The AI law with zero enforcement might be the one everyone copies

The most influential AI law in the US may be the one that hasn't enforced a single case.

That sounds backwards.

Most people assume a regulation is effective only when companies start getting fined.

Texas took a different approach.

Instead of building a complex approval process, it requires transparency, gives the attorney general enforcement powers, and largely waits for complaints before stepping in.

The result is a framework that's relatively easy to adopt — and potentially easy for other states to replicate.

History suggests that regulations don't spread because they're the strictest.

They spread because they're practical.

If that's true, the future of AI governance in the US may look less like comprehensive regulation and more like lightweight rules backed by selective enforcement.

Curious where founders stand on this:

As AI becomes more regulated, is it better to have clear but limited rules with targeted enforcement — or comprehensive regulation that attempts to cover every scenario?