The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.

The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)

The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.

> The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws

What if the feds won't let a state outlaw policing using AI? Or insurance companies setting rates based on AI interpretation of their driving, phone location, browsing and/or credit card data? Or public license plate and face tracking by private companies?

Why do the feds want to interfere with the states setting implementation rules for themselves?

Who is helped by uniform federal regulation? People, or big tech AI companies?

The whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too.

I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.