Joel Thayer(@joellthayer):Agree with most of this but disagree on the preemption point, especially when reading the provision in tandem with subsequent rules of construction (c)(1)-(2). Together, it’s more likely that it only applies to laws attempting to govern pre-deployment designs or developments, which wouldn’t implicate many AI child regulations like AV or custodial account mandates. This is positive as it shows a significant shift away from the “relates to” preemption in previous AI bills. The point is well taken, and it could be further clarified by another rule of construction. Keep in mind, this is a discussion draft (not the final product). Overall it’s a step in the right direction, even on the preemption side.

2026.06.04 20:14

Agree with most of this but disagree on the preemption point, especially when reading the provision in tandem with subsequent rules of construction (c)(1)-(2). Together, it’s more likely that it only applies to laws attempting to govern pre-deployment designs or developments, which wouldn’t implicate many AI child regulations like AV or custodial account mandates. This is positive as it shows a significant shift away from the “relates to” preemption in previous AI bills. The point is well taken, and it could be further clarified by another rule of construction. Keep in mind, this is a discussion draft (not the final product). Overall it’s a step in the right direction, even on the preemption side.