FTC authorizes compulsory process for AI-related products and services

Non-interference in business is the prevailing current in the US, at the federal level, since its founding. Interference needs to be constitutionally justified, and (historically) needs to not be better applied by more local jurisdictions.

This is why the past shows has comparitively lax regulation for long.

You're right that this is a more pressed issue lately and that we can see a local relative current towards regulation tempers that prevailing one, but in net its actually still relatively non-interfering compared to what you see in peer nations.

Leaning on the metaphor: The prevailing Atlantic current mostly goes north up the US coast, but you can still find local currents in all directions amidst that prevailing flow.

1930-1970.

In a specific and literal 'number of regulations, period' way, you're right. But in a more general sense involving the FTC, prior to 1978 the economy was significantly more regulated.

So there may be more restrictions on the product to qualify as natural or organic, for example, but there are less restrictions on the ability of the company that makes the product to engage in non-competitive behavior. Banking is a good example - there are more restrictions and requirements for disclosure, but before the 90's, banks were not allowed to have branches in multiple states. Additionally, now you have a number of tech companies behaving like banks but acting in a significantly less regulated way that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago. From a 'whole economy' perspective, the required reserve balance reductions in the 90's resulted in less ability for the federal govt to control the economy without major shocks.

The government has less control over the economy today than it has had in decades, and since the late 70's a failure of antitrust enforcement and changes in financial rules have resulted in market concentration in every major market to a degree that they have all become oligopolies.

And there’s the pragmatic way of thinking about it, which says “these concerns were raised by advocates for this group based on past experiences where this group saw abuse, and the conversation was never elevated beyond protecting this previously-victimized group from future abuse”

Thats not to defend what is probably bureaucratic myopia, just to say the reasons are more likely banal than strategic.

Granted I went to basic training over two decades ago. Maybe the Post 9/11 GI Bill is different? But I doubt it. What I've heard from fellow veterans is it's better in so many ways. Apparently I'm even eligible for a year of its use even though I depleted my original GI Bill (with kicker).

The most difficult part for most people is staying in school, which is made significantly easier by not having to pay for it.

Which part of capitalism causes the government to scam the state funded military. There doesn't appear to be any private ownership of capital involved at all.

The US made a very strong go, initially, at not doing that, with a cadre-style Army reliant on militia mobilization for significant action (and a somewhat similar situation for internal security).

The whole security forces as a separate caste with interests divorced from the population thing was something the founders were aware of and concerned about.

- Guaranteed housing—including for your spouse and kids.

- Healthcare for same.

- Free college education.

The pay sucks, but the benefits are pretty damn good. I do think universal healthcare and free public university would take a big bite out of military recruitment rates.

That's why back in the day sucked.

This regulation is almost certainly too far reaching and written by bureaucrats rather than experts, but the need for regulation is already there.

I've always thought the difficulty in defining what AI is stems from a need to differentiate humans from the "artificial" part of it.

The real issue with using AI (from a law enforcement perspective) is the inability to put somebody under oath and ask them why they made the decisions they did. All the FTC really needs to say is something like "If we suspect your product is discriminating against a protected class and you can't (as a company) explain what the decision making process was (that was non-discriminatory) we will assume the worst."

If you want to say "true AI" you have to say "General AI"

(Its also important to people subject to FTC investigations to determine whether they are obligated to respond to particular things that purport to be a particular form of administrative subpoena, but, I mean, at the point that your business is subject to an FTC investigation in which they are issuing things that look like administrative subpoenas, you probably ought to be engaging counsel to guide you in that process for more reasons than just "is this something we need to obey", and the substantive law being investigated is going to be a much more complicated thing that the one page order adopting compulsory process for a particular domain of investigations.)