Lawmakers should regulate harms, not technologies. That is the argument I make about AI regulation in a point-counterpoint that InsideSources distributed through Tribune News Service, and that the Las Vegas Sun and other papers published. Blocking or delaying a technology carries a real cost that never lands on a ledger, and the public is the one that pays it.
Three recent examples show the pattern. Federal regulators ordered faster grid connections for AI data centers because the United States is racing China for the lead in AI, yet neighbors object over theoretical concerns about noise, water and power draw. I argue these matters belong at the federal level, lest NIMBYism grind innovation to a halt. California, New York and other states and localities have banned rent-setting software that analyzes market data, or are considering a ban, as though the algorithm rather than supply and demand set the price. In Austin, rents fell while the software was in use because the city rapidly expanded its housing supply. And last year Nevada and Illinois prohibited AI systems from providing therapy, taking a resource away from the person wrestling with anxiety at 2 in the morning in response to a potential problem.
Two questions should come before any restriction. What specific harm are we addressing? Can existing law handle it? The antitrust and consumer protection statutes we already have reach most of these harms. The rest of the time, the work is to define the harm, not to ban the tool.
Read the full piece: How strictly should AI be limited? Making the case for a light hand (Las Vegas Sun, August 10, 2026)
This article was produced in part with AI, see my disclosure here.