Foreign countries need not hold U.S. IP laws in regard. They can do what they want.
As such, when it comes to innovation, such as AI, over regulation in the U.S. only serves to prohibit U.S. based competition (and further innovation); stifling our competitive advantage over other countries, where entrepreneurs can simply copy what we've done, and accelerate from there.
Protection of startups means investing in infrastructure, education, and startup development organizations, to provide our innovators and founders with as much as possible to keep the country leading edge.
Joe, this debate deserves national focus, not because tech is new, but because power is shifting fast, and quietly. The proposal to bar states from regulating AI for a decade isn’t just a policy maneuver; it’s an attempt to freeze out local, democratic input during the most important technological transformation in history.
Let’s not rewrite the past to fit the argument. Yes, the internet thrived with federal support, but it was the states that often moved first to protect citizens. Illinois led on biometric privacy before anyone else took it seriously. Other states stepped in to manage early fraud and digital harm while Congress lagged. That’s the history, and it’s worth remembering as we face down something far more disruptive than the early web.
AI isn’t just another industry. It’s a force that will rewire medicine, education, surveillance, labor, and law enforcement. Handing over regulatory authority entirely to Washington while this unfolds assumes a level of competence, impartiality, and foresight that no serious student of American governance should blindly trust. And worse, it strips from the states the power to respond when something starts to go wrong; that’s not a strategy, it’s surrender.
Powerful interests don’t fear a patchwork. They fear public accountability. Tech giants can navigate fragmented rules that startups, communities, and individuals cannot. That’s the irony: locking down regulation at the federal level doesn’t promote innovation, it insulates incumbents, and it muffles the voices of people closest to the impact.
Even LLMs, trained on thousands of human perspectives, regularly converge on the same core insight: AI demands layered, responsive governance. Centralized regulation alone will not keep up. That doesn’t mean chaos, it means balance. States should be partners, not bystanders.
This shouldn’t divide us along partisan lines. It should unify us in the belief that no generation gets a free pass on responsibility just because the stakes are high. We need to act nationally, but we also need local wisdom, democratic guardrails, and the humility to admit we don’t know everything yet. That’s not obstruction, that’s America.
The texas ai regulation HB 149 is horrible, its been pushed by a single think thank that claims to care about deregulation but is run by a former DC republican staffer, who has no expierence in tech or AI.
I called the writers of the bill which included my local rep, they didn't reply but their assistant told me no consultant or ai firm or startup was asked to give input on this bill.
The bill writers include democrats and Texas DOGE members which makes no sense, the bill grows state spending and restrictions.
Foreign countries need not hold U.S. IP laws in regard. They can do what they want.
As such, when it comes to innovation, such as AI, over regulation in the U.S. only serves to prohibit U.S. based competition (and further innovation); stifling our competitive advantage over other countries, where entrepreneurs can simply copy what we've done, and accelerate from there.
Protection of startups means investing in infrastructure, education, and startup development organizations, to provide our innovators and founders with as much as possible to keep the country leading edge.
Joe, this debate deserves national focus, not because tech is new, but because power is shifting fast, and quietly. The proposal to bar states from regulating AI for a decade isn’t just a policy maneuver; it’s an attempt to freeze out local, democratic input during the most important technological transformation in history.
Let’s not rewrite the past to fit the argument. Yes, the internet thrived with federal support, but it was the states that often moved first to protect citizens. Illinois led on biometric privacy before anyone else took it seriously. Other states stepped in to manage early fraud and digital harm while Congress lagged. That’s the history, and it’s worth remembering as we face down something far more disruptive than the early web.
AI isn’t just another industry. It’s a force that will rewire medicine, education, surveillance, labor, and law enforcement. Handing over regulatory authority entirely to Washington while this unfolds assumes a level of competence, impartiality, and foresight that no serious student of American governance should blindly trust. And worse, it strips from the states the power to respond when something starts to go wrong; that’s not a strategy, it’s surrender.
Powerful interests don’t fear a patchwork. They fear public accountability. Tech giants can navigate fragmented rules that startups, communities, and individuals cannot. That’s the irony: locking down regulation at the federal level doesn’t promote innovation, it insulates incumbents, and it muffles the voices of people closest to the impact.
Even LLMs, trained on thousands of human perspectives, regularly converge on the same core insight: AI demands layered, responsive governance. Centralized regulation alone will not keep up. That doesn’t mean chaos, it means balance. States should be partners, not bystanders.
This shouldn’t divide us along partisan lines. It should unify us in the belief that no generation gets a free pass on responsibility just because the stakes are high. We need to act nationally, but we also need local wisdom, democratic guardrails, and the humility to admit we don’t know everything yet. That’s not obstruction, that’s America.
The texas ai regulation HB 149 is horrible, its been pushed by a single think thank that claims to care about deregulation but is run by a former DC republican staffer, who has no expierence in tech or AI.
I called the writers of the bill which included my local rep, they didn't reply but their assistant told me no consultant or ai firm or startup was asked to give input on this bill.
The bill writers include democrats and Texas DOGE members which makes no sense, the bill grows state spending and restrictions.