This post was originally published on this site.
Many lawmakers are asking the wrong questions about AI. Their first question is, “What harm might it cause?” Depending on whom they’re asking, the state legislator or member of Congress will learn of everything from the spread of disinformation to the end of humanity as potential harms. Then comes the obvious follow up question, “What can we do about it?” This approach is akin to a caveman discovering fire, then spending their days worrying about how to extinguish it. Thankfully, our forebears were focused more on putting fire to productive uses, rather than workshopping responses to every worst-case scenario.
The better questions are grounded in societal wants, needs, and hopes. For example, we, the people, want more affordable, quality health care. So lawmakers could ask, “How can AI transform our broken approach to mental and physical health?” Likewise, we need more affordable housing. So our officials could explore how advances in AI can be leveraged toward decreasing red tape and accelerating construction. And we hope for a future in which everyone has a meaningful job that contributes to societal well-being. So rather than focus on how AI might disrupt the current workforce, regulators could ask about how AI can create new jobs in new industries.
Abundance
There is a seeking to solve public policy problems by focusing on Abundance. This movement has a simple aim: unblock progress toward shared goals. Abundance aims to remove the procedural sludge that has amassed over decades and unleash a surge in the supply of affordable housing, doctors and nurses, public transportation, teachers, childcare providers, and the like.
Abundance subscribers also have a narrow focus. They’re not interested in assigning blame for sludge like permitting processes that have been captured by special interests. They also do not care to debate about secondary and tertiary issues like whether hoodies are acceptable attire for senators. Finally, they’re not willing to accept the status quo merely because alternative approaches carry uncertainty and risk. Abundance advocates want to see a more effective, responsive, and efficient government under which it’d be possible to try new solutions, learn from them, and move on.
Approached with an Abundance mindset, AI is just another tool in the effort to end scarcity in the markets for essentials. As with all tools, it has proper use cases and destructive ones. And, as with all tools, it should be wielded by some and not by others. The harm-focused approach—the one currently being pursued—threatens to stall AI’s progress and its potential to address the aforementioned challenges. It’s impossible to define and prevent every use of AI that may cause some individual or collective harm. Likewise, identifying and blocking every irresponsible user from getting their hands on some form of AI is destined to waste resources. Just ask the folks who tried to stop the printing press from spreading.
Abundance-Informed AI Policy
Applying Abundance to AI would reorient governance around how to increase the availability of AI to the folks, foundations, and firms who are trying to tangibly improve the well-being of the Average Joe. More advanced AI in the hands of folks working on the fundamental problems of our era is likely to lead to progress.
A few states have already leaned into this approach. Texas allocated $1.4 billion to microchip research and manufacturing initiatives at public universities. In doing so, Governor Abbott made Texas a prime target for future federal investment as well as a smart landing spot for students, startups, and established AI labs. These public efforts add to the already substantial private sector momentum in the Lone Star State. As reported by the  , upwards of $60 billion dollars’ worth of investments by semiconductor companies will end up in Texas. All this bodes well for the potential of the state to harness, accelerate, and spread the benefits of AI.
Utah is likewise operating with an Abundance mindset, particularly through its Office of AI Policy. The Office’s AI learning laboratory program brings together public and private stakeholders to engage in open dialogue about how best to orient AI regulations around the public interest. Utah also created a process for offering “regulatory mitigation” to the lab’s participants. Pursuant to these agreements, private entities may negotiate limits on fines for violations and arrange for cure periods to address violations without sanctions. Utes that have an issue with any such entity can easily report issues to the Office. On the whole, this approach incentivizes reliable companies to transparently and freely experiment with ways to leverage AI.
Abundance has informed AI policy in Oklahoma, too. Governor J. Kevin Stitt reached an agreement with Google to provide 10,000 residents with free access to the company’s AI Essentials course. As summarized by Governor Stitt, the state is now “positioned to be a leader in implementing AI technology.” This proactive and substantive effort to increase AI literacy and develop AI expertise will open doors for Oklahomans. If the state manages to expand the program’s reach and depth (it’s only ten hours of content), it may be able to even lure major AI companies to the Sooner State—after all, finding talent is one of the biggest constraints among leading AI labs.
Even California has shown some hints of incorporating Abundance into its AI regulatory framework. Although the state’s legislature adopted several laws in 2024 that do not align with Abundance, such as the imposition of numerous reporting obligations on AI developers, it has also explored policies that reflect AI’s potential to ameliorate several key policy issues. On some occasions, the legislature has even passed such laws. Back in 2022, for instance, the legislature invested $300,000 in the creation of AI / mixed reality classrooms. That’s obviously not enough to alter the course of education in the state, but it’s better than nothing. Some of the legislature’s failures likewise indicate some recognition of the importance of fanning the flames of AI rather than smothering them. The hotly-contested and ultimately vetoed SB 1047 contained an overlooked provision calling for the creation of “CalCompute.” This program would have made the key inputs to AI research and development more generally available to academics and startups in the Golden State. The resulting experimentation with how best to deploy AI to solve pressing concerns would have contributed to Abundance ends. As of now, however, CalCompute may not see the light of day as California’s lawmakers move on from SB 1047.
Adoption of Abundance as a guide to AI policy across states would have both substantive and symbolic effects. Substantively, it would celebrate rapid progress in AI while channeling it toward its most productive use cases. Symbolically, it would transform the public narrative around AI from one of fear to one of freedom. Freedom might look like a surge in housing brought on by the integration of AI into the construction of modular homes. Or the ability to send an image of a mole for instant analysis by an AI program rather than missing work, driving to an office, and paying for a 15-second glance by a doctor who has more pressing patients to attend to. Or enabling your neurodivergent child to receive an education suited to their own learning needs.
Potential Downsides of AI Abundance
Some skepticism of AI is warranted. In the wrong hands it could bring about many negative effects and long-term ills. Lawmakers understandably want to avoid making it too easy for bad actors to attain and exploit the most sophisticated AI tools. Yet prior waves of technological innovation and diffusion make clear that the societies that thrive amid those waves are the ones that harness that technology. The ones that seek to cabin it and constrain it are the ones we read about in history books—the societies that faded or even collapsed.
Those insisting on excessive regulatory constraints on AI fail to heed that historical lesson. The EU’s aggressive and heavy-handed regulatory posture has scared away AI companies and denied EU residents . The long-term ramifications of this approach are unknown, but history suggests it won’t go well for Europeans. Without a chance to learn the pros and cons of the latest tools and to integrate them into private and public endeavors, EU residents will have diminished odds of competing in an AI-driven economy and shaping AI to further their communal ends.
States that succumb to the narrative that AI offers more harm than good will fail to develop a public and private sector that’s capable of ensuring that’s not the case. By stepping away from AI, these states will only increase the odds that a few corporate actors will dictate the future of AI. If they instead opt to empower their residents, academic institutions, civil society organizations, and small business owners to embrace and steer AI, then they will have a real stake in the technology and its short- and long-term impacts.
Conclusion
In a LinkedIn post that recently popped up in my feed, the author lambasted those who argue that AI can alleviate the housing crisis, assist in mitigating climate change, and otherwise accelerate progress on policy issues. They said the answer to those problems was simply more funding. To some extent, this prescription isn’t wrong. More money can always help. But that’s not really saying much.
My hunch is that this author does not see AI for what it is: this generation’s all-purpose tool. It’s not a bogeyman. It’s not an ideology. It’s a tool. There is no denying its increasing utility. AI has already helped discover a new class of compounds capable of killing drug-resistant bacteria. It has accelerated the invention process in materials science research. It has also demonstrated a superior capacity to identify drug candidates. It is only a matter of time before AI tools can achieve these sorts of gains in everything from constructing more homes to removing carbon from the atmosphere. To deny this potential or to undermine it could be to undermine the possibility of a brighter, more prosperous future.
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].