Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the latest technological “thing” that’s going to change the world—unless it destroys it.
Or at least, that’s the impression most people get from major media and social media channels.
And since politicians jump at any chance to show the folks back home how much they care, several members of the Texas legislature have introduced bills to regulate AI.
Like many, I remember how impressed I was the first time I asked ChatGPT to write something for me. Fast-forward to today, and I use it regularly to check grammar and spelling, correct usage and style, etc.
Every time a new technology emerges, there are immediate calls for government regulation. Innovation seems to unnerve people—some fear losing their jobs, while others worry that nanotech or AI might somehow extinguish the human race. Politicians capitalize on these fears, promising to protect voters from the “scary” unknown.
Virginia Postrel has described the tension between dynamism and stasis in her book and blog since 1999. Stasis—the way things are now—feels safe, while change seems risky. But dynamism—change, innovation, revolution—is how society advances. At various times, people have feared the Industrial Revolution, electricity, wireless technology, vaccines, nuclear power, robotics, the Internet, biotech, nanotech, and now AI.
Yet all of these innovations have improved the human condition, extended lifespan, enhanced quality of life, reduced poverty and drudgery, and created new opportunities. Still, fear of dynamism persists.
Of course, new innovations carry risks. And when it becomes clear that a technology causes harm alongside its benefits, regulation is absolutely appropriate. The danger lies in regulating too early, which risks stifling the benefits of innovation.
This tension—between precaution and permissionless innovation—has been described by Adam Thierer. Our bias should lean toward permissionless innovation, not excessive precaution. Overregulation leads to stagnation—a society that has abandoned progress.
Texas should hold off on regulating this potentially transformative technology. It’s absurd to regulate a technology like AI on a state-by-state basis. AI isn’t exactly intrastate commerce.
Like many, I remember how impressed I was the first time I asked ChatGPT to write something for me. Fast-forward to today, and I use it regularly to check grammar and spelling, correct usage and style, etc.
Every time a new technology emerges, there are immediate calls for government regulation. Innovation seems to unnerve people—some fear losing their jobs, while others worry that nanotech or AI might somehow extinguish the human race. Politicians capitalize on these fears, promising to protect voters from the “scary” unknown.
Virginia Postrel has described the tension between dynamism and stasis in her book and blog since 1999. Stasis—the way things are now—feels safe, while change seems risky. But dynamism—change, innovation, revolution—is how society advances. At various times, people have feared the Industrial Revolution, electricity, wireless technology, vaccines, nuclear power, robotics, the Internet, biotech, nanotech, and now AI.
Yet all of these innovations have improved the human condition, extended lifespan, enhanced quality of life, reduced poverty and drudgery, and created new opportunities. Still, fear of dynamism persists.
Of course, new innovations carry risks. And when it becomes clear that a technology causes harm alongside its benefits, regulation is absolutely appropriate. The danger lies in regulating too early, which risks stifling the benefits of innovation.
This tension—between precaution and permissionless innovation—has been described by Adam Thierer. Our bias should lean toward permissionless innovation, not excessive precaution. Overregulation leads to stagnation—a society that has abandoned progress.
Texas should hold off on regulating this potentially transformative technology. It’s absurd to regulate a technology like AI on a state-by-state basis. AI isn’t exactly intrastate commerce.
Texas should be a leader in innovation, not a leader in regulation.
Today's TexByte was written by IPI President Tom Giovanetti