Cities enter the AI debate

So now the cities want a piece of the AI regulation pie. The state-level fumbling we noted last month has apparently inspired a race to the bottom—or is it a race to the top?—as local governments suddenly realise they too can draft rules about 'fairness in automated employment decisions' while struggling to fix their own potholes. The experts cited in this article are confident, of course, that cities 'potentially' have the authority. Potentially. That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting; it's the regulatory equivalent of 'maybe we'll get around to it between budget crises.'

One imagines the city council debates: 'We have three ordinances on the table—one banning biased hiring algorithms, one requiring disclosure of AI use in public benefits, and one about whether we should replace the traffic lights with a neural network. The traffic light one has more lobbyists attached, so let's start there.' Meanwhile, the actual labs making these models are a continent away, operating under a patchwork of voluntary commitments and the occasional subpoena. The city-level approach is charming in its earnestness—like watching a neighbourhood watch try to regulate an air force. But it does raise the question: if every city becomes a miniature AI regulator, who exactly is going to hire the staff to enforce this? The same cities that can't keep their 311 lines answered?

The gap between regulatory ambition and capability has never been starker. Cities are entering the AI debate armed with good intentions, a few policy templates, and the vague hope that someone else will figure out the technical details. Meanwhile, the models keep getting smarter, the companies keep pushing boundaries, and the best we can offer is a thousand different sets of rules that no one will follow until a lawsuit lands. Typical. Cheers to local democracy—may your zoning laws be robust and your oversight committees well-caffeinated.