I was
reminded this week of a great misconception Americans hold about technology.
The subject of this reminder was the NY Times report
on the Asilomar Conference – no not the one about biotechnology in the 1970s,
the 2009 meeting about artificial intelligence. According to Times reporter
John Markoff, the scientists’ discussions focused on whether or not “there
should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over
computer-based systems.” More on that in a minute.
The great
misconception is in believing that the question is whether or not to regulate
technologies. In the United States, we regulate all technologies. Your cell
phone is regulated by dozens of laws covering the materials it is made of, the
frequencies it uses, and what you can say when you’re talking on it. Your
automobile is also regulated by laws that restrict where it can go, how fast,
who is at fault if it is involved in a crash, and how much insurance you must
carry if you are going to drive it. Laws permeate our technological
infrastructure, making it not so inappropriate that some scholars speak of the
technological constitution of modern life.
So why do we
persist in the entirely mistaken belief that the choice that we face is between
putting limits on new technologies or not? This misconception was also front
and center this week surrounding the release of data
from the Department of Transportation showing just how dangerous cell phones
are when used by people while they are driving. Many state legislatures have
already figured this one out, but in other states (including, admittedly, here
in Arizona), the view persists that the regulation of cell phones would take
away people’s freedom. To this way of reasoning, unregulated cell phone use
equals freedom, while regulated cell phone use equals freedom taken away. But
if that’s true, then we’ve already lost our freedom, because cell phones are
already heavily regulated.
The choice
between regulation and freedom in the world of technological innovation is a
false choice. On the first day that they come into being, all technologies are
regulated. If it is possible that such a thing exists, a technology that is
otherwise unregulated when it is first made available to consumers will still
be covered by tort law, meaning that if it harms someone, that person can sue
for damages. And we often regulate technologies far earlier than their initial
marketing. New drugs cannot be bought and sold unless they are first determined
safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration. Medical technologies
are subject to human subjects regulations that cover patients involved in early
trials.
It’s time to
admit it: the choice is always between one set of regulations and another set
of regulations. To be sure, many very real questions remain: How do we regulate
technologies? Is one regulatory approach better than another? What are the
costs and benefits of different regulatory strategies? But the importance of
clearing the initial misconception is this: it levels the playing field for
regulation. No more should we allow anyone to falsely label one option to be
having no regulation at all. It is only ever a choice about degree, scope, and
approach of regulation. And thus we can always measure the costs and benefits
of our choice. There is no intangible freedom at stake – only degrees of
regulated freedom.
So, the next
time someone says to you that regulations would take away their freedom – their
freedom to use technologies however they please; their freedom to pursue
whatever research they want on new technologies – you should feel free to
remind them that they’ve already lost that freedom. Their freedom to innovate
and make use of new technologies is already hemmed in by regulations. And so we
should remind the computer scientists who were at Asilomar earlier this year.
The choice is not whether to limit research into artificial intelligence or not
– not whether or not to restrict scientific freedom – but whether to alter the
regulations we already have. It’s a very different question.
About the Author: Clark Miller is
associate director of CSPO.
