News The GOP wants to deregulate AI — provision in Budget Reconciliation bill blocks state governments from meddling for 10 years

[VizzieTheViz]

The most charitable explanation why it's generally bad for each state to have differing regulations on something is that it becomes complicated and expensive for companies to comply, if they have to alter and adapt the products or services from one state to the next.

I'm not trying to argue any sort of position, here. Just saying the defense you often hear for this sort of thing.

This would make sense if they were proposing to put in place federal rules for all states. Just having no rules at all seems totally wrongheaded.

 

[bit_user]

We could all have flying cars by now if regulation would stop clipping wings.

I think flying cars are a horrible idea and way worse without strict regulations. People are bad enough at driving in 2 dimensions. Self-driving is no solution, if you look at all the crashes they've gotten into. With 3 dimensions and obstacles like power lines, buildings, towers, etc., not to mention weather, self-driving would become be even harder. Any crashes would become far more lethal and probably involve more innocent bystanders.

Not to mention the noise... like 100x as loud as toy drones. Then, the privacy invasions and trespassing arguments, with people flying their cars all over the place and getting shot at by angry property owners on the ground.

Think, for a moment, what air planes & airports would be like, without the FAA. I probably would never use airplanes as a mode of transportation, in such a world.

 

[Eximo]

Flying cars are bad for an even simpler reason. If a car breaks down, it stops. If a flying car breaks down, it drops. So you have to carry around a safety system, like a parachute for long drops, and maybe rocket assisted emergency landing for short drops. That adds weight, complexity, etc...

To get around the privacy concerns you would simply have to fly at the same heights as small aircraft today. Nothing stops someone from pointing a camera and telescopic lens from a small plane today.

Uprated drones might be able to fly for twenty minutes while carrying a person. If you set a reasonable top speed, that is still a relatively short distance. If you make it a more long range vehicle, congratulations, you have invented the helicopter. And that is about how big a vehicle has to be to replace the family car for a trip and have enough safety features. Though we can see how often that doesn't work out.

 

[t3t4]

I think flying cars are a horrible idea and way worse without strict regulations. People are bad enough at driving in 2 dimensions. Self-driving is no solution, if you look at all the crashes they've gotten into. With 3 dimensions and obstacles like power lines, buildings, towers, etc., not to mention weather, self-driving would become be even harder. Any crashes would become far more lethal and probably involve more innocent bystanders.

Not to mention the noise... like 100x as loud as toy drones. Then, the privacy invasions and trespassing arguments, with people flying their cars all over the place and getting shot at by angry property owners on the ground.

Think, for a moment, what air planes & airports would be like, without the FAA. I probably would never use airplanes as a mode of transportation, in such a world.

And yet nobody knows anything, until they can try it and prove it. Only "if" the statistics begin to add do we have anything to worry about. My curiosity has always been in the why you all do what you do. The perpetual bow down and accept mentality. Who beat you all so badly that now it's a sin to think out loud?

Privacy is a give in. So is air space. But we were supposed to be in the Hydrogen age back in the 60s..... What happened??? Just noise as it always does! When you put all boys into bubble wrap and send them out to play, can they still have fun>?

 

[t3t4]

Flying cars are bad for an even simpler reason. If a car breaks down, it stops. If a flying car breaks down, it drops. So you have to carry around a safety system, like a parachute for long drops, and maybe rocket assisted emergency landing for short drops. That adds weight, complexity, etc...

To get around the privacy concerns you would simply have to fly at the same heights as small aircraft today. Nothing stops someone from pointing a camera and telescopic lens from a small plane today.

Uprated drones might be able to fly for twenty minutes while carrying a person. If you set a reasonable top speed, that is still a relatively short distance. If you make it a more long range vehicle, congratulations, you have invented the helicopter. And that is about how big a vehicle has to be to replace the family car for a trip and have enough safety features. Though we can see how often that doesn't work out.

FEAR.... Is not an acceptable reason.

 

[Eximo]

And yet nobody knows anything, until they can try it and prove it. Only "if" the statistics begin to add do we have anything to worry about. My curiosity has always been in the why you all do what you do. The perpetual bow down and accept mentality. Who beat you all so badly that now it's a sin to think out loud?

Privacy is a give in. So is air space. But we were supposed to be in the Hydrogen age back in the 60s..... What happened??? Just noise as it always does! When you put all boys into bubble wrap and send them out to play, can they still have fun>?

We are thinking about it. It just doesn't make economic sense from all sorts of perspectives.

We don't yet have a fully automated flight system to rely on, and we would need that.

The aforementioned safety aspect. If we are avoiding high altitude to avoid pressurization, that means everyone is going to be with a few hundred feet of the ground. Closer you are to the ground the more dangerous it is.

As bit_user pointed out, noise and landing becomes an issue. All well and good if I can get a flying car, but I don't think people want those flying around in neighborhoods. We barely tolerate leaf blowers as it is.

Almost forgot the energy cost to fly vs drive. Quite a bit of thrust to lift an object against gravity vs overcoming rolling + wind resistance.

There are real world examples of runway based neighborhoods. It is workable, but would require a massive societal change.

 

[Eximo]

FEAR.... Is not an acceptable rason.

I don't FEAR a flying car. I FEAR people in regular cars, today. Adding higher speeds, and flight just complicates things. But I also know that my car has 100 years of safety improvements behind it.

We can dredge up all the examples of flying cars that have been built, tested, flown, and fatally crashed if you like. Most didn't work because there isn't a market for the flying car, nothing to do with fear and safety.

You might convince me to buy a tiny electric aircraft, but I don't think I would want the complexity of having to get your typical small aircraft certified, maintained, hangared, etc. Quick search says $30,000 annual to own a small aircraft.

 

[t3t4]

We are thinking about it. It just doesn't make economic sense from all sorts of perspectives.

We don't yet have a fully automated flight system to rely on, and we would need that.

Who/what broke you? Why can you not think past your own nose for the sake of fear from whom/what?

 

[t3t4]

We are thinking about it. It just doesn't make economic sense from all sorts of perspectives.

We don't yet have a fully automated flight system to rely on, and we would need that.

The aforementioned safety aspect. If we are avoiding high altitude to avoid pressurization, that means everyone is going to be with a few hundred feet of the ground. Closer you are to the ground the more dangerous it is.

As bit_user pointed out, noise and landing becomes an issue. All well and good if I can get a flying car, but I don't think people want those flying around in neighborhoods. We barely tolerate leaf blowers as it is.

Almost forgot the energy cost to fly vs drive. Quite a bit of thrust to lift an object against gravity vs overcoming rolling + wind resistance.

There are real world examples of runway based neighborhoods. It is workable, but would require a massive societal change.

No offence, but you're running at the speed of smell. It's too slow.

 

[Eximo]

Who/what broke you? Why can you not think past your own nose for the sake of fear from whom/what?

Practicality? Sensibility? Being only one person removed from people in the avionics and aeronautics industry?

If you want to create the product, we aren't stopping you.

I think transonic flight is a more practical use of the engineering time. Improving existing aircraft. Heck, even short hop rocketry.

I don't really need to save a few hours traveling local distances a week at 10 times the cost.

 

[bit_user]

Flying cars are bad for an even simpler reason. If a car breaks down, it stops. If a flying car breaks down, it drops. So you have to carry around a safety system, like a parachute for long drops, and maybe rocket assisted emergency landing for short drops. That adds weight, complexity, etc...

Well said.

To get around the privacy concerns you would simply have to fly at the same heights as small aircraft today. Nothing stops someone from pointing a camera and telescopic lens from a small plane today.

Okay, but I'm talking about someone hovering at low enough altitudes to be intrusive. I also mentioned the likelihood of flying cars taking short cuts over private land, which might upset its owner for other reasons. If there are no regulations, as proposed, you can imagine all sorts of scenarios where flying cars create societal frictions.

 

[t3t4]

Kids... Thinking they can teach.

Think about the end, who what when where? Nothing but questions.... ?

 

[USAFRet]

I see this has gone into "flying cars"

Allow me to laugh.
And then allow me to laugh again.

 

[t3t4]

I see this has gone into "flying cars"

Allow me to laugh.
And then allow me to laugh again.

Cute, adorable......
You do not yet see flying cars.

 

[USAFRet]

Cute, adorable......
You do not yet see flying cars.

OK, if you want to go there.....

What is your concept of a "flying car"?

 

[t3t4]

OK, if you want to go there.....

What is your concept of a "flying car"?

Dirt simple. Vehicle lifts from ground, science said, you kids complain. At a certain point I may and I might step my foot in to say shhhh children to settle down the noise. The end result is always the same, the new next thing! It starts loud and proud, almost each and ever time!

Should I cough or puke? Are you ready? I am! Press that play button boys.!.!.!

 

[USAFRet]

Dirt simple. Vehicle lifts from ground, science said, you kids complain. At a certain point I may and I might step my foot in to say shhhh children to settle down the noise. The end result is always the same, the new next thing! It starts loud and proud, almost each and ever time!

Should I cough or puke? Are you ready? I am! Press that play button boys.!.!.!

"you kids"....ok, THAT is funny.

'dirt simple' indicates you know exactly zero about vehicle control, or the airspace above your head.


"Vehicle lifts from ground"
We already have those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_R22

 

[bit_user]

Trying to bring this back (somewhat) on topic, I think flying cars and unregulated AI share a common theme that regulation is appropriate when public safety is potentially put at risk. And that's doubly-true, when we're talking about the safety of innocent bystanders, rather than those taking known risks (or at least who are aware they're taking risks) involved in the elective use of the product or technology in question.

 

[Gururu]

I believe in strict, mediated AI regulation and would prefer to live in a state with the same view. I know the topic says GOP, but I am not sure if I can, so I won't comment further on fear of saying it would be too political.

 

[USAFRet]

Personal airplanes have mandatory maintenance requirement and periodic inspection, administered by the FAA. eVTOL would have the same. Likewise, an owner would need to be licensed, just as an airplane pilot.

And thereby putting it in the same price class and exclusivity as current small aircraft and helicopters.

 

[logainofhades]

I could care less about flying cars. I need a Rosie, from the Jetsons.

 

[bit_user]

I could care less about flying cars. I need a Rosie, from the Jetsons.

And without regulation on her AI, there'll be no assurances she won't murder you in your sleep!

Actually, it's hackers I'd be more concerned about. That's when ransomware can turn into a real hostage situation!

 

[CelicaGT]

>I need a Rosie, from the Jetsons.

IMO, we're closer to "owning" (probably more like leasing) a humanoid robot than an eVTOL. Manufacturing will get first dibs, but consumer applications will be close behind.

China will most likely be first mover.

https://reuters.com/world/china/chi...robots-aim-transform-manufacturing-2025-05-13 (watch the enclosed video)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckb...e-of-the-humanoid-robotic-machines-is-nearing

Manufacturing is best done with purpose built robots, designed and configured to do that specific task. There is little to no demand for a general purpose humanoid robot in this role. FWIW I have some direct exposure to large scale manufacturing through the company I work for.

(Edit: clarity)

 

[logainofhades]

Manufacturing is best done with purpose built robots, designed and configured to do that specific task. There is little to no demand for a general purpose humanoid robot in this role. FWIW I have some direct exposure to large scale manufacturing through the company I work for.

(Edit: clarity)

Where I work has robot arms that do specific tasks, and I have to agree that a humanoid one would not fit in such a role.

I guarantee there is a huge demand for a Jetsons Rosie though. My wife, and practically every other mom in the world, would probably be standing in line as soon as one is available.

 

[Eximo]

>Manufacturing is best done with purpose built robots, designed and configured to do that specific task. There is little to no demand for a general purpose humanoid robot in this role.

It depends on the task(s), but generally speaking, general-purpose robots can be reprogrammed/retrained to handle a wide range of tasks, and can be more cost efficient than having multiple purpose-built robots for multiple tasks.

A robot imbued with AI & sensors can also learn on its own how to best do a task, assuming the task is ill-defined, which allows flexibility and adaptability. Purpose-built robots by definition don't have that trait.

A humanoid robot in particular can be more versatile by virtue of its form, since the world is designed for humans. For example, it can conceivably make use of existing human tools, as opposed to having proprietary tools made for it. This allows versatility.

Yeah, the universal robot is an old concept. As old as the word robot.

I think the root of the issue is that precision anything is likely to be beyond the scope of a humanoid robot, so most human reliant factory jobs just don't really apply to them and normal automation techniques make more sense. A precision robotic arm(s), even with AI behind it, is going to be cheaper in the long run.

Robotic forklift or robot forklift driver. Automatic package handling system, even at reduced volume to accommodate universal boxes or rail systems, probably better than robot package handlers.

Maybe 50 years from now a general purpose robot will have enough onboard intelligence, or offboard intelligence, to do those kinds of things. But I am not hopeful.