logoalt Hacker News

dynmtoday at 3:45 PM5 repliesview on HN

I think the main content of this law (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152) is just two paragraphs. I'd suggest reading them yourself rather than relying on secondary description:

"Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest."

"When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system that is reasonable and considers guidance and standards in the latest version of the artificial intelligence risk management framework from the national institute of standards and technology, the ISO/IEC 4200 artificial intelligence standard from the international organization for standardization, or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems. A plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance with this section."

In particular, I think the reporting is straight wrong that there's a shutdown requirement. That was in an earlier version (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731) and remains in the title of this version, but seems to have been removed from the actual text.


Replies

RobRiveratoday at 3:49 PM

So the government is afforded the opportunity to constrict compute if for a government interest.

This bill seems to expand powers, not restrict

show 1 reply
torginustoday at 5:10 PM

Ah, finally something that the common man wants. A mandatory risk management strategy compliant with ISO/IEC guidelines

tzstoday at 5:41 PM

Hmmm. "[...] the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system [...]".

I wonder why it is after rather than before?

toomanystrawstoday at 4:36 PM

"... the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system...."

This is a complete sham. Anything really geared towards protecting people would have protections in place before deployment.

scuff3dtoday at 4:47 PM

When you contextualize the law with comments like this

"The initiative... contrasts with recent restrictive legislation efforts in states like California and Virginia. Zolnikov, a noted advocate for privacy, has been instrumental in pushing for tech-friendly policies that ensure individual liberties in an evolving digital landscape.

"'As governments around the world and in our own country try to crack down on individual freedom and gain state control over modern technologies,' Zolnikov said. 'Montana is doing the opposite by protecting freedom and restraining the government.'"

And it's the normal framing we always see with this crap. This is more an attempt to protect corporations from regulation then it is to protect individuals.