Andrew Heyward, a former CBS News president, said he understands the principle of not ceding the decision of who asks the questions, “but as a practical matter, it’s often a negotiation.” Heyward stressed he had no inside information about what happened with ABC News this week.
“One federal framework, that is light touch, that we can understand and that lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for seems important and fine,” Altman told Sen. Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican.And Sen. Ted Cruz floated the idea of a 10-year “learning period” for AI at the same hearing, which included three other tech company executives.
“Would you support a 10-year learning period on states issuing comprehensive AI regulation, or some form of federal preemption to create an even playing field for AI developers and employers?” asked the Texas Republican.Altman responded that he was “not sure what a 10-year learning period means, but I think having one federal approach focused on light touch and an even playing field sounds great to me.”Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, also offered measured support for “giving the country time” in the way that limited U.S. regulation enabled early internet commerce to flourish.
“There’s a lot of details that need to be hammered out, but giving the federal government the ability to lead, especially in the areas around product safety and pre-release reviews and the like, would help this industry grow,” Smith said.It was a change, at least in tone, for some of the executives. Altman had testified to Congress two years ago on the need for AI regulation, and Smith, five years ago, praised Microsoft’s home state of Washington for its “significant breakthrough” in passing first-in-the-nation guardrails on the use of facial recognition, a form of AI.
Ten GOP senators said they were sympathetic to the idea of creating a national framework for AI. But whether the majority can work with Democrats to find a filibuster-proof solution is unclear.
“I am not opposed to the concept. In fact, interstate commerce would suggest that it is the responsibility of Congress to regulate these types of activities and not the states,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican.But many Republican lawmakers, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who co-sponsored the bill, were furious when the EEOC stated that the law covered abortions. The EEOC’s commissioners approved the rules in a 3-2 vote along party lines, with both Republican commissioners voting against it.
Joseph vacated the provision of the EEOC regulations that included abortion as a “related medical condition” of pregnancy and childbirth. However, the rest of the regulations still stand.“Victory! A federal court has granted Louisiana’s request to strike down an EEOC rule requiring employers to accommodate employees’ purely elective abortions. This is a win for Louisiana and for life!” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.
A Better Balance, the advocacy group that spearheaded a decade-long campaign for passage of the law, condemned the ruling.“This court’s decision to deny workers reasonable accommodations for abortion-related needs is part of a broader attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom,” A Better Balance President Inimai Chettiar said in a statement.