This is interesting. There aren’t tons of examples coming to mind, other than maybe crypto. But that was mostly about redeploying existing law. I’ll think about this!
It seems to set up the easiest possible win for a state competing to build out its high-tech industry - Washington, Massachusetts, even Texas - to just NOT have a bill like this. Or do AI developers need something in the San Francisco Bay microclimate to thrive and would wither into unproductive, login-page coding drones without it?
California is aware of this dynamic and has written SB 1047 to apply nationally, even though they are a state government. Unfortunately, it's not clear that simply leaving the state would get you out from under this law; you'd need to leave America.
I would like to know more about how technology policy in the past intentionally leveraged vague wording to build in flexibility.
It’s one of the arguments about sb1047 that I think is actually reasonable for support, but I don’t have a lot of information.
Maybe a post suggestion!
This is interesting. There aren’t tons of examples coming to mind, other than maybe crypto. But that was mostly about redeploying existing law. I’ll think about this!
A lack of confidence leading to many tears.
What does „culturally significant entrepreneur“ mean?
I don't believe I wrote that anywhere. What do you mean?
It seems to set up the easiest possible win for a state competing to build out its high-tech industry - Washington, Massachusetts, even Texas - to just NOT have a bill like this. Or do AI developers need something in the San Francisco Bay microclimate to thrive and would wither into unproductive, login-page coding drones without it?
California is aware of this dynamic and has written SB 1047 to apply nationally, even though they are a state government. Unfortunately, it's not clear that simply leaving the state would get you out from under this law; you'd need to leave America.
A state can not legislate for the US presumably- that's why the feds exist