A futile quest by California to establish suitable AI regulations

There exists a superior approach. Regulators — whether at the state level, federal level, or within specific industries — should concentrate on creating regulations for corporations and major cloud service providers who deploy advanced AI tools, rather than focusing solely on the companies developing and marketing such technology. (While it is true that the major cloud service providers also market their own versions of advanced AI tools, they operate as distinct business entities with separate leadership.)

Why this strategy? To start, corporations are more inclined to collaborate, thereby increasing the chances of successful compliance. Additionally, if regulators want technology vendors to address cybersecurity and privacy concerns seriously, they should target their efforts towards their most significant clients. If these clients begin demanding adherence to government regulations, vendors are more likely to follow suit.

In simpler terms, the insignificant fines and sanctions that regulators can impose pale in comparison to the revenue generated by these clients. By influencing the clients, the vendors will undoubtedly receive the message.

About Author

AndyC

Andy Curtis is an award-winning security consultant, researcher and public speaker. He has been working in the computer security industry since the early 1990s, having been employed by state and federal government, leading healthcare and banking providers across three continents. He has given talks about computer security for some of the world’s largest companies, worked with law enforcement agencies on investigations into hacking groups, and is a regular voice on TV and radio explaining IT security threats.

See author's posts