Why the AI boom requires an Wyatt Earp | usagoldmines.com

At a time when many believe that oversight of the Artificial Intelligence industry is desperately needed, the US government appears to have different ideas. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA)—recently given the nod by the House of Representatives—includes a 10-year moratorium on state and local governments enacting or enforcing regulations on AI models, systems, or automated decision-making tools.

Supporters claim the goal is to streamline AI regulation by establishing federal oversight, thereby preventing a patchwork of state laws that could stifle innovation and create compliance chaos. Critics warn that the moratorium could leave consumers vulnerable to emerging AI-related issues, such as algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and the spread of deepfakes.

Basically, if the AI sector is the Wild West, no one will be allowed to clean up Dodge.

Why should we care?

History may not literally repeat itself, but there are historical patterns and trends that we can view and hopefully be informed by, and our history books are packed with examples of technology reshaping the lives of the workforce.

And be it in the form of James Watt’s steam engine or Henry Ford’s moving assembly line, the cost of the progress brought by fresh technology is regularly paid by the large numbers of people sent home without a pay packet.

And AI will cost jobs too.

Experts such as those at McKinsey, the Lancet, or the World Economic Forum (WEF) may not agree on exact numbers or percentages of lost jobs, but the consistent message is that it will be bad:

• 30% of US work hours across all sectors will be automated by 2030 says McKinsey
• 25% of medical administrative tasks could vanish by 2035 according to a Lancet study
• 39% of existing skill sets will become outdated between now and 2030 warns WEF

Of course, as with all new technologies, new jobs will be created. But we can’t all be prompt engineers.

The Great Brain Robbery

Essentially, those hit hardest by the bulk of new technologies from the Spinning Jenny onwards were the ones engaged to carry out physical work. But AI wants to muscle in on the intellectual and creative domains previously considered uniquely human. For example, nonpartisan American think tank the Pew Research Center reckons 30% of media jobs could be automated by 2035.

And those creative jobs are under threat because creatives are being ripped off.

Many AI models are trained on massive datasets scraped from the internet, and these often include articles, books, images, music and even code that are protected by copyright laws, but AI companies lean heavily towards take-first-ask-later. Obviously, artists, writers, and other content creators see this practice as unauthorized use of their intellectual property and they argue that ultimately, it’s not even in the best interests of the AI sector.

If AI takes work away from human creatives—devastating creative industries already operating on thin margins—there will be less and less innovative content to feed to AI systems which will result in AI feeding off homogenized AI content – a derivative digital snake eating its own tail.

A smarter way forward would be to find a framework where creatives are compensated for use of their work to ensure the sustainability of human produced product. The music industry already has a model where artists receive payments via performing rights organizations such as PRS, GEMA and BMI. The AI sector needs to find something similar.

To make this happen, regulators may need to be involved.

Competitive opportunity versus minimizing societal harm

Without regulation, we risk undermining the economic foundations of creative and knowledge-based industries. Journalism, photography, literature, music, and visual arts depend on compensation mechanisms that AI training currently bypasses.

The United Kingdom and the European Union are taking notably different paths when it comes to regulating AI. The EU is pursuing a strict, binding regulatory framework, an approach designed to protect fundamental rights, promote safety, and ensure ethical use of AI across member states. In contrast, the UK is currently opting for a more flexible approach, emphasizing innovation and light-touch oversight aiming to encourage rapid AI development and attracting investment.

But this light-touch strategy could be a massive misstep – one that in the long term could leave everyone wishing we’d thought things through.

While AI enthusiasts may initially be pleased with minimal interference from regulators, eventually AI businesses will come up against consumer trust, something they absolutely need.

While AI businesses operating in Europe will be looking at higher compliance costs, there is also a clearer regulatory landscape and therefore more likely to be greater consumer trust – a huge commercial advantage.

Meanwhile, AI businesses operating in light-touch markets (such as the UK) need to consider how their AI data practices align with their (and their competitors’) brand values and customer expectations. As public awareness grows, companies seen as exploiting creators may face reputational damage. And a lack of consumer confidence could lead to a shift in mindset from previously arm’s-length regulators.

Regardless of the initial regulatory environment, early adopters of ethical AI practices may gain competitive advantages as regulatory requirements catch up to ethical standards. Perhaps the wisest way forward is to voluntarily make Dodge City a better place, even if there’s no sheriff in town – for now.

I tried 70+ best AI tools.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro’s Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro