Der Streit um die KI-Regulierung in den USA eskaliert schnell. Zwei gut finanzierte Koalitionen streiten derzeit darüber, ob das Land einen einzigen föderalen Rahmen verabschieden soll, der die staatlichen KI-Gesetze außer Kraft setzt, oder ob die Staaten weiterhin ihre eigenen Regeln festlegen sollen, während der Kongress festgefahren bleibt. Da bereits mehr als 150 Millionen US-Dollar in Kampagnen, PACs und Interessengruppen fließen, könnten die in den nächsten Wochen getroffenen Entscheidungen darüber entscheiden, wie KI über Jahrzehnte hinweg gesteuert wird. Wie soll das Kräfteverhältnis zwischen staatlichen Experimenten und bundesstaatlichen Standardsetzungen hergestellt werden?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulocarvao/2025/11/28/150-million-ai-lobbying-war-fuels-the-fight-over-preemption/
2 Kommentare
Submission Statement:
The clash between Public First and Leading the Future raises a fundamental question about who will shape the long-term governance of artificial intelligence. Public First argues that allowing states to experiment creates early guardrails and real-world evidence that can inform a stronger national framework later. Leading the Future wants a single federal system now, warning that fragmented state laws could slow deployment, weaken U.S. competitiveness, and reshape global AI leadership.
The future implications are enormous. Whether AI policy evolves from the bottom up through state innovation or from the top down through federal preemption will influence how safely and quickly advanced systems enter society, how risks are managed, and how democratic accountability is preserved as AI becomes more powerful.
Looking ahead, the outcome could determine who sets the norms for frontier models, how AI interacts with critical infrastructure, and whether regulatory power remains distributed or becomes centralized. The scenario that concerns me most is the possibility of a major preemption provision being folded quietly into a must-pass bill, limiting public debate on decisions that will shape AI’s trajectory for decades.
How should AI governance evolve over the next 5, 10, or 20 years—and which structure positions society for the best long-term outcomes?
It underscores the tremendous danger of Regulatory Capture.
When Big Tech shells out this much money for lobbying, safety isn’t usually the only priority, it’s ensuring a regulatory moat. If they manage to push the cost of compliance through the roof, they effectively kill off open source innovation and startup competition, resulting in a monopoly disguised as safety.