Source item
Open original source ↗Quoted context
These are the quoted author’s words.
The Commerce Clause was written to stop states from fracturing national markets. That’s exactly what’s at stake with AI. Here’s why. Look at Colorado’s AI law as an effort to regulate every AI system that touches a Colorado resident, no matter where it’s built. But as more states adopt Montana’s “Right to Compute Act” we’re headed for a massive collision. You cannot treat computational resources as a protected right and allow Colorado to do what it wants. You can’t live under both regimes. That conflict is what the Dormant Commerce Clause about. States cannot project power across borders and create impossible burdens. This isn’t as much about whether AI should be regulated, but it’s about who should regulate it. AI is inherently interstate: trained on distributed cloud infrastructure, deployed globally, built by teams across states. It cannot survive 50 different regimes pulling in 50 different directions. We need national rules of the road, not a patchwork that kills innovation before it starts. That’s the constitutional promise of the Commerce Clause. It works to preserve a single national market where builders can thrive.
ckoopman ↗