4 ms·

That sounds good, but doesn't work in practice. New technology advancements make once very well understood laws, now ambiguous. Take AI as an example. How man

That sounds good, but doesn't work in practice. New technology advancements make once very well understood laws, now ambiguous. Take AI as an example. How many laws have been written over the past few decades that could not have predicted AI use cases or its application.

SoftTalker 2y ago
Congress could create a committee charged with developing an AI policy. That committee can include subject matter experts, and can recommend clear specific regulations. They can then draft legislation that codifies that into law. As opposed to just creating a new "Federal Department of AI" that has broad powers to regulate AI however its unelected administrators see fit.
- roflyear 2y ago
  This is what congress does by creating these agencies that up until now relied on Chevron rather than a drawn out process of creating specific laws (so years can go by with dangerous loopholes etc).
- alberth 2y ago
  Here's a better example. ~50 years ago, laws were written that stated "all communication companies are consider utilities and as such, all utilities should have common access to 'telephone' poles for use to lay down cable" (I'm paraphrasing). Up to this point, "communication" just means copper lines for telephone (voice). Then, in the 1980s - the Internet launched. New companies are now wanting to lay down Fiber optic cables to use for the Internet, and they want the same "common access" to these telephone poles. But it's ambiguous, what is a "communication company". This was well understand in the 60s and 70s to mean telco ... but should that definition now be expanded? So an agency comes in, and say "yes, fiber is consider communication - fiber companies get access to telephone pols to lay fiber down". When this law was originally written, it's was clear. But then new technology challenged what the meaning & intent of the law meant.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > subject matter experts That is a delightfully optimistic name for 'corporate lobbyists.'
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Versus the very same thing in regulatory agencies? Are we seriously acting like there isn't a constant revolving door between law enforcement, major regulatory agencies and the companies they interact with?
    - arzig 2y ago
      The CBO of established by Congress to be subject matter experts. It is the peer to the OMB in the executive branch. If Congress wanted an expert branch to study study technical topics I’m sure they could establish something similar.
its_ethan 2y ago
So make new laws or amend old ones? Isn't that what congress is ostensibly paid to do?
- falcolas 2y ago
  Thousands of highly detailed laws every year, which will still be out of date not not specific enough when they're enacted? "No, our compound does not pollute the water." "It's arsenic with an extra carbon molecule, making it more poisonous!" "But it's not covered in the law, so it's not a pollutant."
  - its_ethan 2y ago
    Are they not allowed to bring in the relevant agencies experts to help them write the laws? I guess the main concern would be congress being overly "politicized" (especially right now) and so things would be a bit slower to take effect if everything that pops up becomes a partisan talking point. But government agencies are also pretty "politicized" too, with agency policy directions flip flopping based on who wins presidential and/or midterm elections. Maybe I'm too optimistic that this could be a forcing function for people to elect more reasonable people. At least there's some delay, and all current agency rulings will remain in place until challenged, and even then stand somewhat decent odds of remaining in effect. Maybe it'll be a brexit-like situation where people start to realize it was maybe a step too far, and a more well-defined and robust version of chevron will eventually return? Who knows
    - falcolas 2y ago
      To clarify, this is a scope problem. 23 agencies each with thousands of regulations that apply to millions of companies, all up for question and challenge at the same time. Bringing in the agencies will not change the scope of the problem. And the real issue, IMO, is that while we're waiting (either on congress or the courts) companies can get away with not following regulations which are currently being questioned (via injunctions granted by politicized judges). Judges too are unelected and selected by politicians. And they don't have to worry nearly as much about their job, which creates its own issues. There's a reason term limits exist.
MarCylinder 2y ago
Yes, but in practice regulatory agencies can be fairly non-communicative with the companies that they regulate. I work in the dietary supplements industry, and while people love to call the space unregulated, it's moreso that regulations remain unenforced. So much so that companies often have to ask the FDA for clarification around ambiguous regulations. And the FDA is often keen on not responding. You often find out because the FDA's decided to enforce a rule, one that the industry will have asked for clarification about countless times beforehand. If regulatory agencies have ample opportunity to clarify ambiguous regulations, they should be doing so. They should not leave it ambiguous until somebody gets hit with a fine. That does not serve public interest.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Congress could create a committee charged with developing an AI policy. That committee can include subject matter experts, and can recommend clear specific regulations. They can then draft legislation that codifies that into law. As opposed to just creating a new "Federal Department of AI" that has broad powers to regulate AI however its unelected administrators see fit.

roflyear 2y ago
This is what congress does by creating these agencies that up until now relied on Chevron rather than a drawn out process of creating specific laws (so years can go by with dangerous loopholes etc).
alberth 2y ago
Here's a better example. ~50 years ago, laws were written that stated "all communication companies are consider utilities and as such, all utilities should have common access to 'telephone' poles for use to lay down cable" (I'm paraphrasing). Up to this point, "communication" just means copper lines for telephone (voice). Then, in the 1980s - the Internet launched. New companies are now wanting to lay down Fiber optic cables to use for the Internet, and they want the same "common access" to these telephone poles. But it's ambiguous, what is a "communication company". This was well understand in the 60s and 70s to mean telco ... but should that definition now be expanded? So an agency comes in, and say "yes, fiber is consider communication - fiber companies get access to telephone pols to lay fiber down". When this law was originally written, it's was clear. But then new technology challenged what the meaning & intent of the law meant.
rootusrootus 2y ago
> subject matter experts That is a delightfully optimistic name for 'corporate lobbyists.'
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Versus the very same thing in regulatory agencies? Are we seriously acting like there isn't a constant revolving door between law enforcement, major regulatory agencies and the companies they interact with?
  - arzig 2y ago
    The CBO of established by Congress to be subject matter experts. It is the peer to the OMB in the executive branch. If Congress wanted an expert branch to study study technical topics I’m sure they could establish something similar.

its_ethan 2y ago

So make new laws or amend old ones? Isn't that what congress is ostensibly paid to do?

falcolas 2y ago
Thousands of highly detailed laws every year, which will still be out of date not not specific enough when they're enacted? "No, our compound does not pollute the water." "It's arsenic with an extra carbon molecule, making it more poisonous!" "But it's not covered in the law, so it's not a pollutant."
- its_ethan 2y ago
  Are they not allowed to bring in the relevant agencies experts to help them write the laws? I guess the main concern would be congress being overly "politicized" (especially right now) and so things would be a bit slower to take effect if everything that pops up becomes a partisan talking point. But government agencies are also pretty "politicized" too, with agency policy directions flip flopping based on who wins presidential and/or midterm elections. Maybe I'm too optimistic that this could be a forcing function for people to elect more reasonable people. At least there's some delay, and all current agency rulings will remain in place until challenged, and even then stand somewhat decent odds of remaining in effect. Maybe it'll be a brexit-like situation where people start to realize it was maybe a step too far, and a more well-defined and robust version of chevron will eventually return? Who knows
  - falcolas 2y ago
    To clarify, this is a scope problem. 23 agencies each with thousands of regulations that apply to millions of companies, all up for question and challenge at the same time. Bringing in the agencies will not change the scope of the problem. And the real issue, IMO, is that while we're waiting (either on congress or the courts) companies can get away with not following regulations which are currently being questioned (via injunctions granted by politicized judges). Judges too are unelected and selected by politicians. And they don't have to worry nearly as much about their job, which creates its own issues. There's a reason term limits exist.

MarCylinder 2y ago

Yes, but in practice regulatory agencies can be fairly non-communicative with the companies that they regulate. I work in the dietary supplements industry, and while people love to call the space unregulated, it's moreso that regulations remain unenforced. So much so that companies often have to ask the FDA for clarification around ambiguous regulations. And the FDA is often keen on not responding. You often find out because the FDA's decided to enforce a rule, one that the industry will have asked for clarification about countless times beforehand. If regulatory agencies have ample opportunity to clarify ambiguous regulations, they should be doing so. They should not leave it ambiguous until somebody gets hit with a fine. That does not serve public interest.