Things Fall Apart
Good regulation is as much art as it is science.
The work culture that is German, something about France too
Show me the rule and I’ll show you the special interest.
The False Choice in the Debate Over Artificial Intelligence Regulation
Implicit in all the talk of the need for AI regulation, including here from the Lawfare blog, is the assumption that regulators are smarter than a) the people who build AI, and b) the AI itself.
A political culture that recognizes risk is the easy part.
Figuring out how to deal with it while maximizing the benefit, in an era of strategic competition? That’s a totally different bag of hammers.
The political urgency of the issue dictates doing something now, when, ironically, it might be useful to be slow and thoughtful.
“To be sure, particularized AI regulations of downstream applications are also called for in many areas, but there is little reason to think that addressing one category of AI risk will impede addressing others. A political culture that recognizes AI risk in one area is more likely to be open to recognizing it in another. Identifying the issue and getting it on the policy agenda is the difficult step, and infighting is likely to hinder that effort.”
Can AI Regulation Really Make Us Safe(r)?
Nobody ever talks about the unintended, iatrogenic negative consequences of regulating AI.
It’s always some Peter Pan fairytale that will work without any downside.
Because of course it will.
“In the late nineteenth century, the latest new-fangled invention was the motor car. In both Europe and the United States, regulations required a man waving a red flag to walk ahead of the car to warn road users and bystanders of the presence of the car. This also ensured that the car could travel no faster than walking pace, despite the primary known benefit of the “horseless carriage” powered by an internal combustion engine was that it could travel faster than the horses it was set to replace (that it didn’t foul the streets as the horse was well-known to do, creating a health and safety hazard, came a very close second in the benefit stakes).
“This is a classic example of the Precautionary Principle in practice: when implementing a new scientific or technological innovation, the effects of which are to some extent unknown, we should proceed with caution, at least until we know more about the innovation (the scientific endeavor with its perpetual quest for new knowledge is geared to ensure we do). This does not mean the technology should be banned – especially if there are substantial societal benefits to be gained. Rather, it should be implemented with some guard rails in place, to protect individuals and society from the known harms and uncertainties inherent in its the implementation. So long as the societal benefits are large, and the costs of the potential harms minimized by the precautions taken, then implementation can be deemed acceptable to society.
”…
“The regulations addressing fears related to horses both delayed the gains from faster travel and engendered a false sense of security in the public: as long as the man with the flag warned them, they had no need to learn for themselves how to manage their own behavior in the presence of the motor vehicles going faster than horses – a very necessary skill for when the regulatory rules were relaxed.” [emphasis added]
Wow, Did Joe Biden Go On A Regulation Tear This Week
The Congressional Review Act’s temporal limitations explain much of the sense of urgency regarding the Administration’s recent blizzard of regulatory moves.
Americans have a well-known fondness for divided government in which the three branches are in different partisan hands, leading to gridlock, or at least deceleration, of the impulse to do something.
It’s as if a divided government is the popular expression of the sentiment, “Don’t just do something; stand there.”
The response from the bureaucracy seems to be, “Badges? We ain’t got no badges We don’t need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges. ”
“On Monday, the administration required nursing homes to meet new staffing standards. It also expanded health record privacy rules so they protect information about abortion.
“On Tuesday, the administration made millions of new workers eligible for overtime pay and, separately, gave retirees new protections from predatory investment advice.
“On Wednesday, the administration forced airlines to start issuing refunds for flight cancellations and long delays.
“On Thursday, the administration announced new limits on power plant emissions and raised the energy efficiency standards for new homes. It also issued stronger nutrition requirements for the meals kids get at public schools.
“And then on Friday, the administration prohibited health care providers from discriminating against LGBTQ+ patients, effectively reinstating a rule Trump had rescinded.”
How Abrupt U-Turns Are Defining U.S. Environmental Regulations
Part and parcel of this increase in regulatory activity is a significant pickup in regulatory volatility matching the rise in political polarization.
This is a significant tax on anyone who wants to do anything significant or impactful.
Save us Chevron. You’re our only hope.
‘But in the last decade, environmental rules in particular have been caught in a cycle of erase-and-replace whiplash.
‘”In the old days, the regulatory days of my youth, we were going back and forth between the 40-yard lines,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and now runs the American Action Forum, a conservative research organization. “Now, it’s back and forth between the 10-yard lines. They do it and undo it and do it and undo it.”’
The world is too messy for bureaucratic hurdles': Canada still bars Afghanistan aid
Legislation is intention.
Bureaucracy is action. Or inaction, as the case may be.
“Ottawa has plans to finally stop blocking Canadian development aid to Afghanistan this year.
“But by the time its new system is fully up and running, the Taliban will have been in control of the country for about three years.
“Humanitarian organizations say that's an interminable delay for those who need help, especially since other countries moved more quickly to unblock aid flows.”
America’s Military Isn’t Providing Enough Bang for the Buck
Here’s hoping that budget cuts can increase productivity in defense procurement.
Perhaps government can, too.
The urgency of war in Ukraine and deteriorating geopolitical conditions combine with a leaking fisc to force the creativity in defense procurement that has been lacking for too long.
One can hope.
“The Pentagon’s procurement culture of regulations and massive, slow-moving corporations simply has not kept pace with the commoditization of high tech.”