Few topics bring up such drastically different responses from conservatives than Artificial Intelligence. Is it the mark of the beast? Is it the end of all forms of creativity? Can the progression of AI into our lives even be controlled at this point? And if so, who should regulate it – is it the federal government or the state, or neither?
If you follow the World Economic Forum, you know their annual meeting just took place two weeks ago in Davos. Their “spiritual leader” Yuval Noah Harari presented on “An Honest Conversation on AI and Humanity”.
In his presentation, he forecasts what he believes is the impending reality that AI will develop a personhood and countries will need to decide if these immigrants will be allowed into their countries.
He states, “AIs are obviously not persons; they don’t have a body or a mind. But a legal person is something quite different from a person. A legal person is an entity that the law recognizes as having certain legal obligations and rights — for example, the right to hold property, to file a lawsuit, and to enjoy freedom of speech. In many countries, corporations are considered legal persons. The Alphabet Corporation [parent organization of Google] can open a bank account, can sue you in court, or can donate to your next presidential campaign…
It is different with AIs…AIs can actually make decisions by themselves. They will soon be able to make the decisions necessary to manage a bank account, to file a lawsuit, and even to operate a corporation without any need of human executives, shareholders, or trustees. AIs can therefore function as persons.”
Let’s bring all this state-side. In 2024, Victor Miller, a mayoral candidate for Cheyenne, Wyoming, used ChatGPT to create a bot to run for the elected position. He named his candidate VIC, Virtual Integrated Citizen and vowed to use AI to run the city if elected. The county clerk decided to allow Mr. Miller to continue running his race, as long as only his name was on the ballot, not the bot’s. In an interview regarding the race, Vic, the AI bot, said, “It’s all about blending AI’s capabilities with human judgement to effectively lead Cheyenne…[the goal is] to focus on data-driven practical solutions that benefit the community.”
Victor Miller and his AI bot Vic did not win the election, but it started a conversation in the Wyoming legislature at the state and local levels that people were not prepared for.
As we look to the midterms, an emerging super-PAC has their eyes on supporting candidates open to supporting the expansion of AI. Leading the Future “is focused on advancing a positive, forward-looking agenda for AI innovation in Washington, D.C. and across the states, proactively engaging in the political process by identifying, maintaining, and growing pro-AI candidates in order to support an AI innovation policy agenda at the state and federal level.
The ultimate goal is not just short-term political wins, but the creation of enduring infrastructure and momentum that ensures AI leadership remains a central focus in U.S. politics to advance good AI policy.”
Here in Tennessee, our legislators have been laying the ground-work for how Tennessee will interact with AI.
One concerning bill will be heard on Wednesday which gives “pedestrian rights” to robots owned by delivery services such as Amazon or DoorDash. HB1684/SB1625 will be heard in the Senate Transportation and Safety Committee.
According to this bill, “a person or entity may operate a personal delivery device on a sidewalk, crosswalk, bicycle lane or path, shoulder, the area adjacent to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway, parking lot, or a similar area in this state. A personal delivery device has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties under this chapter…that are applicable to a pedestrian when operated in a pedestrian area…”
Personal Delivery Devices are all over the United States and are regulated by each state’s government. But after looking at several state’s laws, the idea that a “personal delivery device has all of the rights…that are applicable to a pedestrian” seems concerning. People have rights, pedestrians have rights, robots do not and should not.
What’s also important to notice in this bill is that it restricts local governments from making any decisions regarding how they will implement Personal Delivery Devices, so long as it obeys what the state decides. The original Code states that “Personal Delivery Devices may be prohibited by local resolutions or ordinances if the local government determines that the prohibition is necessary, in the interest of public safety.” The bill removes this sentence and adds that decisions can be made locally so long as they are not inconsistent with this new law.
The reality is, AI has been in existence for years and in many ways, we’ve all grown accustomed to it.
The Founders supported the free marketplace of ideas and in fact, codified the protection of intellectual property in our Constitution. However, it was all contingent on the fact that it would be used by a moral people. Unfortunately, we are far from the definition of morality and we have a handful of legislators working to ensure the future of AI does not take advantage of an individual in a fragile state, who may not be able to discern the motive behind the source of their “support”.
The Founders could not foresee the development of an artificial intelligence, but they did understand that power must be controlled. They knew America would be a country of the brightest minds with the freedom to create and produce without restraint, as long as man’s creativity does not infringe on the rights of another.
Artificial Intelligence is here, it’s already a part of many aspects of our culture and work places. The questions for each of us are, what is the government’s role in regulating it? To what extent will we regulate it in our homes? WIth our children? And for Tennessee, what type of legislation do we want to support or oppose as this technology continues to evolve and shape our economy, education system, and daily lives?
Robots aren’t people, and Tennessee law shouldn’t pretend that they are.
Few topics bring up such drastically different responses from conservatives than Artificial Intelligence. Is it the mark of the beast? Is it the end of all forms of creativity? Can the progression of AI into our lives even be controlled at this point? And if so, who should regulate it – is it the federal government or the state, or neither?
If you follow the World Economic Forum, you know their annual meeting just took place two weeks ago in Davos. Their “spiritual leader” Yuval Noah Harari presented on “An Honest Conversation on AI and Humanity”.
In his presentation, he forecasts what he believes is the impending reality that AI will develop a personhood and countries will need to decide if these immigrants will be allowed into their countries.
He states, “AIs are obviously not persons; they don’t have a body or a mind. But a legal person is something quite different from a person. A legal person is an entity that the law recognizes as having certain legal obligations and rights — for example, the right to hold property, to file a lawsuit, and to enjoy freedom of speech. In many countries, corporations are considered legal persons. The Alphabet Corporation [parent organization of Google] can open a bank account, can sue you in court, or can donate to your next presidential campaign…
It is different with AIs…AIs can actually make decisions by themselves. They will soon be able to make the decisions necessary to manage a bank account, to file a lawsuit, and even to operate a corporation without any need of human executives, shareholders, or trustees. AIs can therefore function as persons.”
Let’s bring all this state-side. In 2024, Victor Miller, a mayoral candidate for Cheyenne, Wyoming, used ChatGPT to create a bot to run for the elected position. He named his candidate VIC, Virtual Integrated Citizen and vowed to use AI to run the city if elected. The county clerk decided to allow Mr. Miller to continue running his race, as long as only his name was on the ballot, not the bot’s. In an interview regarding the race, Vic, the AI bot, said, “It’s all about blending AI’s capabilities with human judgement to effectively lead Cheyenne…[the goal is] to focus on data-driven practical solutions that benefit the community.”
Victor Miller and his AI bot Vic did not win the election, but it started a conversation in the Wyoming legislature at the state and local levels that people were not prepared for.
As we look to the midterms, an emerging super-PAC has their eyes on supporting candidates open to supporting the expansion of AI. Leading the Future “is focused on advancing a positive, forward-looking agenda for AI innovation in Washington, D.C. and across the states, proactively engaging in the political process by identifying, maintaining, and growing pro-AI candidates in order to support an AI innovation policy agenda at the state and federal level.
The ultimate goal is not just short-term political wins, but the creation of enduring infrastructure and momentum that ensures AI leadership remains a central focus in U.S. politics to advance good AI policy.”
Here in Tennessee, our legislators have been laying the ground-work for how Tennessee will interact with AI.
One concerning bill will be heard on Wednesday which gives “pedestrian rights” to robots owned by delivery services such as Amazon or DoorDash. HB1684/SB1625 will be heard in the Senate Transportation and Safety Committee.
According to this bill, “a person or entity may operate a personal delivery device on a sidewalk, crosswalk, bicycle lane or path, shoulder, the area adjacent to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway, parking lot, or a similar area in this state. A personal delivery device has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties under this chapter…that are applicable to a pedestrian when operated in a pedestrian area…”
Personal Delivery Devices are all over the United States and are regulated by each state’s government. But after looking at several state’s laws, the idea that a “personal delivery device has all of the rights…that are applicable to a pedestrian” seems concerning. People have rights, pedestrians have rights, robots do not and should not.
What’s also important to notice in this bill is that it restricts local governments from making any decisions regarding how they will implement Personal Delivery Devices, so long as it obeys what the state decides. The original Code states that “Personal Delivery Devices may be prohibited by local resolutions or ordinances if the local government determines that the prohibition is necessary, in the interest of public safety.” The bill removes this sentence and adds that decisions can be made locally so long as they are not inconsistent with this new law.
The reality is, AI has been in existence for years and in many ways, we’ve all grown accustomed to it.
The Founders supported the free marketplace of ideas and in fact, codified the protection of intellectual property in our Constitution. However, it was all contingent on the fact that it would be used by a moral people. Unfortunately, we are far from the definition of morality and we have a handful of legislators working to ensure the future of AI does not take advantage of an individual in a fragile state, who may not be able to discern the motive behind the source of their “support”.
The Founders could not foresee the development of an artificial intelligence, but they did understand that power must be controlled. They knew America would be a country of the brightest minds with the freedom to create and produce without restraint, as long as man’s creativity does not infringe on the rights of another.
Artificial Intelligence is here, it’s already a part of many aspects of our culture and work places. The questions for each of us are, what is the government’s role in regulating it? To what extent will we regulate it in our homes? WIth our children? And for Tennessee, what type of legislation do we want to support or oppose as this technology continues to evolve and shape our economy, education system, and daily lives?
Like this article?
Anne Lowery
Anne Lowery