'Right-to-Compute' Laws May Be Coming to Your State This Year
vktr.com
vktr.com
"So, hypothetically, in a state with a right-to-compute law on the books, any bill put forward to limit AI or computation, even to prevent harm, could be halted while the courts worked it out. That could include laws limiting data centers as well.
“The government has to prove regulation is absolutely necessary and there’s no less restrictive way to do it,” Wilcox said. “Most oversight can’t clear that bar. That’s the point. Pre-deployment safety testing? Algorithmic bias audits? Transparency requirements? All would face legal challenge. "
My take: This sounds incredibly pro-industry and anti-democratic.
Why are we treating AI like something different? If it's given the race of the applicants and that causes it to reject black applicants, it's doing something objectionable. If it's given the race of the applicants but that doesn't significantly change its determinations, or it isn't given their race to begin with, it's not.
The trouble is people have come up with this ploy where they demand no racial disparity in outcomes even when there are non-racial factors (e.g. income, credit history) that correlate with race and innately result in a disparity.
A cynic would say that plaintiff lawyers don't like algorithms that reduce human bias because filing lawsuits over human bias is how they get paid.
Seems pretty vague to me, but IANAL.
I don’t particularly want to compete with Microsoft for power, or OpenAI for water.
I recently saw a county in america trying to have a deal and the deal itself is behind NDA and the govt cant tell its own citizens about the deal.
Personally I feel as if the problems aren't datacenters themselves (there were so many datacenters before AI) but AI datacenters in particular are really lucrative for the business but really hurtful to the average person in that area.
AI datacenters increase your electricity bill, water bill & now your ability to buy your hardware (ramflation)
Why are the demands of some billionaires preferred over the needs of the people who vote and how the mindset in many people themselves (I don't think there are billionaires reading my comment) is to be on the other side of line rather than fixing it, this whole philosophy doesn't sit right with me honestly especially within AI datacenters (I don't think that I am against normal CPU datacenters so much)
The media pretty much hates AI because it competes with them (people read the AI summary instead of visiting the publisher's website), so they're churning out one hit piece after another.
If you have a sudden spike in demand for electricity, short-term prices increase. Then the higher prices drive construction of new generation capacity (the cheapest option is currently solar) and long term the prices, if anything, come down, because you get more economies of scale and data centers used for AI training are actually pretty good at curtailing load during the rare extended periods of renewable generation undersupply which is one of the main things you need for the grid to take advantage of that cheap solar.
Meanwhile data centers don't inherently use any water. In some climates it's more efficient to use evaporative cooling -- it lowers energy consumption. That doesn't mean you have to do it that way, or even that it's the best choice for all climates. Moreover, many areas don't have the same water problems as the Southwest. "Millions of gallons of water" sounds like a lot until you realize the Great Lakes contain quadrillions of gallons of water, and it's really just being evaporated rather than actually consumed and then comes back down as rain shortly thereafter.
The media also likes comparing these numbers to household water consumption because households don't actually use that much water. Agriculture in just California consumes around 11 trillion gallons of water a year. Using the standard media units of household water consumption, this is the same amount of water used by 160 million households. There are around 133 million households in the US in total.
The water consumption is an entirely fake problem outside of areas where water is actually scarce, and not even the major offender in the areas where it is scarce. You can also obviously put new data centers outside of those areas, or use non-evaporative cooling systems.
> I recently saw a county in america trying to have a deal and the deal itself is behind NDA and the govt cant tell its own citizens about the deal.
This is likewise related to the media trying to impede them. If the local media is going to launch a vendetta against you as soon as they find out you're trying to build something, you'd want to keep it quiet for as long as possible.
That city with the NDA was in Wisconsin. This is not a place with water scarcity.
Water consumption and the infrastructure to leverage it can’t be nullified by pointing to… the Great Lakes. That’s not how that works.
This is before you get into “is this technology good for people”. It’s good for a few doughy tech bros in the Epstein list, but not the rest of us.
We don’t need the country to have an infinite pool of data centers, we need healthcare, clean air and water, etc.
We should stop these dumb ass data centers, and also ban all crypto. Tech people were supposed to help usher in Star Trek, not raise our power bills and destroy the environment by firing up new gas power plants for random number generating pyramid schemes and the suckers who fall for them. It’s all beyond embarrassing.
Electricity isn't a tech product. Tech products become enshittified as a result of market consolidation.
But also, you're saying the prices of tech products haven't come down? The industry that has actually been doing that for decades?
> Water consumption and the infrastructure to leverage it can’t be nullified by pointing to… the Great Lakes. That’s not how that works.
Water consumption in the midwest is a nonsense issue. There is no lack of water there and it comes from rain rather than aquifers, which is the same place it goes back to when used for evaporative cooling.
> We don’t need the country to have an infinite pool of data centers, we need healthcare, clean air and water, etc.
This is like complaining about landlords or utility companies because they don't provide you with medical services. That's the wrong tree.
> We should stop these dumb ass data centers, and also ban all crypto.
It seems like you're blaming tech companies for enshittifying things when that was really a result of the banks having them buy each other up, and then also blaming them for trying to disrupt the banks.
> Tech people were supposed to help usher in Star Trek
This is what I mean by the media writing a stream of hit pieces.
Think about the actual technology in Star Trek. You can talk to the computer and it understands natural language, that's NLP. There is a Holodeck that you can provide with a narrative and it fills in the rest of the story and generates images for it, that's LLMs and image generation.
They're actually working on the thing you're asking for but you're demanding that they stop because the early implementations are primordial and someone keeps telling you to hate them.
Trump signed an Executive Order (Dec 2025) preempting state AI safety laws, threatening to withhold $42.5B in broadband funding from states that refuse to comply (specifically targeting Colorado and California).
In response, New York signed the "RAISE Act" after the EO was issued. It has strict safety, transparency, and reporting protocols for frontier models.
California is enforcing its "Transparency in Frontier AI Act" (Sept 2025) regardless of the Federal threat. It requires developers of large AI models (over 10^26 FLOPS) to publicly disclose safety frameworks, report "catastrophic risk" incidents, protect whistleblowers.. etc
Big Tech (OpenAI, Google, Andreessen Horowitz) is siding with Trump on this one. They prefer one weak federal law to 50 strict state laws.
This post:
Red states are creating deregulation areas. If a big tech company has data centers in Montana, and CA tries to impose an audit on their model, the company can sue, claiming their "Civil Rights" in Montana are being infringed by California's overreach.
Red states are tying "Compute" to the First Amendment (free expression), basically anticipating the Supreme Court.
Future implications:
The US continues to split into two distinct operating environments. https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/09/03/am...
While I appreciate bringing attention to ongoing changes in the tech/legal landscape, I'll get my rundowns from a source that doesn't blindly repeat this broken assertion. Doesn't speak well of their research practices.
Hasn't stopped every authoritarian from parroting the quote whenever they want to censor something.
Is it though? If you're putting on a play, and there is a fire in the script, e.g. in a play criticizing that decision, can the government punish you for putting on the play because of the risk it could cause a panic? If there is actually a fire in the theater, can they punish you for telling people? What if there isn't actually a fire but you believe that there is?
Not only is it useless as an analogy for doing any reasoning, the thing itself is so overbroad that even the unqualified literal interpretation is more of a prohibition than would actually be permissible.
> If there is actually a fire in the theater, can they punish you for telling people? What if there isn't actually a fire but you believe that there is?
(IANAL) Law usually takes circumstance into consideration, and AIUI, usually comes to reasonable conclusions in this case. The Wikipedia article on this quote[1] goes into that:
> Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. If it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out. Similarly, state laws such as Colorado Revised Statute § 18-8-111 classify knowingly "false reporting of an emergency," including false alarms of fire, as a misdemeanor if the occupants of the building are caused to be evacuated or displaced, and a felony if the emergency response results in the serious bodily injury or death of another person.
(It continues with other jurisdictions and situations.)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Which is exactly the point, because they nevertheless literally are "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
> The quote with more context is clear: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic..."
Which is likewise why the people trying to use the quote all but universally omit the qualifiers -- it would otherwise be clear that, even in the context of Schenck, the constraint was intended to be narrow.
And even with the qualifiers, the original quote still doesn't do well with the first example or the third, because imposing a prior restraint under the hypothetical argument that people could get confused and panic is going to be a weak case when the reason someone is doing it is it to criticize the government, and it's quite objectionable to punish people for speech when they genuinely believe something to be true just because they've made an honest mistake.
It's not. The current standard, set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, forbids speech which advocates imminent lawless action. It is a standard much broader than the Schenk case's threshold of clear and present danger.
> The problem is that most people who cite it are using it as an analogy for something else that isn’t.
Even the man who composed the the phrase did this. Schenk's "fire in a theater" aphorism was Oliver Wendell Holmes's attempt to persuasively discredit a group of Yiddish speaking anti-war pamphleteers in his non-binding legal commentary. The comparison is not a legal analysis nor is it itself a ruling on the merits of the case.