The Red Flag Act story is a problematic start (it reminds me of the "in the time of Columbus, people thought the earth was flat and Columbus wanted to prove otherwise — which is a myth, see "The Late Birth of a Flat Earth").
When the Locomotives act was created (1961) and amended (1965), the machines they were talking about were 14 ton 3m wide huge machines that were travelling on roads that were meant for pedestrians, mostly. While it is true that competitors will not shy away from trying to use the law to try to stop competition, it is far from certain (and probably a myth) that this was why the act was passed. There were reasonable safety and other concerns at the time.
The Red Flag Act probably didn't stop the development of cars. And in an interesting twist, it was mainly the pressure from the budding automobile industry that made the act be changed again. And it changed again and again over the years as the situation changed.
But it's a ver common bugbear in discussions like this, especially for those interests that want as free as possible development of their commercial interests. Conjuring the idiotic vision of a car where a man walks on front 20m waving a red flag is very demagogically effective.
Thank you, Gerben! Love you jumping in this conversation!
You make some excellent historical points, particularly about the context of 14-ton locomotives on pedestrian roads and the genuine safety concerns of the era. I appreciate you challenging what may be an oversimplified narrative.
However, I'd respectfully suggest that the Act's effects on innovation deserve nuanced examination. While safety regulations were indeed justified, the Act's specific requirements (like the red flag person) appear to have been overly burdensome solutions that made early automobiles impractical for regular use. The fact that the automobile industry successfully pushed for reforms suggests the original restrictions went beyond what was necessary for public safety.
That said, you've made me reflect on whether I presented this example with sufficient historical context. Perhaps we could find common ground in viewing it as a case study of how societies balance innovation with legitimate public safety concerns, rather than a simple cautionary tale about over-regulation.
Would you be open to sharing your thoughts on what you consider to be better historical examples of regulatory frameworks that successfully balanced safety and innovation?
It is at least remarkable that one potentially (eventually, even, maybe) aspect of the 1861-1865 laws keeps cropping up as a demagogic bugbear to attack the idea of regulation. One may wonder why that is so.
There are undoubtedly many examples where regulation got it wrong. I know enough examples. But it is I think unbalanced to use such arguments as a 'foundational example' for an argument. Often this happens in a FOMO style of attack on regulation. It is also a 'lazy' argument.
Regulation is how society maintains its collective norms or sets certain collective strategies. Innovation can undercut the norms as well as make the norms unnecessary. Framing innovation as a hindrance to progress is as old as human civilisation, I suspect. Sometimes, regulation even forces innovation, think safer and cleaner cars. Think food regulation that forces entrepreneurs to think of better ways to make money than fooling their customers (it was the entrepreneurs that in The Netherlands, ages ago, *asked* for regulation of what 'cheese' was supposed to be as bad actors with poor products were damaging the Dutch cheese brand in the UK. From that, the Food Authority came into being).
Without regulation, both the population and entrepreneurs get into a 'race to the bottom' (which is a natural phenomenon in a laissez-faire economy) potentially ending in a 'class war', and entrepreneurs actually *need* regulation to keep the playing field not only level, but at a decent level.
As I do more often these days, I really would suggest reading Brian Merchant's "Blood in the Machine" about the Luddite social uprising (who wanted regulation to protect workers, such as minimum wages, better working conditions in the factories, a slower rollout so society could adapt to innovation) and only went on to attack the machines the factory owners used to wantonly disrupt society (under the 'innovation' and 'laissez-faire' economical ideas) because they were forbidden to organise and weren't listened to and in the end had no other way of protest.
In the same 'innovation' debate, 'Luddite' has become a moniker for someone who is staunchly anti-technology. This is as misleading a narrative as the red flag law is. I would not use that example at all, not with *any* context, except as an example of misleading 'framing' examples. I seriously doubt the act has had any negative effect on innovation. Maybe even a positive one, e.g. by introducing 'highways' (innovation), which then got higher speed limits enacted, and finally the innovations driven by the reasons that rule was potentially necessary in 1865 led to a situation where the rule wasn't any longer practical or necessary.
Seems like a good story more than a bad story. Not all regulation is good or sensible. But neither is all innovation.
Good points, Gerben! I'll definitely read "Blood in the Machine", and maybe it's time I revisit this frame—I meant it more as an open question than a firm statement. I'm definitely not against regulation. While the Red Flag Act has its nuances, I thought it made for a humorous parallel in illustrating an open question.
In the context of AI, I find it a bit odd that we're focusing on regulating "AI Systems" with a risk-based framework (without clear definitions or realistic assessments), yet we're hesitant to hold tech companies liable, as Tristan Harris has been advocating for years. For instance, something like the EU AI Act might not address issues like what's happening with AI companions (here's an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfprdK4ww_w), but holding companies accountable for these potentially harmful products could be more effective. And there are already product liability laws in place, that somehow tech companies manage to bypass with their astute user consent and T&C practices.
What would you reckon are more interesting historical parallels? Perhaps regulations that came into place in the tobacco industry?
The Red Flag Act story is a problematic start (it reminds me of the "in the time of Columbus, people thought the earth was flat and Columbus wanted to prove otherwise — which is a myth, see "The Late Birth of a Flat Earth").
When the Locomotives act was created (1961) and amended (1965), the machines they were talking about were 14 ton 3m wide huge machines that were travelling on roads that were meant for pedestrians, mostly. While it is true that competitors will not shy away from trying to use the law to try to stop competition, it is far from certain (and probably a myth) that this was why the act was passed. There were reasonable safety and other concerns at the time.
The Red Flag Act probably didn't stop the development of cars. And in an interesting twist, it was mainly the pressure from the budding automobile industry that made the act be changed again. And it changed again and again over the years as the situation changed.
But it's a ver common bugbear in discussions like this, especially for those interests that want as free as possible development of their commercial interests. Conjuring the idiotic vision of a car where a man walks on front 20m waving a red flag is very demagogically effective.
Thank you, Gerben! Love you jumping in this conversation!
You make some excellent historical points, particularly about the context of 14-ton locomotives on pedestrian roads and the genuine safety concerns of the era. I appreciate you challenging what may be an oversimplified narrative.
However, I'd respectfully suggest that the Act's effects on innovation deserve nuanced examination. While safety regulations were indeed justified, the Act's specific requirements (like the red flag person) appear to have been overly burdensome solutions that made early automobiles impractical for regular use. The fact that the automobile industry successfully pushed for reforms suggests the original restrictions went beyond what was necessary for public safety.
That said, you've made me reflect on whether I presented this example with sufficient historical context. Perhaps we could find common ground in viewing it as a case study of how societies balance innovation with legitimate public safety concerns, rather than a simple cautionary tale about over-regulation.
Would you be open to sharing your thoughts on what you consider to be better historical examples of regulatory frameworks that successfully balanced safety and innovation?
It is at least remarkable that one potentially (eventually, even, maybe) aspect of the 1861-1865 laws keeps cropping up as a demagogic bugbear to attack the idea of regulation. One may wonder why that is so.
There are undoubtedly many examples where regulation got it wrong. I know enough examples. But it is I think unbalanced to use such arguments as a 'foundational example' for an argument. Often this happens in a FOMO style of attack on regulation. It is also a 'lazy' argument.
Regulation is how society maintains its collective norms or sets certain collective strategies. Innovation can undercut the norms as well as make the norms unnecessary. Framing innovation as a hindrance to progress is as old as human civilisation, I suspect. Sometimes, regulation even forces innovation, think safer and cleaner cars. Think food regulation that forces entrepreneurs to think of better ways to make money than fooling their customers (it was the entrepreneurs that in The Netherlands, ages ago, *asked* for regulation of what 'cheese' was supposed to be as bad actors with poor products were damaging the Dutch cheese brand in the UK. From that, the Food Authority came into being).
Without regulation, both the population and entrepreneurs get into a 'race to the bottom' (which is a natural phenomenon in a laissez-faire economy) potentially ending in a 'class war', and entrepreneurs actually *need* regulation to keep the playing field not only level, but at a decent level.
As I do more often these days, I really would suggest reading Brian Merchant's "Blood in the Machine" about the Luddite social uprising (who wanted regulation to protect workers, such as minimum wages, better working conditions in the factories, a slower rollout so society could adapt to innovation) and only went on to attack the machines the factory owners used to wantonly disrupt society (under the 'innovation' and 'laissez-faire' economical ideas) because they were forbidden to organise and weren't listened to and in the end had no other way of protest.
In the same 'innovation' debate, 'Luddite' has become a moniker for someone who is staunchly anti-technology. This is as misleading a narrative as the red flag law is. I would not use that example at all, not with *any* context, except as an example of misleading 'framing' examples. I seriously doubt the act has had any negative effect on innovation. Maybe even a positive one, e.g. by introducing 'highways' (innovation), which then got higher speed limits enacted, and finally the innovations driven by the reasons that rule was potentially necessary in 1865 led to a situation where the rule wasn't any longer practical or necessary.
Seems like a good story more than a bad story. Not all regulation is good or sensible. But neither is all innovation.
Good points, Gerben! I'll definitely read "Blood in the Machine", and maybe it's time I revisit this frame—I meant it more as an open question than a firm statement. I'm definitely not against regulation. While the Red Flag Act has its nuances, I thought it made for a humorous parallel in illustrating an open question.
In the context of AI, I find it a bit odd that we're focusing on regulating "AI Systems" with a risk-based framework (without clear definitions or realistic assessments), yet we're hesitant to hold tech companies liable, as Tristan Harris has been advocating for years. For instance, something like the EU AI Act might not address issues like what's happening with AI companions (here's an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfprdK4ww_w), but holding companies accountable for these potentially harmful products could be more effective. And there are already product liability laws in place, that somehow tech companies manage to bypass with their astute user consent and T&C practices.
What would you reckon are more interesting historical parallels? Perhaps regulations that came into place in the tobacco industry?
It seems to me that in the EU AI act one should replace 'AI' with 'IT' or even 'T' and get a better act.