Wooly Mammoth
Regulation favors the large.
J.D. Vance’s A.I. Agenda: Reduce Regulation
It’s a familiar point: regulation favors big business. It’s not common to hear it from a politician, though.
‘Last week, during a committee hearing on privacy and A.I., Mr. Vance accused Big Tech companies of predicting that A.I. could destroy humanity in order to solicit new regulations that only the largest companies could comply with.
‘Those regulations would “entrench the tech incumbents that we actually have, and make it actually harder for new entrants to create the innovation that’s going to power the next generation of American growth” and jobs, Mr. Vance said.’
Trump Promises To Get Rid of Bad Regulations. Can He Deliver?
The scale of the problem is difficult to imagine. Not only is the number of regulations staggering, the civil service is going to defend the status quo, at a minimum.
‘But it's not true. America's deep state is hard to fight. Many of the 22 million Americans who work for government think they're not doing their job if they don't regulate more.
‘Despite Trump's promises, he left America with more regulations than we had when he took office.’
Eliminating bureaucratic delay would improve faith in democracy, says Duffy
It’s a valid point. Bureaucracy is like rust. It corrodes.
‘A councillor has said people’s faith in democracy would improve if the Council could complete smaller jobs around their Municipal District without delays caused by bureaucracy.
‘Cllr Mark Duffy said it was ‘insane’ to think that a job like painting a junction box in an estate requires a tendering process.’
Flexibility Needs to be Part of Bureaucracy
My social media feed is cluttered with tips on how to reduce inflammation. It seems like everywhere people are focused on it now. Insulin resistance, too. This is precisely what bureaucracy is. It is social inflammation. We need food to live. We need quality food, not processed food, and we need the right amount of food. That’s the right way to think about regulation.
‘Where is the fresh, innovative thinking that we enjoyed when the Sask Party first won the right to govern? Why has it devolved into bloated bureaucracy with layers of over-regulation? Why does it insist on one-size-fits-all policies which paralyze entrepreneurs, municipal councils and even local boards charged with administering government programs?’
Reining in the power of unelected bureaucrats
US Senator calls for more “prescriptive” legislation to reclaim power it has ceded to the executive branch over decades.
‘Now, Congress must step up. We must take this historic opportunity to reclaim our legislative power. We must make clear, concise laws. We need to be prescriptive with the executive branch and tell them what we mean and what to do. We must be proactive in our lawmaking. We must also exercise vigorous oversight of agencies to ensure they adhere to the law. My colleagues and I have created a working group to explore ways to ensure we do that.’
Zero-Based Regulation A Step-by-Step Guide for States
Idaho shows the way when it comes to regulatory reform.
‘The state of Idaho’s “zero-based regulation” program offers a useful model for achieving successful regulatory reform. The key lesson from Idaho’s experience is that, to catalyze statewide regulatory reform, governors first must understand that regulatory agencies have little inherent incentive to eliminate existing regulations, even when those regulations are known to be unnecessary or unworkable. Governors therefore have to construct a system to combat this inertia in order to make a measurable impact on reducing regulatory accumulation and burden.
‘Idaho’s zero-based regulation program combines four established elements of regulatory reform: sunset provisions, regulatory budgets, regulatory impact analyses, and independent reviews. When consistently applied, these four elements flip the script on regulations. No longer do agencies have to expend significant effort to eliminate a regulation; rather, regulations are eliminated by default, and keeping a regulation requires agencies to affirmatively justify its costs relative to its benefits.’
King Charles Unveils AI Regulation Bill: Impact on the FE Sector
UK Speech from the Throne sounds good. They want to have innovation and protection. Striking the balance will be key. The implication here is that striking a balance is possible, that bureaucrats will know enough to be able to thread the needle. Hope springs eternal.
‘King Charles emphasised the need to balance innovation with safety and ethical considerations. The bill aims to create a regulatory framework that does not stifle technological advancements while ensuring robust oversight.
‘The AI community’s response has been mixed. Nathan Benaich of Air Street Capital supports the cautious approach, highlighting the UK’s competitive advantage in maintaining a sector-based regulatory framework. Conversely, Gaia Marcus from the Ada Lovelace Institute stresses the urgency of implementing new legislation due to AI’s rapid integration into daily life and public services.’
Finance, housing sectors ripe for AI regulation: Congressional committee
One interesting implication here is the alleged impact AI is having on price: price volatility and price discrimination.
‘“Companies across the economy are increasingly using algorithms to determine their prices. When a small group of algorithm providers can influence a major segment of a market, competitors are better able to use the algorithm provider to facilitate collusion,” the DOJ said in a March statement.
‘“Competitors cannot lawfully cooperate to set their prices, whether via their staff or an algorithm, even if the competitors never communicate with each other directly,” the agency warned.
‘Academic research confirms the cartelizing effects of algorithmic pricing.’
Pfluger introduces bill to end over regulation
More legislation to give back Congress power over the Executive Branch.
‘Pfluger’s legislation represents a pivotal effort to restore congressional oversight and rein in the unchecked growth of federal bureaucracy. By overturning Chevron deference and promoting clarity and fairness in regulatory practices, the Returning the Power to the People Act of 2024 aims to empower American businesses and uphold the rule of law.’
States strike out on their own on AI, privacy regulation
More entanglement issues for AI regulation as states are doing it for themselves.
‘As congressional sessions have passed without any new federal artificial intelligence laws, state legislators are striking out on their own to regulate the technologies in the meantime.
‘Colorado just signed into effect one of the most sweeping regulatory laws in the country, which sets guardrails for companies that develop and use AI. Its focus is mitigating consumer harm and discrimination by AI systems, and Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, said he hopes the conversations will continue on the state and federal level.
‘Other states, like New Mexico, have focused on regulating how computer generated images can appear in media and political campaigns. Some, like Iowa, have criminalized sexually charged computer-generated images, especially when they portray children.
‘“We can’t just sit and wait,” Delaware state Rep. Krista Griffith, D-Wilmington, who has sponsored AI regulation, told States Newsroom. “These are issues that our constituents are demanding protections on, rightfully so.”’