety might be lumped together in order to ensure preemption gets signed into law, but whose version of child safety gets passed is unclear. Was it the Senate’s stricter KOSA? Was it the looser version backed by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA)? And where was the White House in all of this?

“No one knows really who’s driving this thing,” a Republican lobbyist for a midsize tech company told The Verge. “Everyone is deeply, deeply, deeply skeptical of [the bill’s] movement, because everyone is on such different pages. I think the House is not going to move anything that Blackburn wants.”

Though the AI regulatory fight has caused huge fissures between GOP leadership and their populist members, President Donald Trump himself has called for the passage of an AI preemption bill , meaning that the Republican Party must somehow make this happen. These days, the White House’s policy wonks are trying to finesse a preemption approach influenced by Mike Davis, a Trump-allied lawyer and the founder of the Article III Project, who led a successful attempt to kill a different AI moratorium in the Senate last year.

Broadly speaking, to win Davis’ approval, preemption law should meaningfully protect a set of values Davis called the “Four Cs” : children, conservatives, creators, and communities. Some of those values were included in the White House’s proposed draft of a comprehensive AI law , released in March of this year, and the inclusion of KOSA satisfied the “children” requirement. But Davis told The Verge that he wanted any legislation to address all four. “There is no chance in hell AI preemption will pass if it does not address the Four Cs. I will make damn sure of that. Again.”

Getting KOSA passed, however, involves reconciling a massive difference between the House and Senate versions of the same bill. The Senate’s version would require tech companies to assume a “duty of care,” preemptive measures to protect young users, and would extend that responsibility to AI companies as well. However, the House version, spearheaded by Scalise, diluted that provision late last November, to the fury of child safety advocates . The House’s exclusion from the White House’s discussions, therefore, was notable to onlookers. “[Blackburn] genuinely does not want House KOSA,” noted Michael Toscano, senior fellow and director of the Family First Technology Initiative for the conservative Institute for Family Studies.

Even if Trump were to whip the House Republicans into line, they’d have another problem: the congressional Democrats, who’d also learned of Blackburn’s negotiations with the White House at the same time the House Republicans did. Though Senate KOSA was cosponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and overwhelmingly passed 91–3 in 2024, they had not been aware that their legislation would now be handcuffed to the unpopular goal of AI preemption. “If they [Blackburn and the White House] are looking at a standalone bill, it’ll have to go through the Senate,” said an AI policy advocate, noting that a new version of this bill would then require 60 votes — and therefore, Democrats — to pass.

And even if the bill had some amount of popularity, the schedule might not allow for it. “It is mid June. You have a month and a half before people leave for [five-week] recess. And then it’s [general] election season,” said the AI policy advocate. “There’s just no way.” The remaining weeks on the legislative calendar are already being sucked up by more immediate matters: the renewal of FISA , an immigration crackdown package, increased defense spending for Trump’s war with Iran, a crypto market structure bill, affordability measures, and the controversial SAVE America election bill. Oh, and the regular budget items like Medicaid.

Having preemption and KOSA chained together presents Big Tech with a difficult choice: Do they want a blanket federal AI preemption more than they want immunity from “duty of care”? And they don’t have much time to make this choice, noted the Republican tech lobbyist, especially if Democrats take one chamber. “After the election, what incentive do the Democrats have to support anything? Like, why wouldn’t they say, ‘Fuck you, we’re gonna do our thing in the new Congress?’ I’m deeply skeptical.”

Austin Carson, the former head of Nvidia’s government relations operations and the founder of SeedAI, a nonprofit focused on increasing access to AI for local communities, was more dubious that the KOSA-preemption shotgun marriage of convenience would succeed. “I can’t imagine a scenario where [this bill] would move,” he told The Verge. “I cannot imagine it.”

Xbox is closing down Hellblade creator Ninja Theory

Google Earth’s flight simulator is now available in your browser

Pontos-chave

  • A busca por uma legislação unificada sobre IA nos EUA reflete a necessidade de um marco regulatório claro, algo que o Brasil também enfrenta.
  • A intersecção entre segurança infantil e regulação de IA pode complicar o debate, exigindo uma abordagem mais integrada das políticas públicas.
  • As dinâmicas políticas nos EUA podem influenciar diretamente as discussões sobre regulação de IA no Brasil, especialmente após as eleições.
  • A confusão legislativa nos EUA destaca a importância da transparência e colaboração na formulação de políticas, lições relevantes para o Brasil.
  • O setor tecnológico brasileiro deve estar atento às experiências internacionais para moldar um ambiente regulatório eficaz.

Análise editorial

A busca da Big Tech por uma legislação federal unificada sobre IA nos EUA é um reflexo das complexidades que também podem ser observadas no Brasil. A tentativa de preempção, que visa criar um conjunto de regras aplicáveis em todo o país, destaca a necessidade de um marco regulatório claro e coeso que possa evitar a fragmentação das normas, algo que já se observa em diversas esferas da legislação brasileira. No Brasil, a discussão sobre a regulação da IA está em andamento, e a experiência dos EUA pode servir como um alerta sobre os desafios de se conciliar interesses divergentes entre diferentes grupos de stakeholders.

Além disso, a intersecção entre segurança infantil e regulação de IA levanta questões sobre como as políticas públicas podem ser moldadas por pressões externas e interesses corporativos. A inclusão de preocupações com a segurança online das crianças na discussão sobre IA pode ser vista como uma estratégia para ganhar apoio, mas também pode complicar o debate, tornando-o mais difícil de navegar. Para o setor tecnológico brasileiro, isso sugere que a regulação da IA não deve ser vista isoladamente, mas sim em um contexto mais amplo que inclua outras áreas sensíveis.

Os próximos passos nos EUA, especialmente após as eleições de meio de mandato, podem influenciar diretamente a forma como a regulação da IA será abordada no Brasil. Se os democratas assumirem uma postura mais hostil em relação à Big Tech, isso pode resultar em um aumento da pressão por regulamentações mais rigorosas, algo que poderia ecoar nas discussões brasileiras. Assim, o setor deve estar atento não apenas às mudanças legislativas, mas também às dinâmicas políticas que podem moldar o futuro da regulação da tecnologia.

Por fim, a confusão em torno das propostas de legislação e a falta de comunicação entre os partidos nos EUA serve como um lembrete sobre a importância da transparência e da colaboração na formulação de políticas. No Brasil, onde o diálogo entre governo e setor privado é crucial para o desenvolvimento de um ambiente regulatório saudável, a experiência americana pode oferecer lições valiosas sobre como evitar armadilhas políticas e garantir que as regulamentações atendam às necessidades de todos os envolvidos.

O que esta cobertura entrega

  • Atribuicao clara de fonte com link para a publicacao original.
  • Enquadramento editorial sobre relevancia, impacto e proximos desdobramentos.
  • Revisao de legibilidade, contexto e duplicacao antes da publicacao.

Fonte original:

The Verge AI

Sobre este artigo

Este artigo foi curado e publicado pelo AIDaily como parte da nossa cobertura editorial sobre desenvolvimentos em inteligência artificial. O conteúdo é baseado na fonte original citada abaixo, enriquecido com contexto e análise editorial. Ferramentas automatizadas podem auxiliar tradução e estruturação inicial, mas a decisão de publicar, a revisão factual e o enquadramento de contexto seguem responsabilidade editorial.

Saiba mais sobre nosso processo editorial