By: Kristian Stout (Truth On The Market)
Following Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, the federal government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) is at a pivotal moment. While there may be pressure to push through AI-related legislation during Congress’ upcoming lame-duck session, rushing such efforts could undermine U.S. leadership in AI innovation. Instead, this transition period offers a chance to take a fresh approach, carefully considering how the government can establish the right safeguards while encouraging continued development and innovation.
Despite AI’s growing influence across industries—ranging from healthcare and finance to manufacturing and transportation—federal regulatory action has been limited so far. President Joe Biden did issue an executive order on AI, and several agencies have gathered public feedback in response, but Congress has yet to pass any significant AI-specific legislation.
During a rally last year, then-candidate Trump promised: “When I’m reelected, I will cancel Biden’s artificial intelligence executive order and ban the use of AI to censor the speech of American citizens on day one.” This pledge made its way into the Republican National Committee’s platform, which declared:
“We will repeal Joe Biden’s dangerous Executive Order that stifles AI innovation and imposes radical left-wing ideas on the development of this technology. Instead, Republicans support AI development based on free speech and human flourishing.”
However, it would be naive to assume that Congress will remain inactive on AI regulation indefinitely. Given the likelihood that the federal government will take action on AI, it’s crucial that any new regulatory framework prioritizes U.S. competitiveness in AI development while ensuring appropriate safety measures. Examining current legislative proposals can highlight key priorities and potential compromises, providing insight into where Congress might ultimately steer AI regulation…
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand