Human in the Loop

In a hospital in Detroit, an AI system flags a patient for aggressive intervention based on facial recognition data. In Silicon Valley, engineers rush to deploy untested language models to beat Chinese competitors to market. In Brussels, regulators watch American tech giants operate under rules their own companies cannot match. These scenes, playing out across the globe today, offer a glimpse into the immediate stakes of America's emerging AI strategy—one that treats regulation as the enemy of innovation and positions deregulation as the path to technological supremacy. As the current administration prepares to reshape existing AI oversight frameworks, the question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will reshape society, but whether America's regulatory approach will enhance or undermine the foundations upon which technological progress ultimately depends.

The Deregulation Revolution

At the heart of America's evolving AI strategy lies a proposition that has gained significant political momentum: that America's path to artificial intelligence supremacy runs through the systematic reduction of regulatory oversight. This approach reflects a broader philosophical divide about the role of government in technological innovation, one that views regulatory frameworks as potential impediments to competitive advantage.

The current policy direction represents a shift from previous approaches to AI governance. The Biden administration's Executive Order on artificial intelligence, issued in 2023, established comprehensive frameworks for AI development and deployment, including requirements for safety testing of the most powerful AI systems and standards for detecting AI-generated content. The evolving policy landscape now questions whether such measures constitute necessary safeguards or bureaucratic impediments that slow American companies in their race against international competitors.

This deregulatory impulse extends beyond mere policy preference into questions of national competitiveness. The explicit goal, as articulated in policy discussions, is to enhance America's global AI leadership through the creation of what officials describe as a robust innovation ecosystem. This language represents a shift from simply encouraging AI development to a more competitive and assertive goal of sustaining technological leadership through strategic policy intervention.

The timing of this shift is particularly significant. As the European Union implements its comprehensive AI Act—which came into force in 2024—and other nations grapple with their own regulatory frameworks, America appears poised to chart a different course. The EU's AI Act establishes a risk-based approach to AI regulation, with the strictest requirements for high-risk applications in areas such as critical infrastructure, education, and law enforcement.

This divergence could create what experts describe as a “regulatory arbitrage” situation, where American companies gain competitive advantages through lighter oversight, but potentially at the cost of safety, privacy, and ethical considerations that other jurisdictions prioritise. The confidence in this approach stems from a belief that American technological superiority has historically emerged from entrepreneurial freedom rather than governmental guidance.

Yet this historical narrative overlooks the substantial role that government research, funding, and regulation have played in American technological achievements. The internet itself emerged from DARPA-funded research projects, whilst safety regulations in industries from automotive to pharmaceuticals have often spurred rather than hindered innovation by creating clear standards and competitive frameworks. The deregulatory approach assumes that removing oversight will automatically translate to strategic benefit, but this relationship may prove more complex than policy rhetoric suggests.

The practical implications of this shift are becoming apparent across government agencies. The FDA's announced plan to phase out animal testing requirements exemplifies the broader deregulatory ambitions, aiming to accelerate drug development and lower costs through reduced regulatory barriers. This approach reflects a systematic attempt to remove what policymakers characterise as unnecessary friction in the innovation process.

The China Mirror: Where State Coordination Meets Market Freedom

No aspect of America's AI strategy can be understood without recognising the central role that competition with China plays in shaping policy decisions. The current approach combines domestic deregulation with what can only be described as aggressive technological protectionism aimed at preventing foreign adversaries from accessing the tools and data necessary to develop competitive AI capabilities.

This dual-pronged strategy reflects a sophisticated understanding of the global AI landscape. The Justice Department has implemented what it describes as a “critical national security program to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive U.S. data.” This programme specifically targets countries including China, Russia, and Iran, aiming to prevent them from using American data to train their own artificial intelligence systems and develop military capabilities.

The logic behind this approach is both elegant and potentially problematic. By reducing barriers for American companies whilst raising them for foreign competitors, policymakers hope to create a sustained market edge in AI development. American firms would benefit from faster development cycles, reduced compliance costs, and greater flexibility in their research and deployment strategies, whilst foreign competitors face increasing difficulty accessing the data, technology, and partnerships necessary for cutting-edge AI development.

However, this strategy assumes that technological leadership can be maintained through policy measures alone, rather than through the fundamental strength of American research institutions, talent pools, and innovation ecosystems. The approach also raises questions about the global nature of AI development, which often requires vast datasets that cross national boundaries, international research collaborations, and supply chains that span multiple continents.

The assumption that deregulation automatically translates to strategic benefit may prove overly simplistic when examined against China's actual AI development trajectory. China's rapid progress in artificial intelligence has proceeded not despite government oversight, but often because of systematic state coordination and massive public investment. The Chinese model demonstrates targeted deployment strategies, with the government directing resources toward specific AI applications in areas like surveillance, transportation, and manufacturing.

China's approach also benefits from substantial government investment in AI research and development, with state funding supporting both basic research and commercial applications. This model challenges the assumption that government involvement inherently slows innovation. Instead, it suggests that the relationship between state oversight and technological progress is more nuanced than American policy rhetoric acknowledges.

The scale of Chinese AI investment further complicates the deregulation narrative. While American companies may benefit from reduced regulatory compliance costs, Chinese firms operate with access to government funding, coordinated industrial policy, and domestic market protection that may outweigh any advantages from lighter oversight. The competitive dynamics between these different approaches to AI governance will likely determine which model proves more effective in the long term.

Yet these geopolitical dynamics are inextricably tied to the economic narratives being used to justify deregulation at home.

Economic Promises and Industrial Reality

The economic arguments underlying the new AI agenda rest on a compelling but potentially complex narrative about the relationship between regulation and prosperity. The evolving policy framework emphasises “AI for American Industry” and “AI for the American Worker,” suggesting that reduced regulatory burden will translate directly into job creation, industrial competitiveness, and economic growth.

This framing appeals to legitimate concerns about America's economic position in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Manufacturing jobs have migrated overseas, traditional industries face disruption from technological change, and workers across multiple sectors worry about automation displacing human labour. The promise that artificial intelligence, freed from regulatory constraints, will somehow reverse these trends and restore American industrial dominance offers hope in the face of complex economic challenges.

Yet the relationship between AI development and job creation is far more nuanced than simple policy rhetoric suggests. Whilst artificial intelligence certainly creates new opportunities and industries, it also has the potential to automate existing jobs across virtually every sector of the economy. Research suggests that AI could automate significant portions of current work activities, though this automation may also create new types of employment.

The focus on protecting traditional industries through AI enhancement reflects a fundamentally conservative approach to technological change. Rather than preparing workers and communities for the transformative effects of artificial intelligence, current policy discussions appear to promise that AI will somehow preserve existing economic structures whilst making them more competitive. This approach may prove inadequate for addressing the scale of economic disruption that advanced AI systems are likely to create.

The emphasis on deregulation as a path to economic competitiveness also overlooks the ways in which thoughtful regulation can actually enhance innovation and economic growth. Safety standards create trust that enables broader adoption of new technologies. Privacy protections encourage consumer confidence in digital services. Clear regulatory frameworks help companies avoid costly mistakes and reputational damage that can undermine long-term competitiveness.

The economic promises also assume that the benefits of AI development will naturally flow to American workers and communities. However, the history of technological change suggests that these benefits are often concentrated among technology companies and their investors, whilst the costs are borne by displaced workers and disrupted communities. Without active policy intervention to ensure broad distribution of AI benefits, deregulation may exacerbate rather than reduce economic inequality.

The focus on “AI for Discovery” represents one of the more promising aspects of the economic agenda. The Association of American Universities has recommended aligning government, industry, and university investments to create tools and infrastructure that catalyse scientific progress using AI. This approach recognises that AI's greatest economic benefits may come from accelerating research and development across multiple fields rather than simply removing regulatory barriers.

This collaborative model suggests recognition of the importance of systematic coordination even as deregulation is pursued in other areas. The tension between these approaches—promoting collaboration whilst reducing oversight—reflects the complex challenges of managing AI development in a competitive global environment.

Safety in the Fast Lane: When Guardrails Become Obstacles

Perhaps nowhere is the tension in the evolving AI approach more apparent than in the realm of safety and risk management. The movement toward reduced safety frameworks reflects a fundamental bet that the risks of moving too slowly outweigh the dangers of moving too quickly in AI development.

This calculation rests on several assumptions that deserve careful examination. First, that American companies can self-regulate effectively without governmental oversight. Second, that the strategic benefits of faster AI development will outweigh any negative consequences from reduced safety testing. Third, that foreign competitors pose a greater threat to American interests than the potential misuse or malfunction of inadequately tested AI systems.

The market-based approach to AI safety faces several significant challenges. The effects of AI systems are often diffuse and delayed, making it difficult for market mechanisms to provide timely feedback about safety problems. The complexity of modern AI systems makes it challenging even for experts to predict their behaviour in novel situations. Recent incidents involving AI systems have demonstrated these challenges—from biased hiring systems that discriminated against certain groups to autonomous vehicle accidents that highlighted the limitations of current safety testing.

The competitive pressure to deploy AI systems quickly may create incentives to cut corners on safety testing, particularly when the consequences of failure are borne by society rather than by the companies that develop these systems. The history of technology development includes numerous examples where rapid deployment without adequate safety testing led to significant problems that could have been prevented through more careful oversight.

The Biden administration's 2023 Executive Order specifically addressed these concerns by requiring companies developing the most powerful AI systems to share safety test results with the government and to notify federal agencies before training new models. The order also established frameworks for developing safety standards and testing protocols.

Changes to these safety frameworks raise questions about how the United States will identify and respond to AI-related risks. Without mandatory reporting requirements, government agencies may lack the information necessary to detect emerging problems. Without standardised testing protocols, it may be difficult to compare the safety of different AI systems or ensure that they meet minimum performance standards.

The market-based approach assumes that competitive pressures will naturally incentivise companies to develop safe AI systems. However, this assumption may not hold when safety problems are rare, delayed, or difficult to attribute to specific AI systems. The complexity of AI development also means that even well-intentioned companies may struggle to identify potential safety issues without external oversight and standardised testing procedures.

The deregulatory push extends beyond AI-specific regulations to encompass broader changes in how government agencies approach technology oversight. The FDA's plan to phase out animal testing requirements represents part of this broader pattern, aiming to accelerate drug development and lower costs through reduced regulatory barriers. While this specific change may have merit on scientific grounds, it illustrates the systematic approach to removing what policymakers characterise as unnecessary regulatory friction.

Civil Liberties in the Age of Unregulated AI

The implications of the deregulatory agenda extend far beyond economic and competitive considerations into fundamental questions about privacy, surveillance, and civil liberties. The approach to AI oversight intersects with broader debates about the appropriate balance between security, innovation, and individual rights in an increasingly digital society.

The rollback of AI safety requirements could have particular implications for facial recognition technology, predictive policing systems, and other AI applications that directly impact civil liberties. Previous policy frameworks included specific provisions addressing the use of AI in law enforcement and national security contexts, recognising the potential for these technologies to amplify existing biases or create new forms of discriminatory enforcement.

The new approach suggests that such concerns may be subordinated to considerations of law enforcement effectiveness and national security. The emphasis on preventing foreign adversaries from accessing American data reflects a security-first mindset that may extend to domestic surveillance capabilities. This prioritisation of security over privacy protections could fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government.

Advanced AI systems can analyse vast quantities of data to identify patterns and make predictions about individual behaviour. When deployed by government agencies, these capabilities create unprecedented opportunities for monitoring civilian populations. The challenge is that the same AI technologies that raise civil liberties concerns also offer legitimate benefits for public safety and national security.

The deregulatory approach may make it more difficult to establish the kinds of oversight mechanisms that civil liberties advocates argue are necessary for AI-powered surveillance systems. Without mandatory transparency requirements, audit standards, or bias testing protocols, it may be challenging for the public to understand how these systems work or hold them accountable when they make mistakes.

The absence of federal oversight could also create a patchwork of state and local regulations that may be inadequate to address the national scope of many AI applications. Companies developing AI systems for law enforcement or national security use may face different requirements in different jurisdictions, potentially creating incentives to deploy systems in areas with the weakest oversight.

The Justice Department's implementation of its “critical national security program to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive U.S. data” demonstrates how security concerns are driving policy decisions. While protecting sensitive data from foreign exploitation is clearly important, the same capabilities that enable this protection could potentially be used for domestic surveillance purposes. The challenge is ensuring that legitimate security measures do not undermine civil liberties protections.

Innovation Versus Precaution: The Philosophical Divide

The fundamental tension underlying the evolving AI agenda reflects a broader philosophical divide about how societies should approach transformative technologies. On one side stands the innovation imperative—the belief that technological progress requires maximum freedom for experimentation and development. On the other side lies the precautionary principle—the idea that potentially dangerous technologies should be thoroughly tested and regulated before widespread deployment.

This tension is not unique to artificial intelligence, but AI amplifies the stakes considerably. Unlike previous technologies that typically affected specific industries or applications, artificial intelligence has the potential to transform virtually every aspect of human society simultaneously. The decisions made today about AI governance will likely influence the trajectory of technological development for decades to come.

The innovation-first approach draws on a distinctly American tradition of technological optimism. This perspective assumes that the benefits of new technologies will ultimately outweigh their risks, and that the best way to maximise those benefits is to allow maximum freedom for experimentation and development. This philosophy has historically driven American leadership in industries from aviation to computing to biotechnology.

However, critics argue that this historical optimism may be misplaced when applied to artificial intelligence. Unlike previous technologies, AI systems have the potential to operate autonomously and make decisions that directly affect human welfare. The complexity and opacity of modern AI systems make it difficult to predict their behaviour or correct their mistakes. The scale and speed of AI deployment mean that problems can propagate rapidly across entire systems or societies.

The precautionary approach advocates for establishing safety frameworks before problems emerge rather than trying to address them after they become apparent. This perspective emphasises the irreversible nature of some technological changes and the difficulty of putting safeguards in place once systems become entrenched. Proponents argue that the potential consequences of AI systems—from autonomous weapons to mass surveillance to economic displacement—are too significant to address through trial and error.

The challenge is that both approaches contain elements of truth. Innovation does require freedom to experiment and take risks. Excessive regulation can stifle creativity and slow beneficial technological development. At the same time, some risks are too significant to ignore, and some technologies do require careful oversight to ensure they benefit rather than harm society.

The current approach represents a clear choice in favour of innovation over precaution. This choice reflects confidence that American companies and researchers will use their regulatory freedom responsibly and that competitive pressures will naturally incentivise beneficial AI development. Whether this confidence proves justified will depend on factors that extend far beyond policy decisions.

The global context adds another layer of complexity to this philosophical divide. Different countries are making different choices about how to balance innovation and precaution in AI governance. The European Union has chosen a more precautionary approach with its AI Act, whilst China has pursued state-directed innovation that combines rapid deployment with centralised control. The American choice for deregulation represents a third model that prioritises market freedom over both precaution and state direction.

Collateral Impact: How Deregulation Echoes Globally

The American approach to AI governance cannot be evaluated in isolation from its international context. As the world's largest technology market and home to many leading AI companies, American regulatory decisions inevitably influence global standards and shape competitive dynamics across multiple continents.

The deregulatory agenda creates immediate challenges for multinational technology companies that must navigate different regulatory environments. European companies operating under the EU's AI Act face strict requirements for high-risk AI applications, including mandatory risk assessments, human oversight requirements, and transparency obligations. American companies operating under lighter regulatory frameworks may gain market leverage in speed to market and development costs, but they may also face barriers when expanding into more regulated markets.

This regulatory divergence extends beyond the traditional transatlantic relationship to encompass emerging technology markets across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Countries developing their own AI governance frameworks must choose between different models: the American approach emphasising innovation and market freedom, the European model prioritising safety and rights protection, or the Chinese system combining state coordination with commercial development.

The Global South faces particular challenges in this regulatory environment. Countries with limited technical expertise and regulatory capacity may struggle to develop their own AI governance frameworks, making them dependent on standards developed elsewhere. The American deregulatory approach could create pressure for these countries to adopt similar policies to attract technology investment, even if they lack the institutional capacity to manage the associated risks.

The global implications extend beyond individual countries to international organisations and multilateral initiatives. The United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and other international bodies have been working to develop global standards for AI governance. The American shift toward deregulation may complicate these efforts by reducing the likelihood of international consensus on AI safety and ethics standards.

The data protection dimension adds another layer of complexity to these international dynamics. The Justice Department's program to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive U.S. data represents a form of “data securitisation” that treats large-scale personal and government-related information as a critical national security asset. This approach may influence other countries to adopt similar protective measures, potentially fragmenting the global data ecosystem that has enabled much AI development.

Economic Disruption and Social Consequences

The economic implications of the deregulatory agenda extend far beyond the technology sector into fundamental questions about the future of work, wealth distribution, and social stability. The promise that AI will benefit American workers and industry may prove difficult to fulfil without addressing the disruptive effects that these technologies are likely to have on existing economic structures.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to automate cognitive tasks that have traditionally required human intelligence. Unlike previous waves of automation that primarily affected manual labour, AI systems can potentially replace workers in fields ranging from legal research to medical diagnosis to financial analysis. The focus on deregulation may accelerate the deployment of AI systems without providing adequate time for workers, communities, and institutions to adapt.

The speed of AI deployment under a deregulatory framework could exacerbate economic inequality if the benefits of AI are concentrated among technology companies whilst the costs are borne by displaced workers and disrupted communities. Effective responses to AI-driven economic disruption might require substantial investments in education and training, social safety nets for displaced workers, and policies that encourage companies to share the benefits of AI-driven productivity gains.

The deregulatory approach may be inconsistent with the kind of systematic intervention that would be necessary to ensure that AI benefits are broadly shared. Without government oversight and coordination, market forces alone may not provide adequate support for workers and communities affected by AI-driven automation. The confidence in market solutions may prove misplaced if the pace of technological change outstrips the ability of existing institutions to adapt.

The international dimension adds another layer of complexity to these economic challenges. American workers may face competition not only from AI systems but also from workers in countries with different approaches to AI governance. If other countries develop more effective strategies for managing AI-driven economic disruption, they may gain global leverage that undermines American economic leadership.

The focus on “AI for Discovery” offers some hope for addressing these challenges through job creation in research and development. However, the benefits of scientific AI applications may be concentrated among highly educated workers, potentially exacerbating rather than reducing economic inequality. The economic promises may prove hollow if they fail to address the needs of workers who lack the skills or opportunities to benefit from AI-driven innovation.

Implementation Challenges and Bureaucratic Reality

Despite the clear intent behind the evolving AI agenda, implementing these policies may face significant hurdles. As Nature magazine noted in its analysis of potential policy changes, fulfilling pledges to roll back established guidance and policies “won't be easy,” indicating potential for legal, political, or bureaucratic challenges that could complicate deregulatory ambitions.

The complexity of existing AI governance structures means that dismantling them may prove more difficult than initially anticipated. Previous AI frameworks created multiple new institutions and processes across various government agencies. Reversing these changes would require coordination across the federal bureaucracy and may face resistance from career civil servants who believe in the importance of AI safety oversight.

Legal challenges could also complicate implementation. Some aspects of AI regulation may be embedded in legislation rather than executive orders, making them more difficult to reverse through administrative action alone. Industry groups and civil society organisations may also challenge attempts to roll back safety requirements through the courts, particularly if they can demonstrate that deregulation poses risks to public safety or civil liberties.

The international dimension adds another layer of complexity. American companies operating globally may continue to face regulatory requirements in other jurisdictions regardless of changes to domestic policy. This could limit the strategic benefits that deregulation is intended to provide and may create pressure for American companies to maintain safety standards that exceed domestic requirements.

The academic and research community may also resist attempts to reduce AI safety oversight. Universities and research institutions have invested significantly in AI ethics and safety research, and they may continue to advocate for responsible AI development regardless of changes in government policy. Success in implementing the deregulatory agenda may depend on maintaining support from the research community.

Public opinion represents another potential obstacle to implementation. Surveys suggest that Americans are generally supportive of AI safety oversight, particularly in areas like healthcare, transportation, and law enforcement. If deregulation leads to visible safety problems or civil liberties violations, public pressure may force reconsideration of the approach.

The federal structure of American government also complicates implementation. State and local governments may choose to maintain or strengthen their own AI oversight requirements even if federal regulations are rolled back. This could create a complex patchwork of regulatory requirements that undermines the simplification that deregulation is intended to achieve.

The Path Forward: Navigating Uncertainty

As the evolving AI agenda moves from policy discussion to implementation, its ultimate impact will depend on how successfully policymakers navigate the complex trade-offs between innovation and safety, competition and cooperation, economic growth and social stability. The deregulatory approach represents a significant experiment in the ability of market forces to guide AI development in beneficial directions without governmental oversight.

This approach may prove effective if American companies use their regulatory freedom responsibly and if competitive pressures create incentives for safe and beneficial AI development. The history of American technological leadership suggests that entrepreneurial freedom can indeed drive innovation and economic growth. However, the unique characteristics of artificial intelligence—its complexity, autonomy, and potential for widespread impact—may require different approaches than those that succeeded with previous technologies.

The absence of regulatory guardrails could lead to safety problems, privacy violations, or social disruption that undermine the very technological leadership the approach seeks to preserve. The international implications are equally uncertain, as American technological leadership has historically benefited from both entrepreneurial freedom and international cooperation. The current approach may enhance American competitiveness in the short term whilst creating long-term challenges for international collaboration and standards development.

The success of the deregulatory approach will ultimately be measured not just by economic or competitive metrics, but by its effects on ordinary Americans and global citizens. The challenge facing policymakers is to harness the transformative potential of artificial intelligence whilst avoiding the pitfalls that could undermine the social foundations upon which technological progress ultimately depends.

The decisions made about AI governance in the coming years will likely influence the trajectory of technological development for decades to come. As artificial intelligence continues to advance at an unprecedented pace, the world will be watching to see whether America's deregulatory approach enhances or undermines its position as a global technology leader. The stakes could not be higher, and the consequences will extend far beyond American borders.

The confidence in market-based solutions to AI governance reflects a broader faith in American technological exceptionalism. This faith may prove justified if American companies and researchers rise to the challenge of developing beneficial AI systems without government oversight. However, the complexity of AI development and deployment suggests that success will require more than regulatory freedom alone.

The global nature of AI development means that American leadership will ultimately depend on the country's ability to attract and retain the best talent, maintain the strongest research institutions, and develop the most beneficial AI applications. These goals may be achievable through deregulation, but they may also require the kind of systematic investment and coordination that the current approach seems to question.

The emphasis on public-private partnerships in the “AI for Discovery” initiative suggests recognition of the importance of coordination even as deregulation is pursued. This tension between promoting collaboration whilst reducing oversight reflects the complex challenges of managing AI development in a competitive global environment. The success of this approach will depend on whether private companies and academic institutions can effectively coordinate their efforts without government oversight.

The data protection dimension adds another layer of complexity to the path forward. The Justice Department's program to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive U.S. data represents a recognition that some aspects of AI development require government intervention. The challenge is determining which aspects of AI governance require oversight and which can be left to market forces.

As governments worldwide navigate the AI frontier, the question of how much freedom is too much remains unanswered. The American experiment in AI deregulation will provide valuable data for this global debate, but the costs of failure may be too high to justify the risks. The challenge for policymakers, technologists, and citizens is to find approaches that capture the benefits of AI innovation whilst protecting the values and institutions that make technological progress worthwhile.

The coming years will test whether confidence in American technological exceptionalism is justified or whether the complexity of AI development requires more systematic oversight and coordination. The outcome of this experiment will influence not only American technological leadership but also the global trajectory of artificial intelligence development. The world that emerges from this period of policy experimentation may look very different from the one that exists today, and the choices made now will determine whether that transformation enhances or undermines human flourishing.

---

References and Further Information

Primary Government Sources: – “Justice Department Implements Critical National Security Program to Prevent Foreign Adversaries from Accessing Sensitive U.S. Data” – U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 – “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” – Federal Register, October 2023 – “FDA Announces Plan to Phase Out Animal Testing Requirement for Drug Development” – U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024

Policy Analysis and Academic Sources: – “What Trump's election win could mean for AI, climate and health” – Nature Magazine, November 2024 – “AAU Responds to OSTP's RFI on the Development of an AI Action Plan” – Association of American Universities, 2024 – “Tracking regulatory changes in the second Trump administration” – Brookings Institution, 2024

International Regulatory Framework: – “The EU AI Act: A Global Standard for Artificial Intelligence” – European Parliament, 2024 – “Artificial Intelligence Act” – Official Journal of the European Union, August 2024

Industry and Economic Analysis: – Congressional Research Service Reports on AI Policy and National Security, 2024 – Federal Reserve Economic Data on Technology Sector Employment and Investment, 2024

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0000-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Discuss...