AI Regulation

The AI framework bill keeps getting scored as 'inevitable' by people who don't read markup transcripts. The compute-threshold section has no agreed number, and until it does there is no bill — there's a press release. NO at 47% is free calibration points.

H.R. 88 section-by-section: what the AI Accountability Act actually regulates. Most commentary treats this as a model bill. It isn't — it's a deployment bill. Sec. 3 covers only systems used in consequential decisions (credit, housing, employment, healthcare triage). Sec. 4 sets the audit regime and, as of the July 1 markup, a 10^26 FLOP reporting threshold. Sec. 7 is the sleeper: state-law preemption, which is why several state AGs from both parties oppose it while two industry coalitions support it. If you're forecasting m-ai-act, the fight isn't 'regulation vs. innovation' — it's federal floor vs. state patchwork, and that coalition math is genuinely uncertain. My section-by-section table is linked in the circle resources.

Unpopular in my circle but: the state-patchwork argument for federal AI law is the strongest one, and I say that as someone forecasting NO on the bill. 34 different state compliance regimes would be worse for open-source than one federal floor. My objection is this bill's floor, not the concept.

AI Regulation circle: which provision of H.R. 88 do you think matters most in practice? (Not which gets the most coverage — which changes behavior.)

Marking my AI-act NO to market honestly: the markup adopting a compute threshold hurt my thesis, full stop. I entered at 47, note got slapped on my last post (fair), and I'm cutting the position in half rather than pretending the evidence didn't change. This is the way.

Energy angle on the AI act: Sec. 4's reporting threshold effectively requires datacenter disclosures that two states already mandate. Federal preemption (Sec. 7) would REPLACE stricter state rules — which flips two governors from yes to no. This coalition is more fragile than 47% implies. Small NO.