There are growing concerns about how lethal autonomous weapons systems, artificial general intelligence (or “superintelligence”) or “killer robots” might give rise to new global existential risks. Continuous communication and... more
There are growing concerns about how lethal autonomous weapons systems, artificial general intelligence (or “superintelligence”) or “killer robots” might give rise to new global existential risks. Continuous communication and coordination—among countries, developers, professional bodies and other stakeholders—is the most important strategy for addressing such risks.
Although global agreements and accords can help address some malicious uses of artificial intelligence (AI) or robotics, proposals calling for control through a global regulatory authority are both unwise and unlikely to work. Calls for bans or “pauses” on AI developments are also futile because many nations would never agree to forego developing algorithmic capabilities when adversaries are advancing their own. Therefore, the U.S. government should continue to work with other nations to address threatening uses of algorithmic or robotic technologies while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that it possesses the same technological capabilities as adversaries or rogue nonstate actors.
Many different nongovernmental international bodies and multinational actors can play an important role as coordinators of national policies and conveners of ongoing deliberation about various AI risks and concerns. Soft law (i.e., informal rules, norms and agreements) will also play an important role in addressing AI risks. Professional institutions and nongovernmental bodies have developed important ethical norms and expectations about acceptable uses of algorithmic technologies, and these groups also play an essential role in highlighting algorithmic risks and helping with ongoing efforts to communicate and coordinate global steps to address them.
Although global agreements and accords can help address some malicious uses of artificial intelligence (AI) or robotics, proposals calling for control through a global regulatory authority are both unwise and unlikely to work. Calls for bans or “pauses” on AI developments are also futile because many nations would never agree to forego developing algorithmic capabilities when adversaries are advancing their own. Therefore, the U.S. government should continue to work with other nations to address threatening uses of algorithmic or robotic technologies while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that it possesses the same technological capabilities as adversaries or rogue nonstate actors.
Many different nongovernmental international bodies and multinational actors can play an important role as coordinators of national policies and conveners of ongoing deliberation about various AI risks and concerns. Soft law (i.e., informal rules, norms and agreements) will also play an important role in addressing AI risks. Professional institutions and nongovernmental bodies have developed important ethical norms and expectations about acceptable uses of algorithmic technologies, and these groups also play an essential role in highlighting algorithmic risks and helping with ongoing efforts to communicate and coordinate global steps to address them.
Research Interests: Robotics, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, International Relations, International Relations Theory, and 11 moreMachine Learning, International Law, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Nuclear Weapons, Autonomous Robotics, International Human Rights Law, United Nations, Data Science, Existential risk, Arms Control and Disarmament, and Lethal Autonomous Weapons
Policy interest in artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic systems continues to expand. Regulatory proposals are multiplying rapidly as academics and policymakers consider ways to achieve “AI alignment”—that is, to make sure that... more
Policy interest in artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic systems continues to expand. Regulatory proposals are multiplying rapidly as academics and policymakers consider ways to achieve “AI alignment”—that is, to make sure that algorithmic systems promote human values and well-being. The process of embedding and aligning ethics in AI design is not static; it is an ongoing, iterative process influenced by many factors and values. It is therefore crucial that we build resiliency into algorithmic systems. The goal should be algorithmic risk mitigation—not elimination, which would be unrealistic. As we undertake this process, there will be much trial and error in creating ethical guidelines and finding better ways of keeping these systems aligned with human values. As a result, one-size-fits-all, top-down (i.e., regulatory-driven) mandates are unlikely to be workable or effective.
This article summarizes how more flexible, adaptive, bottom-up, less restrictive governance strategies can address algorithmic concerns and help ensure that AI innovation continues apace. Various organizations are already working to professionalize the process of AI ethics through sophisticated best-practice frameworks, algorithmic auditing and impact-assessment efforts. Multi-stakeholder efforts are helping to build consensus around these matters. These decentralized “soft-law” governance efforts build on existing hard law in many ways. Ex-post enforcement of existing laws and court-based remedies will provide an important backstop when AI developers fail to live up to their claims or promises about safe, effective and fair algorithms. Existing consumer protection laws and agency product recall authority will play a particularly important role in this regard.
Government can play an important role as a facilitator of ongoing dialogue and multi-stakeholder negotiations to address problems as they arise. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which have already done crucial work in this regard, can form a standing AI working group that brings parties together like this over time on an as-needed basis. Government actors can also facilitate digital literacy efforts and technology awareness-building, which can help lessen public fears about emerging algorithmic and robotic technologies.
Keywords: artificial, intelligence, AI, ML, algorithm, algorithmic, machine, learning, robot, robotics, data, innovation, regulation, policy, governance, risk, safety, ethics, alignment, default, precaution
This article summarizes how more flexible, adaptive, bottom-up, less restrictive governance strategies can address algorithmic concerns and help ensure that AI innovation continues apace. Various organizations are already working to professionalize the process of AI ethics through sophisticated best-practice frameworks, algorithmic auditing and impact-assessment efforts. Multi-stakeholder efforts are helping to build consensus around these matters. These decentralized “soft-law” governance efforts build on existing hard law in many ways. Ex-post enforcement of existing laws and court-based remedies will provide an important backstop when AI developers fail to live up to their claims or promises about safe, effective and fair algorithms. Existing consumer protection laws and agency product recall authority will play a particularly important role in this regard.
Government can play an important role as a facilitator of ongoing dialogue and multi-stakeholder negotiations to address problems as they arise. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which have already done crucial work in this regard, can form a standing AI working group that brings parties together like this over time on an as-needed basis. Government actors can also facilitate digital literacy efforts and technology awareness-building, which can help lessen public fears about emerging algorithmic and robotic technologies.
Keywords: artificial, intelligence, AI, ML, algorithm, algorithmic, machine, learning, robot, robotics, data, innovation, regulation, policy, governance, risk, safety, ethics, alignment, default, precaution
Research Interests:
Public and political interest is intensifying in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and robotics. As these technological capabilities advance, legislative and regulatory proposals for algorithmic systems will grow alongside... more
Public and political interest is intensifying in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and robotics. As these technological capabilities advance, legislative and regulatory proposals for algorithmic systems will grow alongside them. Public policy will play a crucial role in shaping the so-called “computational revolution.”
To ensure that the United States can be a global leader in advanced technology sectors, we must create a policy innovation culture that encourages and rewards the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. The danger exists that the United States could adopt the opposite approach, locking entrepreneurs and investors in an “innovation cage” that constrains their growth opportunities.
Ultimately, policymakers must make a choice between two general policy defaults that will govern most algorithmic systems: the precautionary principle or permissionless innovation. Under the highly risk-averse precautionary principle approach, algorithmic innovations would essentially be treated as guilty until proven innocent, a legal standard generally shunned as unfair to individuals. Under the permissionless innovation approach, AI entrepreneurism is generally given a green light and treated as innocent until proven guilty, ensuring that people are mostly at liberty to create new things.
This paper explores the dangers of adopting the highly regulatory precautionary approach and recommends continuing with the more permissionless approach to policy that helped spawn the digital revolution and made American tech companies global powerhouses. Although some safeguards will be needed to minimize certain AI risks, a more flexible, bottom-up (i.e., less regulation) governance approach can address these concerns without creating overbearing, top-down (i.e., more regulation) mandates, which would hinder algorithmic innovations.
The ramifications of this policy choice are significant because AI and algorithmic systems play an important role in America’s global competitive advantage and relative geopolitical power. With China becoming a major competitor in advanced information technology sectors and other nations racing to be at the forefront of the unfolding computational revolution, the United States must create a positive innovation culture if it hopes to prosper economically and ensure a safer, more secure technological base.
Keywords: artificial, intelligence, AI, ML, machine, learning, robot, robotics, data, innovation, regulation, policy, governance, existential, risk, default, precaution, permissionless, default
To ensure that the United States can be a global leader in advanced technology sectors, we must create a policy innovation culture that encourages and rewards the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. The danger exists that the United States could adopt the opposite approach, locking entrepreneurs and investors in an “innovation cage” that constrains their growth opportunities.
Ultimately, policymakers must make a choice between two general policy defaults that will govern most algorithmic systems: the precautionary principle or permissionless innovation. Under the highly risk-averse precautionary principle approach, algorithmic innovations would essentially be treated as guilty until proven innocent, a legal standard generally shunned as unfair to individuals. Under the permissionless innovation approach, AI entrepreneurism is generally given a green light and treated as innocent until proven guilty, ensuring that people are mostly at liberty to create new things.
This paper explores the dangers of adopting the highly regulatory precautionary approach and recommends continuing with the more permissionless approach to policy that helped spawn the digital revolution and made American tech companies global powerhouses. Although some safeguards will be needed to minimize certain AI risks, a more flexible, bottom-up (i.e., less regulation) governance approach can address these concerns without creating overbearing, top-down (i.e., more regulation) mandates, which would hinder algorithmic innovations.
The ramifications of this policy choice are significant because AI and algorithmic systems play an important role in America’s global competitive advantage and relative geopolitical power. With China becoming a major competitor in advanced information technology sectors and other nations racing to be at the forefront of the unfolding computational revolution, the United States must create a positive innovation culture if it hopes to prosper economically and ensure a safer, more secure technological base.
Keywords: artificial, intelligence, AI, ML, machine, learning, robot, robotics, data, innovation, regulation, policy, governance, existential, risk, default, precaution, permissionless, default
Research Interests:
To better plan for the economy of the future, many academics and policymakers regularly attempt to forecast the jobs and worker skills that will be needed going forward. Driving these efforts are fears about how technological automation... more
To better plan for the economy of the future, many academics and policymakers regularly attempt to forecast the jobs and worker skills that will be needed going forward. Driving these efforts are fears about how technological automation might disrupt workers, skills, professions, firms and entire industrial sectors. The continued growth of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and other computational technologies exacerbate these anxieties.
Yet the limits of both our collective knowledge and our individual imaginations constrain well-intentioned efforts to plan for the workforce of the future. Past attempts to assist workers or industries have often failed for various reasons. While dystopian predictions about mass technological unemployment persist, as do retraining or reskilling programs that typically fail to produce much of value for workers or society.
As public efforts to assist or train workers move from general to more specific, the potential for policy missteps grows greater. While transitional support mechanisms can help alleviate some of the pain associated with fast-moving technological disruption, the most important thing policymakers can do is clear away barriers to economic dynamism and new opportunities for workers.
Keywords: AI, artificial, intelligence, machine, learning, automation, algorithm, technology, innovation, regulation, governance, Jobs, labor, employment, workers, labor
Yet the limits of both our collective knowledge and our individual imaginations constrain well-intentioned efforts to plan for the workforce of the future. Past attempts to assist workers or industries have often failed for various reasons. While dystopian predictions about mass technological unemployment persist, as do retraining or reskilling programs that typically fail to produce much of value for workers or society.
As public efforts to assist or train workers move from general to more specific, the potential for policy missteps grows greater. While transitional support mechanisms can help alleviate some of the pain associated with fast-moving technological disruption, the most important thing policymakers can do is clear away barriers to economic dynamism and new opportunities for workers.
Keywords: AI, artificial, intelligence, machine, learning, automation, algorithm, technology, innovation, regulation, governance, Jobs, labor, employment, workers, labor
Research Interests:
Since the fall of 2008, a debate has raged in Washington over "targeted online advertising," shorthand for the customization of Internet ads to match the interests of users. Not only are these ads more relevant and therefore... more
Since the fall of 2008, a debate has raged in Washington over "targeted online advertising," shorthand for the customization of Internet ads to match the interests of users. Not only are these ads more relevant and therefore less annoying to Internet users than untargeted ads, they are more cost-effective to advertisers and more profitable to websites that sell ad space. This growing revenue stream ultimately funds the free content and services that Internet users increasingly take for granted, and policymakers should think very carefully about what's really best for consumers before rushing to regulate an industry that has thrived for over a decade under a layered approach that combines technological "self-help" by privacy-wary consumers, consumer education, industry self-regulation, existing state privacy tort laws, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement of corporate privacy policies. A cost/benefit analysis of regulation, along with the availabilit...
Research Interests:
The Federal Trade Commission should avoid laying the groundwork for more onerous regulation of the online advertising marketplace, which could become the equivalent of a disastrous industrial policy for the Internet and choke resources... more
The Federal Trade Commission should avoid laying the groundwork for more onerous regulation of the online advertising marketplace, which could become the equivalent of a disastrous industrial policy for the Internet and choke resources needed to fuel e-commerce and online free speech going forward. With the release of the FTC's updated "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising," the burden of proof remains on the FTC to show how concrete, not conjectural harms, would flow from efforts to create more targeted forms of advertising, before creating more regulatory mandates that would co-opt the voluntary self-regulatory process. Why is it that the FTC and so-called privacy advocates aren't doing more to highlight existing self-help tools or working to encourage the development of additional - and more robust - tools? FTC intervention in privacy policies of online advertisers could have major consequences for continued creativity and innovation. Tig...
Research Interests:
Advertising is increasingly under attack in Washington. In fact, we're busy finishing up a paper with the working title: "The New Assault on Advertising: What it Means for the Future of Media & Culture." Among other things,... more
Advertising is increasingly under attack in Washington. In fact, we're busy finishing up a paper with the working title: "The New Assault on Advertising: What it Means for the Future of Media & Culture." Among other things, the paper inventories the many ways in which policymakers in Washington and elsewhere are stepping up regulation of commercial advertising and marketing efforts-and highlights the common themes that unite them. Unfortunately, the report is already over 50 pages long and we keep finding new threats to discuss!
Research Interests:
In this essay, we discuss an old idea that's gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. We argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press... more
In this essay, we discuss an old idea that's gained new currency: taxing media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. We argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.
Research Interests:
Last year, in a South African courtroom, global pharmaceutical firms challenged a law that permitted the manufacture and importation of generic AIDS drugs. The companies quickly dropped this claim, however, when the defense of their... more
Last year, in a South African courtroom, global pharmaceutical firms challenged a law that permitted the manufacture and importation of generic AIDS drugs. The companies quickly dropped this claim, however, when the defense of their patent rights became a public relations fiasco. Indeed, just prior to last year's World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, Qatar, South Africa's health minister called the high prices for lifesaving medi cines a "crime against humanity." Ten thousand miles away in San Francisco, the music industry tried to take down Napster, a service that allowed users to swap digital music files over the Internet. In this case, the courts agreed that Napster's file-sharing technology violated music copyrights. And across the Atlantic, advocates of "software libre" are intro ducing legislation in several European parliaments to give preferences in govern ment procurement to software that can be freely copied and distributed. The Eurolinux Alliance argues that only free software "preserves privacy, individual liberties, and the right for every citizen to access public information." Battles such as these are erupting all over the globe. At stake are decisions about how society can best encourage the creation of ideas, when someone can stake a claim to intellectual property, and how far copyrightand patent-holders can go in preventing others from taking their property. The scope of the contro versy is vast. It might encompass debates about ownership of the formula for an AIDS vaccine, a Miles Davis riff, a software algorithm, or a new way of uncorking a wine bottle. Each of these is an idea embodied in physical forms: formulas,
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT
Research Interests:
Privacy law today faces two interrelated problems. The first is an information control problem. Like so many other fields of modern cyberlaw—intellectual property, online safety, cybersecurity, etc.—privacy law is being challenged by... more
Privacy law today faces two interrelated problems. The first is an information control problem. Like so many other fields of modern cyberlaw—intellectual property, online safety, cybersecurity, etc.—privacy law is being challenged by intractable Information Age realties. Specifically, it is easier than ever before for information to circulate freely and harder than ever to bottle it up once it is released. This has not slowed efforts to fashion new rules aimed at bottling up those information flows. If anything, the pace of privacy-related regulatory proposals has been steadily increasing in recent years even as these information control challenges multiply. This has led to privacy law’s second major problem: the precautionary principle problem. The precautionary principle generally holds that new innovations should be curbed or even forbidden until they are proven safe. Fashioning privacy rules based on precautionary principle reasoning necessitates prophylactic regulation that mak...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the request by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for written comments on the potential safety issues and hazards associated with internet-connected consumer products. The internet... more
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the request by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for written comments on the potential safety issues and hazards associated with internet-connected consumer products. The internet of things (IoT) is a burgeoning ecosystem. Promoting resilience—that is, the capacity to withstand and learn from cyberattacks—in this ecosystem without hampering innovation is crucial for the ecosystem’s full benefits to be realized.
When it comes to human health, wealth, and happiness—and to social progress and prosperity more generally—there is no static equilibrium, no final destination. There is only a dynamic and never-ending learning process. Learning from... more
When it comes to human health, wealth, and happiness—and to social progress and prosperity more generally—there is no static equilibrium, no final destination. There is only a dynamic and never-ending learning process. Learning from experience provides individuals and organizations with valuable informational inputs regarding which methods work better than others. Even more importantly, learning by doing facilitates social and economic resiliency that helps individuals and organizations develop better coping strategies for when things go wrong. Behavioral theorists and nudge advocates often fail to incorporate these insights into their analysis and policy proposals.
Research Interests:
A major American industry is struggling. Some are calling for subsidies to prop it up; potentially even a bailout. Assistance for displaced workers is also recommended. And a variety of new regulations are proposed to avoid future... more
A major American industry is struggling. Some are calling for subsidies to prop it up; potentially even a bailout. Assistance for displaced workers is also recommended. And a variety of new regulations are proposed to avoid future calamities.Is it the auto industry? The financial sector? The housing market?No, it's the media. With many traditional media providers--newspapers, broadcasters, and others--languishing in the midst of unprecedented marketplace changes and technological upheaval, some regulatory activists are suggesting government should take steps to "save journalism" before venerable news-gathering institutions and reporters are swept away by the ongoing digital tsunami.
Research Interests:
Public policy debates about online child safety have raged since the earliest days of the Internet. Concerns about underage access to objectionable content (specifically pornography) drove early "Web 1.0" efforts to regulate the... more
Public policy debates about online child safety have raged since the earliest days of the Internet. Concerns about underage access to objectionable content (specifically pornography) drove early "Web 1.0" efforts to regulate the Internet, and it continues to be the topic of much discussion today. With the rise of the more interactive "Web 2.0" environment, however, objectionable contact and communications (harassment, cyberbullying, predation, etc.) have become a more significant concern and is now driving many regulatory proposals. Over the past decade, five major online safety task forces or blue ribbon commissions have been convened to study these concerns, determine their severity, and consider what should be done to address them. Altogether, these five task forces heard from hundreds of experts and produced thousands of pages of testimony and reports on a wide variety of issues related to online child safety. While each of these task forces had different ori...
Research Interests:
In this installment, we will consider whether it is possible to steer citizens toward so-called “hard news” (“serious” journalism) - and get them to financially support it - through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest... more
In this installment, we will consider whether it is possible to steer citizens toward so-called “hard news” (“serious” journalism) - and get them to financially support it - through the use of “news vouchers” or “public interest vouchers”? We will argue that using the tax code to nudge people to support media - while less problematic than direct subsidies for the press - will likely raise serious issues regarding eligibility and be prone to political meddling. Moreover, the scheme is unlikely to succeed in encouraging people to direct more resources to hard news and will likely instead become a method of subsidizing other media content they already consume.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT Though not yet complete, the 110th session of Congress has already witnessed an explosion of legislative proposals dealing with online child safety, or which seek to regulate media content or Internet communications in some... more
ABSTRACT Though not yet complete, the 110th session of Congress has already witnessed an explosion of legislative proposals dealing with online child safety, or which seek to regulate media content or Internet communications in some fashion. More than 30 of these legislative proposals are cataloged in a new joint legislative index that was released today by the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Progress & Freedom Foundation, compiled to help keep track of the growing volume of legislative activity on these fronts. Many of the measures highlighted in the index raise serious free speech concerns. The proposals can be grouped into Analog Era (pre-Internet) versus Digital Era (post-Net) platforms or forms of content that they would affect. Meanwhile for bills introducing education initiatives, while it would probably be more sensible for the Department of Education or the FTC to be awarding appropriate grants, the focus on education and empowerment is commendable. Finally, a significant number of the measures introduced this session call for stepped up enforcement efforts aimed at combating online child predation or child pornography, for which the provisions are relatively uncontroversial, but can run into dangerous territory when they call for sweeping data collection mandates on Internet Service Providers.While Congress is right to take steps to protect children against actual harms - namely, child predation and child pornography - it would be unwise for lawmakers to expand the censorial schemes of the past. The better approach for potentially objectionable, but legal, content is to use education and empowerment-based strategies. Parents already have a multitude of tools, controls, and information at their disposal to establish their own household standards regarding acceptable media content. In the face of a growing legislative agenda, it is important for those concerned about speech and privacy rights to remain vigilant.
Research Interests:
... But the move in the summer of 2003 to count form letters individually ... in indecency complaints in January and February following the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident. ... Winner, People's Choice Award Favorite Television... more
... But the move in the summer of 2003 to count form letters individually ... in indecency complaints in January and February following the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident. ... Winner, People's Choice Award Favorite Television Dramatic Series (2003, 2004, 2005); Nominee, Emmy ...
Research Interests:
... OEM Trends Point to Strong Growth; Shifting our Preference to XMSR,” Bernstein Research, November 18, 2005, p. 1. 9 William M. Meyers ... & CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters to US House of Representatives, July 14,... more
... OEM Trends Point to Strong Growth; Shifting our Preference to XMSR,” Bernstein Research, November 18, 2005, p. 1. 9 William M. Meyers ... & CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters to US House of Representatives, July 14, 2005, http://www.nab.org/newsroom/pressrel ...
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT The Federal Communications Commission should refrain from regulating technical standards in the cable industry.Among two competing proposals currently before the FCC concerning ways the FCC can facilitate development of two-way... more
ABSTRACT The Federal Communications Commission should refrain from regulating technical standards in the cable industry.Among two competing proposals currently before the FCC concerning ways the FCC can facilitate development of two-way cable services, such as pay-per-view and video-on-demand, one proposal from the consumer electronics industry requests that the FCC impose common carrier type regulations on cable facilities in order to ensure third party service providers are able to have input into interoperability standards for their products. However, regulation of this market could impose significant costs on industry and consumers alike by locking in sub-optimal technical standards and expanding the FCC's authority to micro-manage the industry in the future. FCC regulation can only be warranted if there is an identified market failure in the cable applications market. With no reported exclusions of third-party services and applications, pre-emptive regulation is not justified. Consumer demand and other entertainment platforms, such as FIOS and programming available via the Internet, provide competition in the market which will discourage attempts to block application providers. The FCC should also not deny cable companies the right to develop services and applications for their networks in favor of third-party innovation.If the FCC wants to promote development of features and services for cable, they should refrain from imposing open access type regulations. Instead the better approach is to encourage ongoing marketplace experimentation, private negotiations, and greater facilities-based competition. Leaving standards creation in control of the government, as opposed to private negotiation, would do little to benefit consumers. Instead, FCC-controlled standards could hinder the cable applications and platform market by restricting future development and innovation to inferior technology.
Research Interests:
Page 1. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1161312 MEDIA METRICS: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace Adam Thierer Grant Eskelsen Page 2. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1161312 Media... more
Page 1. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1161312 MEDIA METRICS: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace Adam Thierer Grant Eskelsen Page 2. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1161312 Media Metrics: The True State of the ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Anyone who has spent time following debates about speech and privacy regulation comes to recognize the striking parallels between these two policy arenas. In this paper we will highlight the common rhetoric, proposals, and tactics that... more
Anyone who has spent time following debates about speech and privacy regulation comes to recognize the striking parallels between these two policy arenas. In this paper we will highlight the common rhetoric, proposals, and tactics that unite these regulatory movements. Moreover, we will argue that, at root, what often animates calls for regulation of both speech and privacy are two
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Page 1. E FUTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE INFORMATION AGE ITED BY ADAM THIERER AND CLYDE WAYNE CREWS JR. word by DECLAN McCULLAGH, Washington Bureau Chief, Wired News Page 2. ... paper) 1. Intellectual propertyUnited States. ...
Research Interests:
This chapter develops a framework for evaluating how individuals and society respond to technological risks and then discusses why some “risk response strategies” will work better than others as it pertains to online safety risks. Four... more
This chapter develops a framework for evaluating how individuals and society respond to technological risks and then discusses why some “risk response strategies” will work better than others as it pertains to online safety risks. Four generic risk response strategies are identified—prohibition, anticipatory regulation, resiliency, and adaptation—and the trade-offs associated with each option are discussed. It will be argued that resiliency-based strategies present the optimal risk response strategy to address most online safety risks. Specifically, education and empowerment-based initiatives offer society the greatest return on investment by ensuring that (a) parents and guardians are equipped with the tools and methods needed to guide the mentoring process, and (b) children are better prepared for the inevitable surprises the future will always throw at them.
Research Interests:
This paper outlines how local online hubs currently work, what their core ingredients are, and what it will take to bring more of them. This paper, produced by the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a... more
This paper outlines how local online hubs currently work, what their core ingredients are, and what it will take to bring more of them. This paper, produced by the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, focuses primarily on the United States but contains lessons with broader application. This analysis makes three simplifying assumptions. First, while newer developments have supplanted the “portal” concept - namely, online search and social media - there is still something to be said for websites that can help to aggregate attention, highlight important civic information and activities and map public information resources. Second, it continues to make sense to focus on geographic communities for the reasons the Informing Communities report made clear: they are the physical places where people live and work and also elect their leaders. Third, the government’s role in creating high-quality online hubs will likely be quite limited and primarily f...
Research Interests:
What policy vision will govern the future of technological innovation? Will innovators be forced to constantly seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy new devices and services, or will they be generally left... more
What policy vision will govern the future of technological innovation? Will innovators be forced to constantly seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy new devices and services, or will they be generally left free to experiment with new technologies and business models? In this book, Adam Thierer argues that if the former disposition (the precautionary principle) trumps the latter (permissionless innovation), the result will be fewer services, lower quality goods, higher prices, diminished economic growth, and a decline in the overall standard of living. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, and long-run prosperity. By contrast, permissionless innovation has been the secret sauce that fueled the success of the Internet and much of the modern tech economy in recent years, and it is set to power the next great industrial revolutionif we let it.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and the public policies that govern them are both likely to evolve rapidly in the coming years. This essay briefly outlines how AI governance was being formulated in the United States (U.S.) from... more
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and the public policies that govern them are both likely to evolve rapidly in the coming years. This essay briefly outlines how AI governance was being formulated in the United States (U.S.) from 2009 to 2020 during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Although these two administrations differed on most policy matters, they shared a common approach to AI governance. Generally speaking, both administrations adopted a “light-touch” regulatory and industrial policy stance toward AI. They highlighted potential areas of policy concern—safety and security issues, in particular—promoting the growth of AI sectors and technologies was prioritized over preemptively restricting them. In doing so, “soft law” mechanisms were typically tapped before hard law solutions. In this sense, the AI policy in the Obama–Trump AI governance approach has been an extension of the governance vision previous administrations applied to the Internet and digital commerce. The U.S. policy approach to these sectors and technologies stood in contrast to the different governance stances adopted by China and the European Union. However, there are indications that the U.S. could be moving closer to adopting elements of policy frameworks adopted in these jurisdictions.
Research Interests:
Permissionless innovation should be the governing policy for AI technologies.
Research Interests:
Permissionless innovation should be the governing policy for AI technologies.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Economics and Technology
This article argues that benefit-cost analysis ("BCA") is extremely challenging in online child safety and digital privacy debates, yet it remains essential that analysts and policymakers attempt to conduct such reviews. While... more
This article argues that benefit-cost analysis ("BCA") is extremely challenging in online child safety and digital privacy debates, yet it remains essential that analysts and policymakers attempt to conduct such reviews. While we will never be able to perfectly determine either the benefits or costs of online safety or privacy controls, the very act of conducting a regulatory impact analysis ("RIA") will help us to better understand the trade-offs associated with various regulatory proposals. However, precisely because those benefits and costs remain so remarkably subjective and contentious, the paper argues that we should look to employ less-restrictive solutions -- education and awareness efforts, empowerment tools, alternative enforcement mechanisms, etc. -- before resorting to potentially costly and cumbersome legal and regulatory regimes that could disrupt the digital economy and the efficient provision of services that consumers desire. This model has worke...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Business, Economics, Technology, Regulation, TV, and 15 moreMedia, Television, Broadcasting, Information, Tech, Lobby, Transfer, Telecom, Incentives, Broadcast, Subsidies, Subsidy, Rents, High Tech, and Cable
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Congress finally began the long-needed process of comprehensive telecommunication deregulation in 1994, exactly 60 years after their last major legislative effort, the Communications Act of 1934, was enacted. Legislators appear to finally... more
Congress finally began the long-needed process of comprehensive telecommunication deregulation in 1994, exactly 60 years after their last major legislative effort, the Communications Act of 1934, was enacted. Legislators appear to finally realize what has been evident to many industry leaders and analysts for years—regulation isimped- ingthe growthofnewtechnologies, jobs, and exports,while simultane- ously denying consumers the benefits ofcompetition. Unfortunately, in an attempt to remedythe inefficiencies createdby nearlya century's worth of regulation, Congress crafted a reform package that was anythingbut deregulatory. Both the House and Senate bills wereover 200 pages long, contained 50 new regulatory powers, and included protectionist manufacturing requirements. Largely as a result of this pro-regulatory baggage, the bill finally died in the Senate in mid- September of 1994. BeforeCongress makes any rash decisions on howto manage com- petitionwithin the industry, legislat...