State regulator: Proposed 10-year moratorium on AI law enforcement is ‘extremely disconcerting’

A controversial provision included in President Donald Trump's extensive domestic policy legislation currently under consideration in Congress may impose a ten-year ban on state-level enforcement of artificial intelligence regulations. This proposal has raised alarm among those tracking developments in technology, particularly as AI continues to permeate various aspects of American life, from healthcare and law enforcement to personal relationships and hiring practices. Despite the tech industry’s assurances that AI will deliver groundbreaking solutions to global challenges, there are significant risks involved. Critics highlight the potential for job displacement and the spread of misinformation as serious concerns. Currently, there is no comprehensive federal legislation governing AI, though Trump recently enacted the Take It Down Act, which criminalizes the distribution of non-consensual explicit images, including those generated by AI. Several states have already enacted laws addressing issues like the use of deepfakes in elections and preventing discrimination in hiring based on AI assessments. If the Senate Republicans’ version of the legislation passes, these state laws could become unenforceable. Earlier this month, members of the Senate Commerce Committee linked compliance with the proposed moratorium to essential federal funding for internet infrastructure. The tech community is split on the idea of halting state regulation; some advocate for a unified approach to avoid a patchwork of laws, while others vehemently oppose the moratorium. This provision has faced significant backlash from academics, tech professionals, advocacy groups, and even some lawmakers. A bipartisan coalition of 40 attorneys general, including North Carolina's Jeff Jackson, has urged Congress to reject the moratorium, expressing fears about its long-term ramifications. In an interview, Jackson explained his initial reaction upon discovering the moratorium's inclusion in the bill. He described receiving a call from a fellow attorney general who urged him to review the provision, which he believes could lead to sweeping unintended consequences. Jackson articulated two main concerns: first, that the moratorium could effectively nullify essential consumer and voter protections established by various states to prevent the misuse of AI by malicious actors. Second, he warned that the potential for AI to be weaponized in ways that are currently unimaginable poses a grave risk over the next decade. He emphasized that existing AI regulations primarily focus on safeguarding voter and consumer rights, such as prohibiting the unauthorized digital replication of individuals’ images and voices. Jackson asserted that the absence of legal recourse against the misuse of deepfakes could have dire implications for electoral integrity. When asked about specific North Carolina laws that might be jeopardized, he noted that while some are more criminally focused, his overarching worry lies in the limitations this moratorium could impose on future regulatory efforts. Jackson expressed skepticism about Congress’s willingness or ability to implement meaningful safeguards for AI, citing a history of inaction on issues like privacy and social media regulation. He argued that the choice facing lawmakers is not between a fragmented state approach and a unified national framework, but rather between allowing states to enforce protections or doing nothing at all. Jackson concluded with a strong stance against inaction, emphasizing the need for a proactive approach to AI regulation rather than a decade-long pause that could hinder progress and protection against misuse.