Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
11/20/2025, 12:04:36 AM
X
In reply to:
Graffitinights
@Graffitinights1
·
31d
@GaryMarcus And, since you alleged I am ignorant on this subject, I will go there and remind you that "State's Rights" has been used to justify all sorts of dumb things in the past, @GaryMarcus.
Graffitinights
@Graffitinights1
·
31d
@GaryMarcus If you think feds aren't doing their job then lobby at the federal level. You can reach out to Marsha among others.

Patchwork regulation of a product that is used nationwide is a nightmare that helps noone. It makes no sense other than you just want to frustrate progress.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
31d
@Graffitinights1 100 (99?) Senators voted against the last version of this nonsense. Republican Marsha Blackburn led them. Do your homework.

Random states have the right regulate a lot of things, from education to roads. There is no fed regulation. Feds are not doing their job.
Graffitinights
@Graffitinights1
·
31d
@GaryMarcus Under what basis should random states have the right to regulate AI? All AI is inherently interstate commerce. And it's a national security issue vis a vis China on top of that.

There's no logical basis for this take other than realpolitik in that Dems don't control Congress.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
31d
Urgent: The White House is attempting to circumvent Congress and crush the rights of individual states to regulate AI. Visit the links below.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of federal versus state regulation of AI, a significant public policy concern. The conversation involves a debate on the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly in regulating emerging technologies like AI.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive, which might not promote constructive dialogue.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but could be seen as dismissive, which might not fully respect the dignity of others.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding or empathy, as it dismisses the other party's knowledge. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of ad hominem by implying ignorance, which does not foster constructive criticism. [-1]