Comments of R Street Institute on a Learning Period Moratorium for AI Regulation in Response to Request for Information (RFI) Exploring a Data Privacy and Security Framework

April 3, 2025

Data Privacy Working Group
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

Comments of Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute in response to House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Data Privacy Working Group’s Request for Information to Explore Data Privacy and Security Framework

“How a Learning Period Moratorium Can Address Premature Artificial Intelligence Regulation”

Dear Chairman Guthrie, Vice Chairman Joyce, and Members of the Data Privacy Working Group:

I. Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Privacy Working Group Request for Information (RFI) on issues pertaining to the parameters of a federal comprehensive data privacy and security framework. The R Street Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization. Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government in many areas, including emerging technology. This is why R Street has a strong interest in this RFI and the way our nation establishes policies for the digital economy.

In the interest of space, this comment focuses solely on the issues raised in Section V of the RFI relating to artificial intelligence (AI) regulation. A separate filing from our Cybersecurity Team addresses the questions most relevant to their work. The RFI notes that, “[a] growing number of states are also enacting—or are seeking to enact—additional AI-specific laws,” and asks commenters to address how these developments not only relate to privacy and consumer protection regulation, but also “the impact on U.S. AI leadership” more generally.

The working group is right to be concerned about America’s AI leadership, and is also correct in asking how federal law should address conflicting state-level AI frameworks. Congress will need to take immediate steps to address the proliferating patchwork of parochial AI regulations, and lawmakers should do so separately from baseline privacy legislation.

While federalism has many benefits, it is also imperative that states not be allowed to create regulations that usurp Congress’ authority by dictating the terms of interstate commerce. This comment argues that Congress should preempt state and local AI regulations that clearly impinge upon interstate algorithmic commerce and speech. Alternatively, Congress could fashion a “learning period moratorium” that would limit new federal and state AI regulatory mandates that undermine a competitive national marketplace in advanced algorithmic services.

It is vital that Congress take these steps promptly to assist the Trump administration’s efforts to craft an AI opportunity agenda for the nation as America finds itself in heated competition with China for global AI supremacy.^[1] As House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie correctly summarized in recent remarks, the United States must “make sure that we win the battle against China” and the key to that is to ensure America does not “regulate like Europe or California regulates,” because “that puts us in a position where we’re not competitive.”^[2] This has serious consequences for our nation’s competitiveness and security, he noted. We “don’t want to overregulate that we destroy the AI industry,” Chair Guthrie said, because then, “industry moves somewhere else, and that’s what we have to be worried about.”^[3] 

Those exact priorities should guide what Congress does next on AI policy.

II. A Pro-Growth National AI Policy Framework is Needed

Congress should work with the Trump administration to advance a national AI opportunity agenda by establishing a clear pro-innovation AI policy framework, just as lawmakers did in the 1990s for the internet and digital commerce.^[4] The Republican Congress and Clinton administration worked together to create a flexible, market-oriented governance approach for online commerce and speech during that period.^[5] Policymakers wanted to ensure information systems were not burdened with the sort of regulatory regime that had curtailed innovation, competition, and consumer choice in telecommunications and media markets during the prior century.

America’s digital technology policy framework was highly successful precisely because Congress did not look to preemptively solve every hypothetical concern about the internet before online innovation was allowed. For example, there was no Federal Internet Bureau or 50 different state Computer Control Commissions holding back innovators at every juncture. Instead, America’s internet policy vision was rooted in forbearance, flexibility, and freedom.

These wise policies allowed America’s entrepreneurs and investors to experiment with bold ideas, which generated an explosion of economic activity. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2022 alone, the digital economy contributed:

• over $4 trillion of gross output;
• $2.6 trillion of value added (translating to 10 percent of U.S. GDP);
• $1.3 trillion of compensation; and
• 8.9 million jobs.^[6] 

A vibrant digital technology sector also helped put America on stronger geopolitical footing in terms of both our global competitiveness and national security.^[7] American technology firms became global leaders in almost every segment of the online commerce and computing marketplace thanks to the pro-innovation national policy framework lawmakers established in the mid-1990s.

Congress needs to again take steps to protect and extend this winning policy formula through an AI opportunity agenda that builds on the same policy principles that guided the internet and digital technology. This will unlock even greater economic growth, business and worker opportunities, significant productivity enhancements, and massive improvements in human health and well-being.^[8] 

Chairman Guthrie outlined the best approach in a recent article:

For AI to be implemented at scale in the U.S., we must have a flexible, pro-innovation regulatory environment. While protections against harmful uses of AI are paramount, such as malicious deepfakes, federal and state lawmakers should avoid imposing duplicative and burdensome new regulations. Innovation not regulation will be key to U.S. AI dominance.^[9]

Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken important steps to bolster this sort of opportunity-oriented vision for AI and advanced computation. These steps included a January executive order that President Trump issued to “solidify our position as the global leader in AI [and] to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”^[10] In a February speech at the Paris AI Action Summit, Vice President Vance also discussed how, “AI will have countless revolutionary applications in economic innovation, job creation, national security, health care, free expression and beyond, and to restrict its development now will not only unfairly benefit incumbents in this space, it would mean paralyzing one of the most promising technologies we have seen in generations.”^[11] 

Most recently, President Trump sent a welcoming letter to Michael Kratsios, the new Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, stating that, “rivals abroad seek to usurp America’s position as the world’s greatest maker of marvels and producer of knowledge.” The President instructed Kratsios to take steps to make sure that the United States can “secure its position as the unrivaled world leader in critical and emerging technologies” beginning with AI.^[12] The ultimate goal, President Trump said, was to “ensure that scientific progress and technological innovation fuel economic growth and better the lives of all Americans.”^[13]

These policy statements serve as a much-needed course-correction on AI policy, which during the past four years had been fear-based and over-regulatory in nature.^[14] Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz recently noted how, in recent years, some policymakers “wanted America to adopt Europe’s approach” on AI, but he rightly noted that, “putting government in charge of innovation in AI would almost ensure America loses the race to AI,” which would be “catastrophic.”^[15] As Vice President Vance noted during his Paris address, Europe’s regulatory approach has decimated that continent’s digital technology sector.^[16]

This is why the United States must calibrate its policies properly to ensure that America leads the AI revolution. As R Street noted in its recent filing in the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan proceeding, federal agencies should follow several specific principles to advance the AI opportunity agenda:^[17] 

1. Adopt a flexible, risk-based approach to AI governance that relies more on ongoing multistakeholder negotiations and evolving consensus-based standards that are more closely matched to rapidly changing algorithmic systems than overly-rigid regulations.
2. Avoid regulating the inputs of algorithmic systems and instead focus on their outputs and outcomes.^[18] 
3. Target policies by using a sectoral approach that breaks down AI policy into smaller, more manageable elements and be responsive to new risks as they emerge.

This agile and iterative policy approach rejects European-style preemptive regulations that stifle innovation by design and instead focuses on utilizing existing laws and regulations to address concerns as needed.^[19]  Experts have noted that, “the best AI law may be one that already exists,” with the extensive array of federal, state, and local regulations that are already on the books.^[20] Some of those remedies include unfair and deceptive practices law, civil rights laws, product recall authority, and court-based common law remedies.^[21]  At the same time, Congress needs to exercise closer oversight of the many federal agencies that already regulate algorithmic systems in specific sectors to “address how existing regulations are hindering progress.”^[22] 

III. A Patchwork of State AI Regulations Threatens American AI Opportunity

Unfortunately, a looming patchwork of parochial regulatory policies could undermine America’s AI opportunity agenda.^[23] State and local legislative activity surrounding AI and computation systems is growing without restraint. By the end of March, just three months into 2025, more than 900 AI-related bills had already been introduced across the United States. This is more than the total number of bills introduced in all of 2024, which saw 743 AI bills introduced. California alone already has more than 30 AI regulatory bills pending, and they are some of the most far-reaching measures being considered.^[24] New York has over 100 AI bills pending.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), who co-chaired the House’s Bipartisan Task Force on Artificial Intelligence last Congress, noted that, “AI is very clearly an interstate commerce issue, and I think that, predominantly, regulation of AI needs to be done at the federal level, if you allow 50 different state regulations to exist … [that] is an enormous barrier to entry for innovation.”^[25]

Compounding state AI regulations will undermine the development of a robust national AI marketplace by raising compliance costs, limiting new entry and investment, and discouraging new product launches. A leading venture capital firm correctly argues that while some large tech players might have the resources to deal with these complexities, “[s]tartups don’t have these luxuries,” and this will “cripple Little Tech and hinder American efforts to compete with AI development in other countries.”^[26] 

Last May, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed a major new AI regulatory measure into law, but when doing so he noted that a patchwork of state AI regulations could create “a complex compliance regime for all developers and deployers of AI,” that will “tamper innovation and deter competition.”^[27] Gov. Polis called for Congress to craft “a needed cohesive federal approach… to limit and preempt varied compliance burdens on innovators and ensure a level playing field across state lines along with ensuring access to life-saving and money-saving AI technologies for consumers.”^[28] 

Gov. Polis is correct: Congress should act to create a national approach for AI to make sure those benefits are not undermined by state over-regulation.

IV. The Benefits of A Learning Period Moratorium

There are many important policy issues for Congress to consider as lawmakers ponder AI governance. Several of these issues were addressed in R Street’s recent AI Action Plan filing.^[29] AI policy is remarkably complicated precisely because AI technology itself is so multi-dimensional and rapidly changing. Congress cannot accomplish everything at once, and attempting to do so in a single comprehensive measure could end in failure. Prioritization is important and lawmakers must avoid rushed, over-regulatory responses.

Optimally, Congress would begin by comprehensively preempting state and local barriers that impeded the free flow of algorithmic commerce and speech. Calibrating the scope of federal preemption is legally challenging and politically contentious, however. It is unclear whether Congress could reach consensus on what a federal AI policy framework should entail at this time.

A “learning period moratorium” on new AI regulations offers a way out of this predicament. As outlined in a previous R Street report, Congress could craft a moratorium on the creation of certain new AI-related regulations at the federal, state, and local level.^[30] As R Street noted when originally proposing this idea last year, such a time-limited moratorium would have two primary benefits:

First, it would create breathing space for new types of algorithmic innovation to grow. This is especially important for smaller AI firms and the open-source AI marketplace, both of which could be decimated by premature overregulation of a still-developing sector.

Second, an AI regulatory moratorium would give policymakers and technology experts the chance to determine what problems deserve greater scrutiny and potential regulation. This pragmatic policy approach would limit damage from rash decisions and help us gain knowledge by testing predictions and policies before advancing new rules.^[31]

Congress has used similar learning period arrangements in the past to encourage the growth of other markets and technologies while studying optimal policy for new technologies. The Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 (made permanent in 2016) prevented the development of “multiple and discriminatory taxes” on electronic commerce and internet access by state and local governments. Similarly, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 ensured that federal regulators did not hamstring the nascent market for commercial human spaceflight. It expires in 2028.

An AI regulatory moratorium could likewise limit new AI-specific enactment for a certain period of time. A moratorium on new AI regulation would not limit the applicability of pre-existing laws and regulations to AI systems, however. Targeted sectoral rules and existing legal remedies would still cover any harms that came about from algorithmic systems.^[32] 

At a minimum, a federal AI regulatory moratorium would restrict state efforts to regulate the underlying power or capabilities of large-scale computational systems or “frontier” models. For example, last year, the California legislature passed the “Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act” (SB 1047), which would have regulated large-scale computational systems in an extraterritorial fashion.^[33] While California Gov. Gavin Newsom eventually vetoed the measure, it represented the sort of threat to innovation outside of the state’s borders that would have been constitutionally problematic and ripe for preemption or a moratorium.^[34] Similar measures have been introduced this year in New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.^[35] A wave of such laws would be devastating to AI innovation, investment, and competition throughout the United States.

Congress should also consider how an AI regulatory moratorium could limit new “AI discrimination” laws such as the Colorado law noted above and similar proposals from a number of states.^[36] These bills are modeled after European tech regulations in that they create new AI regulatory bureaucracies and impose many layers of preemptive paperwork mandates on entrepreneurs based on the mistaken assumption that AI systems are inherently “biased” or discriminatory.^[37] These bills contain open-ended regulatory terms like “consequential decisions,” “substantial factors,” “reasonable care,” and “high-risk” applications, but define them inconsistently.^[38] The measures also contain conflicting definitions of new regulatory classifications like “developers,” “deployers,” and “distributors.” Many state bills do not even agree on the definition of “artificial intelligence.”^[39]

A patchwork of such regulations will generate significant legal confusion and rising compliance costs, especially for smaller innovators, who will need to wait for various new bureaucrats to interpret and reinterpret these terms as part of a highly politicized permitting process.^[40] Congress should place a moratorium on such new AI regulations and instruct states to instead focus on how their existing policies, or federal law, already address the concerns some have raised.

V. Conclusion

A national, opportunity-based AI policy vision is crucial with China and other authoritarian nations looking to expand their computational capabilities, and rapidly catching up to America.^[41] Many federal lawmakers and congressional working groups have identified how AI innovation is essential to America’s global competitiveness and national security.

For example, last December, the House’s Bipartisan Task Force on Artificial Intelligence noted in its final report that, “the United States must take active steps to safeguard our current leadership position” to “help our country remain the world’s undisputed leader in the responsible design, development, and deployment of AI.”^[42] Similarly, an earlier report from the Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group, led by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y), identified the need to “ensure the United States remains at the forefront of innovation in this technology.”^[43] This aligns with the Trump administration’s approach to AI. As Vice President Vance noted during his recent Paris address, “excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off, and we will make every effort to encourage pro-growth AI policies.”^[44] 

But if every state government goes its own way on AI policy, it will undermine that goal.^[45] This is why a pro-freedom, pro-innovation national policy framework for AI and advanced computation is essential if the United States hopes to win the race to be the global leader for the “most important general-purpose technology of our era.”^[46] A learning period moratorium can help ensure that result by preventing a patchwork of rushed regulatory solutions from undermining AI opportunity in America.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the working group’s RFI. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

/s/

Adam Thierer
Resident Senior Fellow, Technology & Innovation
R Street Institute

See the original comments below:

[1] Daria Solovieva, “DeepSeek’s breakthrough casts shadow on US tech supremacy,” Salon, Feb. 28, 2025. https://www.salon.com/2025/02/28/deepseeks-breakthrough-casts-shadow-on-us-tech-supremacy.

[2] Rep. Brett Guthrie, “Transcript: The Futurist: America’s Technological Edge” Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2025/03/25/transcript-futurist-americas-technological-edge.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Adam Thierer, “The Policy Origins of the Digital Revolution & the Continuing Case for the Freedom to Innovate,” R Street Real Solutions, Aug. 15, 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-policy-origins-of-the-digital-revolution-the-continuing-case-for-the-freedom-to-innovate.

[5] White House, Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, (1997). https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/Commerce.

[6] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “U.S. Digital Economy: New and Revised Estimates, 2017–2022,” Survey of Current Business, Dec. 6, 2023. https://apps.bea.gov/scb/issues/2023/12-december/1223-digital-economy.htm.

[7] Adam Thierer, “Ramifications of China’s DeepSeek Moment, Part 1: AI, Technological Supremacy and National Security,” R Street Analysis, Feb. 3, 2025. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/ramifications-of-chinas-deepseek-moment-part-1-ai-technological-supremacy-national-security.

[8] Adam Thierer, Testimony for U.S. Joint Economic Committee Hearing on “Artificial Intelligence and Its Potential to Fuel Economic Growth and Improve Governance,” June 4, 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/outreach/adam-thierer-testimony-hearing-on-artificial-intelligence-and-its-potential-to-fuel-economic-growth-and-improve-governance.

[9] Rep. Brett Guthrie, “Driving the energy future of AI development,” The Washington Times, Mar. 26, 2025. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/26/driving-energy-future-ai-development.

[10] White House, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” Executive Order, Jan. 23, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence.

[11] Vice President J.D. Vance, “Remarks by the Vice President at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, France,” Feb 11, 2025. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-president-the-artificial-intelligence-action-summit-paris-france.

[12] President Donald J. Trump, “A Letter to Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,” Mar. 26, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/03/a-letter-to-michael-kratsios-director-of-the-white-house-office-of-science-and-technology-policy.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Adam Thierer, “Trump’s New AI Executive Order Begins Undoing Biden’s Bureaucratic Mess,” R Street Analysis, Jan. 23, 2025. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/trumps-new-ai-executive-order-begins-undoing-bidens-bureaucratic-mess.

[15] Sen. Ted Cruz, Speech before the Special Competitive Studies Project Compute Summit, Mar. 6, 2025. https://youtu.be/S6UvYNijKIM.

[16] Vance, “Remarks at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit.”

[17] Adam Thierer, “Artificial Intelligence Task Force: 10 Principles to Guide AI Policy,” R Street Analysis, February 21, 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/artificial-intelligence-task-force-10-principles-to-guide-ai-policy.

[18] Rep. Jay Obernolte, “The Role of Congress in Regulating Artificial Intelligence,” The Ripon Forum 57:3 (June 2023). https://riponsociety.org/article/the-role-of-congress-in-regulating-artificial-intelligence. Adam Thierer, “The Most Important Principle for AI Regulation,” R Street Institute Analysis, June 21, 2023. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-most-important-principle-for-ai-regulation.

[19] Adam Thierer, “Getting AI Innovation Culture Right,” R Street Institute Policy Study No. 281 (March 2023). https://www.rstreet.org/research/getting-ai-innovation-culture-right.

[20] Will Rinehart, “The Best AI Law May Be One That Already Exists,” AEIdeas, Feb. 03, 2025. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-best-ai-law-may-be-one-that-already-exists.

[21] Adam Thierer, “Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence,” R Street Institute Policy Study No. 283 (April 2023). https://www.rstreet.org/research/flexible-pro-innovation-governance-strategies-for-artificial-intelligence.

[22] Jason Furman, “How to Regulate AI Without Stifling Innovation,” The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 21, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-to-regulate-ai-without-stifling-innovation-regulation-eu-licensing-a2f0d8af.

[23] Adam Thierer, “Don’t let the states derail America’s AI revolution,” The Hill, March 23, 2025. https://thehill.com/opinion/5208637-ai-regulation-china-us.

[24] Khari Johnson, “California has 30 new proposals to rein in AI. Trump could complicate them,” Cal Matters, Mar. 13, 2025. https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/03/ai-regulation-after-trump-election.

[25] Mariam Baksh, “Rep. Obernolte promotes AI select committee, notes ongoing open-source debate,” Inside AI Policy, Feb. 12, 2025. https://insideaipolicy.com/ai-daily-news/rep-obernolte-promotes-ai-select-committee-notes-ongoing-open-source-debate.

[26] Matt Perault, “Setting the Agenda for Global AI Leadership: Assessing the Roles of Congress and the States,” Andreesen Horowitz, Feb. 4, 2025. https://a16z.com/setting-the-agenda-for-global-ai-leadership-assessing-the-roles-of-congress-and-the-states.

[27] Gov. Jared Polis, Signing Statement for SB 24-205,” May 17, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i2cA3IG93VViNbzXu9LPgbTrZGqhyRgM/view.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Adam Thierer, “Comments of the R Street Institute in Request for Information on the Development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan,” R Street Regulatory Comments, Mar. 15, 2025. https://www.rstreet.org/outreach/comments-of-the-r-street-institute-in-request-for-information-on-the-development-of-an-artificial-intelligence-ai-action-plan.

[30] Adam Thierer, “Getting AI Policy Right Through a Learning Period Moratorium,” R Street Real Solutions, May 29, 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/getting-ai-policy-right-through-a-learning-period-moratorium.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Tyler Tone, “AI is new — the laws that govern it don’t have to be,” FIRE Newsdesk, Mar. 28, 2025. https://www.thefire.org/news/ai-new-laws-govern-it-dont-have-be.

[33] Adam Thierer, “California Rejects AI Regulatory Extremism,” R Street Analysis, Sept. 30. 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/california-rejects-ai-regulatory-extremism.

[34] Gibson Dunn, “Regulating the Future: Eight Key Takeaways from California’s SB 1047, Vetoed by Governor Newsom,” Client Alert, Sept. 30, 2024. https://www.gibsondunn.com/regulating-the-future-eight-key-takeaways-from-californias-sb-1047-vetoed-by-governor-newsom.

[35] Austin Jenkins, “N.Y. lawmaker set to unveil AI safety bill,” Pluribus News, Mar. 3, 2025. https://pluribusnews.com/news-and-events/n-y-lawmaker-set-to-unveil-ai-safety-bill.

[36] Adam Thierer, “Colorado Opens Door to an AI Patchwork as Congress Procrastinates,” R Street Analysis, May 20, 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/colorado-opens-door-to-an-ai-patchwork-as-congress-procrastinates.

[37] Dean Ball, “The EU AI Act is Coming to America,” Hyperdimensional, Feb. 13, 2025. https://www.hyperdimensional.co/p/the-eu-ai-act-is-coming-to-america.

[38] Bill Framer, “The New Wave of Comprehensive Consumer Protection AI Bills,” Multistate.AI, Jan. 17, 2025. https://www.multistate.ai/updates/vol-45.

[39] Madyson Fitzgerald, “What is artificial intelligence? Legislators are still looking for a definition,” Stateline, Oct. 5, 2023. https://stateline.org/2023/10/05/what-is-artificial-intelligence-legislators-are-still-looking-for-a-definition.

[40] Daniel Lyons, “Design Mandate Proposals Threaten American AI Leadership,” AEIdeas, Mar. 05, 2025. https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/design-mandate-proposals-threaten-american-ai-leadership.

[41] American Edge Project, “America Must Act Now to Secure Tech Leadership, New Study Finds,” Mar. 25, 2025. https://americanedgeproject.org/america-must-act-now-to-secure-tech-leadership-new-study-finds.

[42] U.S. House of Representatives, 118th Congress, “Bipartisan House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence,” Dec. 2024, https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AI-Task-Force-Report-FINAL.pdf.

[43]The Bipartisan AI Working Group, Driving U.S. Innovation in Artificial Intelligence,” 2024. https://www.schumer.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Roadmap_Electronic1.32pm.pdf.

[44] Vice President J.D. Vance, “Remarks by the Vice President at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, France,” Feb 11, 2025. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-president-the-artificial-intelligence-action-summit-paris-france.

[45] Dean Ball, Greg Lukianoff & Adam Thierer, “How state AI regulations threaten innovation, free speech, and knowledge creation,” The Eternally Radical Idea, Apr. 3, 2025. https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/how-state-ai-regulations-threaten.

[46] Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, “The Business of Artificial Intelligence,” Harvard Business Review, July 18, 2017. https://hbr.org/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence.