吴沈括：美国AI监管或多条路径并存

Core Viewpoint - The removal of the clause to suspend state-level AI regulation from the "Big and Beautiful" Act indicates a significant shift in the future path of AI governance in the United States, highlighting the ongoing debate over the balance between federal and state regulations in the rapidly evolving AI landscape [1][3]. Group 1: Legislative Changes - The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted 99 to 1 to remove the clause that would have prohibited states from regulating AI for the next decade, reflecting diverse opinions and concerns regarding AI's rapid development [1][2]. - Some states, such as New York and California, have already implemented or are in the process of enacting specific AI regulations, indicating a growing trend towards localized governance in the absence of federal laws [1]. Group 2: Perspectives on Regulation - Proponents of the suspension clause argued that it would help streamline AI governance and reduce compliance costs for startups and developers, emphasizing the need for unified federal regulation [2]. - Opponents contended that the clause would undermine existing state regulations and create a regulatory vacuum, which could hinder innovation and leave communities vulnerable to the impacts of AI technology [3][4]. Group 3: Future Implications - The decision to reject the suspension clause suggests that the federal legislative body is opting to maintain state-level legislative authority over AI regulation, aligning with constitutional principles regarding federal and state powers [3][4]. - The ongoing debate reflects a complex ecosystem of interests, with major tech companies and state legislators engaged in a dynamic discourse that will shape the future of AI governance in the U.S. [4].