Speaker 0:  the wild west of state by state ai laws is officially in the crosshairs, and washington is pulling the trigger. the white house just dropped a blueprint that could kill california's ai dreams to keep america ahead of china. one ai to rule them all. the white house wants congress to pass a national ai legislative framework that overrides conflicting state laws. it shifts power from individual states to existing federal giants like the ftc and fda to keep regulation light touch. it effectively stops the brussels effect in the us where one strict state like california sets the rules for the whole country ensuring silicon valley can move faster than beijing. what do you think about this, john?

Speaker 1:  yeah. so i'm sure we could talk about this for a whole hour, but the framework, it's it's not regulation itself. it's a set of kind of legislative recommendations to congress, and it's outlining how lawmakers should regulate ai. but, again, nothing's binding yet. but this is important because it's signaling policy direction, not enforcement. it's setting the stage for future federal legislation, and it acknowledges that congress, not the executive branch, must ultimately act. now the framework itself, it focuses on seven major domains. the first one, which i think is really critical, is child safety. then there's community protections, intellectual property, free speech, innovation, workforce development, and federal preemption of state ai laws. however, in this itself, the most impactful areas for industry are that preemption of state laws, the innovation first regulatory philosophy, and the copyright and liability stance. and we've covered copyrights, and we've covered ip in the past. so, this is this is kind of addressing that. but the most controversial piece is the federal preemption of state laws. and so it explicitly calls for a single national ai standard. and like you said, it blocks states from regulating ai development. so, it argues that ai is an inherently interstate phenomenon with national security implications, but states can still enforce general laws, so fraud, consumer protection, child safety. states can regulate their own use of ai, infrastructure, zoning, data center. so it's there's no fragmented ai rules across states, but states still retain limited oversight power. so there's others a lot to unpack here, but what are your thoughts on this, craig?

Speaker 0:  well, we need regulation because it's the wild west on everything out there. you know? i was just hearing about canada is now striking back saying, hey. if you use any canadian data to scrape your stuff, you owe us money. all canadian user data needs to be stored in canada and all this kind of stuff. so everyone's playing a little bit game around the data and ai world, and and it is limiting the ai companies. now i'm not saying that's a good thing. i'm not saying it's a bad thing. i'm a pragmatist. i just like to say, okay. so our ai companies are constantly being limited by canada or provincial or states. like, california has the most restrictive ai rules apparently. so, the companies now target their ai towards those rules being so restrictive. it's like the drone rules we've had in the us. it's all been based on line of sight. so if you can't without a pilot's license, you can't do a non line of sight drone. and, which is fine, but that limits the ability or the growth of the tech around our drone industry. other companies, potentially enemies that we might be at war with don't have such limitations. so they go nuts with their technology, and they're farther ahead in this and that. same fears around ai. right? so i've you know, what is right? what is right for the consumer versus what is right for society as a whole versus what is right, you know, for survival of your country might all be different competing things. so i'm gonna put that aside and say we need legislation. i'm glad we're taking a step forward. i don't think this was gonna pass anything. i think we're gonna get a lot of pushback. so the seven, framework is gonna change. hopefully, we'll get some intelligent people on board to kinda help this intelligent meeting, some of the head ai ai labs, that are running these things just to be a part of this rather than just, administrative people. so we can really get down to it. i don't wanna get too far off track. i it's long overdue.

Speaker 1:  yeah.

Speaker 0:  think, we're gonna see i think it needs to be loosened up. i think if people are gonna be competitive as a country or as, you know, north america, we need to kinda loosen up some things, but that doesn't mean, giving away consumer freedoms.

Speaker 1:  no. i agree. and the thing is at least they have something to debate now. like, they've at least

Speaker 0:  they have

Speaker 1:  a starting.

Speaker 0:  yeah. debate point. right?

Speaker 1:  like, they have a starting point. now, like, you can always critique any legislation, any kind of, any kind of law that comes into place or any kind of, framework. but again, yeah, there's a lot there's a lot to unpack here. we're not gonna unpack every single area, but, it does address some key areas which we listed. right? especially with that child safety with, with that, doll that got released, from china just before christmas last year that we covered. so there's a lot of, there's a lot of it's a good start. let's put it that way.

Speaker 0:  yeah. and i like that, they're keeping their protection of children in there, which is important. like, i'm not a fan of needing id, digital id, and all that stuff, or, needing id to be on social media because it's just another form of tracking and control that everyone now will be able to track you more efficiently, whatnot. however, i do think, we need protections. you know, we did talk about the doll. we did talk about people killing themselves or harming themselves because of what ai has done. so we definitely need to, keep that in check.

Speaker 1:  yep. i agree. don't, obviously, this this isn't, i i wouldn't say this will pass, but, this is a great this is a great first step. and it does address a lot of the issues that we've covered in our podcast. so a lot of things that have come up, it does kind of address most of those. right?

Speaker 0:  yeah. it starts to address those things that we've been talking about and why the eu has been farther ahead of us in so many things. and, you know, we're they continue to be in a lot of ways and good or bad, that's the way it is. i like to think of this update like the internet, internet, interstate highway system. you know, before 1956, driving across the country was a massive local dirt roads and different speed limits that slowed down commerce. this framework is the federal government stepping in to build a single high speed highway for ai so businesses don't have to change the tires every time they cross the state line. yeah. i like it. it's progress. we'll have to see, whether it gets locked in at a loose level or locked in at a tight level once it goes through a few changes. right? because it's not going to get you know, none of us believe it'll pass like this. but the blueprint was released on 03/20/2026. congressional action is expected before the midterms. this affects all us based ai developers and any consumer using ai tools like chatgtp and gemini. 3,000,000,000,000 is the total projected global ai infrastructure investment by 2028. 80% of the amount of the 3,000,000,000,000 investment currently pending due to regulatory permitting friction. the seven objectives, the core pillars of the framework include regulatory sandbox and broadband funding levers, which are interesting. the policy infrastructure by forcing federal preemption the governor is treating ai compute as a national security asset rather than a consumer software product by compute to state ratios. this is the biggest federal versus state power play since 1996 telecommunications act, so which has similarly deregulated the early internet to ensure rapid us dominance. so i don't know. if there's skeptics on either side of this, we'll have to see what it boils down to. the regulatory sandbox is mentioned our model after the fintech sandbox is first used in the uk in 2015, which allowed startups to test banking tech without a full banking license. the administration using bead broadband funding as a carrot. if a state doesn't play ball with federal ai rules, the white house can legally throttle their access to billions in internet infrastructure cash. and despite the light touch label, the associated trump america ai act actually proposes a duty of care. odd, it's a legal concept usually reserved for doctors and life saving equipment. so we'll have to see what that duty of care that the ai, companies might be held accountable to be held to.

Speaker 1:  yeah. it sounds good.

Speaker 0:  skeptics say by gutting state power, we might lose early warning systems, like state like illinois biometric privacy often catches harms like facial recognition abuse years before federal government notices. if you're a developer or a founder, it might look for upcoming sector specific guidelines from the ftc that's, you know, where this will live and might open up things for you that you might not be able to do right now. i'm liking that we're moving forward. i will be interested to see if canada follows suit in any of this depending what the final act will look like. yeah. so this is a national security first approach to ai that prioritize raw speed and infrastructure over local caution. is a single national standard the only way to beat our competitors like china, or are we trading away our digital safety by stripping states of their power? drop a speed or safety in the chat to let us know.