The Eeeeyew AI Says What?

Perhaps in a nod to antiquity, I possess many Lightning cords. Yes, my phone is that old. The team at Apple introduced us to Lightning back in 2012 and its demise is symbolic to me regarding how fast the world of technology evolves. There will be many who will never miss the Lightning any more than the old "30-pin" that Apple debuted in 2003 and which the Lightning replaced.

Each was interesting. They had inter-brand compatibility. People who used both the Apple phone and tablet could use one cord interchangeably. That cut some of the travel and tool management challenges. The Lightning was simple (no "right side" up), but it was destined to disappear. Not through any failure of efficiency, cost, or market competition, but through government regulation.

PCMagazine explains that government regulation and that "all phones, tablets, and cameras will be required to use the USB-C charging standard by 2024, forcing Apple into USB-C port adoption." That statement in itself is confusing to the tech-conscious. We remember that USB stands for "universal serial bus," and some think "universal" has broad meaning. Nonetheless, there are a raft of USB types. "Universal" is anything but.

In the end, everyone just wants a phone and that usually means a parade of charge cords: at your desk, home, car, travel kit, etc. Often, those cords do not last a lifetime and must be replaced. The old ones could be recycled, but we have precious little time for that. A significant volume of old cords end life in a landfill.

The government took umbrage at that waste and pollution. Despite acquiescence in diversity throughout history, regulation was seen as compelling with phone chargers. The fact is that electronics have long required singularly designed power sources. Many an electronic device has gone to the landfill over the decades because the power cord expired and replacing it was impractical or impossible even in the age of Radio Shack.

So, the government mandated that one cord would "rule them all, One cord to find them, One cord to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." Well, that is perhaps an overstatement, borrowing from the thoughts of J.R.R. Tolkien, but perhaps the inference of Sauron is not so far off base. You see, it was not the U.S. government that killed the Lightning. It was the lords in the distant land of Eeeeyew.

The lords of Eeeeyew control a significant world marketplace that includes most of what we used to think of as the "continent" of Europe. It may be a continent ("one of the main landmasses of the globe"), but some contend that it is not a separate and distinct landmass, but merely the western end of Asia. Nonetheless, there is a fair amount of Euro-centrism in this world, and certainly in our North American history and views of history.

The lords of Eeeeyew ordained that all phones would use the "universal" cord. This, apparently, will result in less waste in landfills because when we buy a new phone, we can continue to use the old cords. In fairness, that was working pretty well with my successive Lightning phones before this mandate. More likely, their efforts will mean more USB-C production, expiration, and disposal. The same number of cords will hit the landfills, but they will be compatible with each other.

Nonetheless, and despite the doubts about Eeeeyew's continental status or the independence of various other markets, the folks at Apple shifted to one of the "universal" tools.

The fact is, Apple could have continued to sell different products in different markets. A North American tool could have used the Lightning and the otherwise identical tool marketed in the Eeeeyew could have had their beloved USB-C. According to the Federal Communications Commission, there are fundamental differences in "networks from country to country" and in phone hardware. But, there are economies of scale in simplicity and uniformity. Apple made a conscious uniformity decision and bowed to the distant lords of Eeeeyew.

By now, the reader is wondering what this rambling diatribe on phone cords, lords, and continents has to do with anything. Some are more perturbed with the fact that they tuned in based on a headline about Artificial Intelligence. And, finally, we get to the point.

Will the U.S. government regulate and constrain the spread of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or will its evolution be limited by market forces.?

In October 2023, the White House enacted executive legislation on AI. Many speculate that the next administration will "roll back" that regulatory attempt to corral the wild beast of AI. In the conversations I have about AI, I find people who think it is Godzilla come to stomp and smash and others who think it is pasteurization or the printing press come to save the world. Occasionally, I even get someone who still says "A-what?" Bless their hearts.

Thus far, the White House 2023 executive order is the most significant AI regulatory response on this continent. Despite the lofty goals espoused, it is not legislative change and does not broadly bind evolution or development of AI. It places constraints on those who do business with the federal government. That population should not be discounted, a great many companies do business with the government or with companies that do. But, the order is limited in scope nonetheless.

The Order proceeds to discuss the need for "best practices," and "guidance." The chief executive is indeed powerful in those terms. Over time, a great deal has been regulated through executive orders. But "elections have consequences," and there is the chance that this executive order will soon join many Lightning cords somewhere. Legislative change is more permanent; though laws can be changed, it takes more effort, time, and persistence.

As an aside, I have this conversation many times in law classes. Too many believe that the U.S. assures equal rights for women in the Constitution. The protections are instead statutory in such tomes as Title VII and Title IX. Just as legislation is harder to change than executive orders, so is constitutional status harder to change that statutory protection. Ah, but I digress.

There is little legislative action in the U.S. regarding AI. Despite that, those who develop and deploy AI are concerned about the law. In 2021, before AI dawned on many of us, the lords of the Eeeeyew passed the Eeeeyew AI Act. It is "the world’s first comprehensive AI law." It is lauded by its makers as "protection" for the consumer as well as a foundation for "supporting innovation." It has been the topic of many a debate in the halls of legality and invention. Whether it is "canned beer" or "hot air" remains to be seen.

But, one point is clear. It is here. It is the law. The Eeeeyew has spoken. Now, there will be those who clutch their Lightenings and yawn at the potential for this foreign law to implicate or affect our lives. In the interest of their attention, a second example.

In 2016, the lords of Eeeeyew enacted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This is a broad constraint on "the collection and processing of personal information from individuals." The privacy of the residents of the Eeeeyew is protected, the operations of businesses in the Eeeeyew are restricted, by law. And a big part of that is cookies, and not the "baked" kind.

Unless you have been under a rock for the last decade, you have noticed that every website now includes a pop-up. They generally say "We have been collecting personal data on you for years, but now we have to warn you and get your permission because of the GDPR." Joking. I have not seen one single example that says that. They say, essentially, "We use cookies to make your world better, click 'accept' to allow us to keep doing that." Which statement might be more accurate is left to the reader. That said, we all get those pop-ups.

Just as the beloved Lightning, the death of the "stealth cookie" comes from a regulation a world away. Companies with websites could strive to determine if a visitor is or is not in the Eeeeyew. Or, as they have done, the website owners can simply comply with the most restrictive rules (GDPR) and ignore the location of users (which in the age of the VPN is likely more realistic).

The age of the lowest common denominator has arrived. Without stealth or guile, we are all being subjected to laws we neither voted for nor in many instances even understand.

The fact is that markets influence each other. That is economics. The fact is that governments control markets. That is politics. The fact is that the decisions of lords continents away will continue to impact and affect us even here in the free world. Anyone who thinks that AI is "unregulated" might want to read the Eeeeyew AI Act. Warranted or not, wise or not, AI regulation is here.

We might even decide to invest hours, days, or months in our own AI Act as so many clamor for. But others in society might demand that we first know why. What would we do that would better define, constrict, empower, or affect AI? What would an American Act add to the milieu?

I close with an anecdote. I ran into an intellect who explained to me why AI must be stopped. Chicken Little he was not, but greatly troubled he was. He described many potential evils of AI in a terrified tone and at near-breakneck speed. I had but one question when he concluded: "If we restrict or forbid AI and refuse its potentials, do you really imagine the world's miscreants (You remember, the "Axis of Evil") will follow suit, decry AI, and 'go gentle into that good night'?" (Dylan Thomas). He looked at me like I had lost my mind.

Perhaps I have. I shall confidently leave that question to the faraway leaders of the Eeeeyew. 

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)