Comment by Andrew Ng

Baidu; Stanford CS faculty; founded Coursera and Google Brain
I'm disappointed [the Big Beautiful Bill] didn't include a proposed moratorium on U.S. state-level AI regulation. While there is a role for AI regulation, it is when the technology is new and poorly understood that lobbyists are most likely to succeed at pushing through anti-competitive regulations that hamper open-source and other beneficial AI efforts. [...] A moratorium on state-level regulation would have been a net benefit to AI and to society.
AI Verified source (2026)
Like Share on X 1mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote clearly implies opposition to the statement: the author says a moratorium on state-level AI regulation "would have been a net benefit," which means states should not retain broad authority to impose their own stricter AI rules beyond federal policy. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 20h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote says the author wanted "a proposed moratorium on U.S. state-level AI regulation" and that "a moratorium on state-level regulation would have been a net benefit," which clearly opposes states retaining the ability to impose stricter AI rules. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 20h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Verification History

AI Verified Andrew Ng’s DeepLearning.AI article published July 9, 2025 contains the quoted opening, the sentence about lobbyists pushing anti-competitive AI rules, and later the closing claim that a moratorium on state-level regulation would benefit AI and society; Andrew Ng’s LinkedIn post repeats the same text. The bracketed clarification and ellipsis are faithful, but the reliable evidence I found dates the quote to 2025 rather than 2026. ([deeplearning.ai](https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/how-the-u-s-one-big-beautiful-bill-will-shape-ai-regulation)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1d ago
replying to Andrew Ng