From AI Regulation to Quantum Policy: Essential Reads from Our Team
Plus New Tech Policy Shifts in DC
Whew, this edition is a doozy. As you can see, our team has been hard at work and today I get to share their latest with you! First up, the Abundance Institute published our first four articles and I’ve got a short summary of each:
→ The AI Technopanic and Its Effects
, , and I wrote a primer on AI Technopanics. Following our deep dive into how doomsday scenarios are fueled, we conclude with recommendations for the media, media consumers (you and me alike), and policymakers including the idea that:We need to keep reminding ourselves that the promoters of hype and criti-hype have much to gain from spreading the impression that AI is much more powerful than it actually is.
→ Regulating Machine Learning Open-Source Software
James Ostrowski argues that the regulation of machine learning open-source software (MLOSS) should focus on its deployment rather than its development to avoid stifling innovation and concentrating power among a few large companies. Policymakers should prioritize regulating the deployment of AI technologies to effectively address specific harms while allowing the open-source community to thrive. This approach ensures accountability for harmful applications without imposing heavy burdens on developers, which would hinder open-source innovation and give an undue advantage to major corporations.
→ Nanotechnology
discusses how nanotechnology, particularly atomically precise manufacturing (APM), is the next technological revolution that could be as transformative as the Industrial Revolution, promising radical changes in production, medicine, and environmental management. Hall concludes that APM will enable unprecedented manufacturing capabilities, including self-replicating machines, potentially revolutionizing industries and creating radical abundance.→ Quantum Policy
expands on how quantum technologies, encompassing computing, sensing, and communications, hold transformative potential for numerous sectors. But, their development and deployment necessitate careful, balanced policy approaches to manage the associated benefits, risks, and societal impacts. She recommends policymakers include creating incentives for quantum R&D, ensuring equitable access to quantum benefits, managing international competition and collaboration, addressing privacy and security concerns, and investing in education and workforce development to support the quantum technology ecosystem.In the news
River Page of
and I spoke about the legal tussle between Scarlett Johansson and OpenAI.“The fact pattern of OpenAI approaching Scarlett Johansson, her declining, you know, at least twice. And then there’s that tweet that Sam Altman still has up. I think those things are what could tip the scales in Scarlett Johansson’s favor,” says Barkley. Not that anyone is suing anyone just yet.
I wrote a piece for the New York Post on how the American Privacy Rights Act will dramatically disadvantage smaller businesses due to its requirement for companies to de-identify their user data.
For highly technical reasons, de-identifying is a process that is very difficult and expensive, even for highly skilled data scientists. The cost of compliance with this rule would be enormous – likely available to only the largest and most established companies – and its effect on innovation and entrepreneurship would undoubtedly be chilling.
- spoke with Politico about the shift in DC towards regulators taking a permissionless approach to AI innovation.
“There is a waking up in Silicon Valley,” Chilson said. “They didn’t really think it was important to talk to DC. And I think that’s different now.”
My first piece at Abundance Institute was an op-ed published by Fox News: “Don't use science fiction to inspire public policy on AI.” Fictional scenarios should not serve as serious guides for crafting public policy.
Fake scenarios should not guide reality because, if they do, then the benefits of AI and other innovations could never come about.
Abundance Fellow Matt Perault and Bruce Mehlman outline for Lawfare how tech policy politics have changed in Washington since the 1990s and how AI is forcing another shift with its own round of new bedfellows.
The new dividing line is between those who are first and foremost optimistic about regulation and those who are skeptical: those who believe that new rules will protect society from harm versus those who believe that new rules will protect established companies from competition.
ICYMI
We released the first report in our series on AI and the 2024 elections. You can revisit below or check out Neil discussing our findings on CSPAN’s Washington Journal.