Pro-industry witnesses warn against regulatory ‘squeeze’ on AI innovation
Witnesses from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the free-market R Street Institute will warn lawmakers at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing that the European Union’s AI Act and copycat efforts across the United States could throttle artificial intelligence innovation, while a witness for Democrats says states are the only bulwark against Big Tech abuses in the face of congressional inaction.
The Energy and Commerce commerce, manufacturing and trade subcommittee is holding a May 21 hearing on “AI Regulation and the Future of U.S. Leadership.” Witnesses are Sean Heather, senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the R Street Institute; Marc Bhargava, managing director of General Catalyst; and Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute.
According to the committee Republican majority’s hearing memo released May 19, “Properly crafting the AI governance rulebook is a critically important part of maintaining U.S. global leadership in AI technologies. A ‘common-sense, pro-innovation regulatory regime’ would enable AI to be developed and adopted at scale in the U.S. and exported to markets abroad, thereby supporting American economic growth, innovation, and jobs.”
The Energy and Commerce Republicans, who attached a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation to the massive tax and spending reconciliation bill moving through the House, pose three policy questions in the memo:
- To what extent is a patchwork of state-level AI laws undermining American competitiveness?
- How does the EU AI Act service as a cautionary tale for overregulation, and what can we learn from its impact on innovation?
- What are the strategic risks to U.S. global leadership in AI if we allow China to outpace U.S. deployment of technology and block U.S. efforts to set global norms and standards?
The memo says, “An approach that unduly restricts AI innovation, embraces an inconsistent patchwork of rules, or closes foreign markets for U.S. AI exports, by contrast, may cede the advantage to China. As with technological competition with China, where the U.S.’s technological edge is not being taken for granted, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will lead in the race to write the global rulebook for AI governance without taking intentional steps to pursue the right approach. In this respect, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) offers important lessons -- and a warning.”
The majority staff says in the memo: “The global AI rulebook is already being written and will have direct impacts on U.S. economic growth, innovation, and jobs. However, there is still time for the U.S. to assert global leadership in providing a pro-innovation regulatory counterbalance.”
A moratorium
R Street’s Thierer in his testimony embraces a moratorium on state-level AI rules.
Thierer says, “My message today boils down to three points:”
- First, America’s AI innovators risk getting squeezed between the “Brussels Effect” of overzealous European regulation and the “Sacramento Effect” of excessive state and local mandates.
- Second, this regulatory squeeze will prevent our citizens from enjoying the fruits of the AI revolution and undercut our nation’s efforts to stay ahead of China in the race for global AI supremacy.
- Third, Congress should take steps to address both matters, and on the specific problem of state overreach, it should protect the development of a robustly innovative market of interstate algorithmic commerce and speech by imposing a learning period moratorium on excessive AI regulation.
Thierer says in his prepared testimony, “A federal learning period moratorium on these confusing new AI mandates is a smart way to address this growing problem. A moratorium would give innovators some breathing space and help ensure a robust national AI market can develop. America needs this sort of pro-innovation policy today to ensure we win the global AI race and unlock life-enriching innovations for our citizens in the process.”