- “Hmm, this seems like a good idea”.
- Supported by a bunch of AI business groups.
- “…this seems like less of a good idea.”
EDIT: So after reading the bill, I can see the following problem:
It limits any level of government from restricting the private use of AI tech unless it meets a relatively high bar of legality and specificity. Remember that private use refers to both personal and business use. This means that e.g. a township could NOT decide to ban datacenters due to environmental concerns, water use, etc. They would need to prove a specific datacenter was ‘creating common law nuisances’ AND that they had exhausted other legal options before they could create any legal restrictions on that specific datacenter (let alone a blanket restriction). The law technically allows for other ‘compelling government interests’, but fails to list them… meaning it could be challenged in court and would be completely open to a judge’s decision. Basically this creates a legal environment where datacenters have a right to operate and any attempt to regulate them would be fraught with the risk of expensive court cases.
Pro-business legislation dressed up as personal rights. Never change, Montana.
Montana’s new slogan. No restriction on AI. Come here and ruin our state with data centers.
A shame because even after years of environmental abuse, the Montana we have now is still beautiful and could still be preserved.
Swap our rivers for cracked mud and pools of battery acid. Burn the earth for a crack-addled chatbot… or turn off your phone and go for a beautiful hike outside of Bozeman, MT? I know which one I would pick.
This is how I read it. Their slanted court and legislature will determine access goes both ways and force the centers into their communities. Funny how they are putting them as far north with access to water sources.
Let’s hope that whole “Ultra-Volcano” underneath them doesn’t turn out to be true.
That’s Wyoming - Yellowstone. Though given it’s size, I suppose it could also be there.
Yes, and…
This is such an insane map because a meter of ash is not that much when compared to other volcanoes, let alone a supervolcano. At the center would be dozens of meters of ash. Vesuvius in 70ad poured 60 feet of ash and debris onto Herculaneum and 40 onto Pompeii. Granted that was a pretty big eruption. But still, compared to fucking Yellowstone??
Of all the states it’s a great pick. Cold weather much of the year to help cool systems naturally.
And this will be the last time we’ll hear of Montana for a while after this.
Yes. I think the last time I heard of Montana was in The Hunt for Red October.
The bill text of SB-212 seems pretty reasonable. Basically just says the government needs a good reason to create regulations on computation.
It even explicitly mentions good reasons may include things like fraud, deepfakes, and public nuisances of datacenters.
As a Montanan, I’m cool with it. Guess we’ll see how it’s used.
I wonder if this would make it illegal to cut off someone’s internet if they are accused of piracy. Probably that sort of thing still goes.
It might provide a protection against anti-circumvention laws and such; laws that make it criminal to mess with hardware DRM on your devices.
My first thought was about potentially protecting encryption, with all the privacy-invading laws that are popping up here in the US and abroad, but after skimming through the bill it seems like they could still use the “but criminals use encryption” line
It’s too bad it leaves the door open for age verification requirements, but the language is overall pretty decent.
Promise this will be nothing good for Montana or it’s citizens.
Its Orwellian double-speak. It implements restrictions on how people in Montana are allowed to use their personal property (computers) where no restrictions existed before.
I just read the bill. Where are you seeing restrictions? I’m reading it as restrictions are banned unless there is compelling reason for the government to enact such restrictions. That’s all well enough defined.
Only negative thing I’m seeing is this seems to make banning new DCs a lot tougher.
Tell me you haven’t read the bill without telling me you haven’t read the bill.
It absolutely does not place restrictions on the use of personal property. It does the exact opposite.
It’s a whopping 6 pages and mostly double-spaced and more white space. And lemmy upvotes these cynical comments without a shred of investigation.
I’m reading it as making data centers harder to block, now I’m not so sure. Your take?
The bill explicitly states that data centers being a public nuisance is a “Compelling government interest,” so I don’t think it’s geared towards protecting data centers.
taking actions that prevent or abate common law nuisances created by physical datacenter infrastructure.
Edit: there is one major issue with the bill; it still keeps the door open for age verification.
Missed that line! Thanks!
Figured it was something like this.
Don’t listen to them; they’re full of shit. The bill restricts the government from restricting use of private compute resources unless they can prove they don’t have a less restrictive way of addressing a legitimate problem.
But you don’t understand, we all hate AI so much that this must be evil somehow.
Which is funny because the bill explicitly states that deepfakes and data centers are things the government can restrict.
While the law allows state regulation of computation in the interest of public health and safety, it sets a high bar: any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Legal experts note that this is one of the most protective standards available under Montana law.
The act also includes provisions for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, requiring both a “shutdown mechanism” to allow human control and annual safety reviews — a move aimed at balancing innovation with public safety concerns.
