KEVIN FRAZIER: Trump AI Executive Order Protects Americans From Tower Of Babel Approach
The answer to two questions will shape the future of AI in the United States: Who gets to write the national rules for AI development? Who gets to write the rules for how AI is adopted at the state level? This is not a…
The answer to two questions will shape the future of AI in the United States:
Who gets to write the national rules for AI development?
Who gets to write the rules for how AI is adopted at the state level?
This is not a pop quiz. These are the same questions that we had to answer in the late 1700s with respect to shipping, in the late 1800s with respect to the railroads, and in the late 1900s with respect to the Internet. The right answers then, remain the correct answers today.
The Executive Order on AI announced by President Trump provides a clear answer to the first question: Congress. It’s the right answer given the unequivocal allocation of constitutional authority to Congress to resolve matters that implicate America’s economic and national security.
AI development refers to the training, evaluation, and deployment of AI models. In short, it’s the tasks that determine how quickly U.S. companies can continue to push the technological frontier as our adversaries race to do the same. Any pause, delay, or diversion to these efforts may have irreversible effects on our ability to economically and militarily keep pace. It’s not hyperbole to stress that America requires a cohesive strategy on this frontier so that our leading AI labs and emerging startups can focus more on AI research, rather than attempting to navigate a patchwork of state AI laws.
The Order also answers the second question. States may dictate who uses AI, for what purposes, and subject to what limitations.
Again, this is the right answer as mandated by the Constitution and its reservation of extensive police powers to the states. It has long been recognized that it is the duty “of a state to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare” That’s precisely why the Order does not contest the authority of states to enact and enforce laws related to child safety, data centers, state government use of AI, and other issues that reflect that important duty.