A Win for Proactionary AI Policy

In a just-fought battle over the future of artificial intelligence, the Proactionary Principle racked up victory over the Precautionary Principle.

Here in the U.S., the administration releasing Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan and will work through executive action to implement it.

It offers a ringing optimistic vision that AI “will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people. AI will enable Americans to discover new materials, synthesize new chemicals, manufacture new drugs, and develop new methods to harness energy—an industrial revolution. It will enable radically new forms of education, media, and communication—an information revolution. And it will enable altogether new intellectual achievements: unraveling ancient scrolls once thought unreadable, making breakthroughs in scientific and mathematical theory, and creating new kinds of digital and physical art—a renaissance.”

The context of this Action Plan is that so far this year, over 1,000 mostly precautionary proposed regulations have been put forward mostly in state legislatures. Most are innovation-killing, for example, requiring annual safety inspections with vague and contradictory standards or guarding against alleged “algorithm discrimination,” whatever that means. California, New York, and Illinois are the three states most active in pushing European-style, innovation-killing restrictions. The latter, for example, has just banned the use of AI in therapy. AI companies could not adhere to a patchwork of 50 different sets of standards, so they would likely have to kowtow to the legal restrictions of the largest states, i.e., the three mentioned above.

There are, of course, serious challenges emerging from AI, for example, how to deal with deep fakes, intellectual property, and security. But a Proactionary approach means letting AI-creating and -adopting companies experiment with various approaches to these challenges, letting the competition play out. Look back 50 years: Apple offered a tightly-integrated hardware-software closed ecosystem, eventually adding new products and services. Microsoft offered operating systems to all computer hardware manufacturers. At various stages, Microsoft was winning in the market, at other stages it was Apple, and now both prosper and still compete, especially in AI. Policymakers need to allow the same dynamism in AI.

The administration’s plan will still come into legal conflict with innovation-killing state restrictions. And that plan is not perfect, but that’s okay because it’s open discussion, experimentation, and competition that will unleash our AI-enhancing future.