can't see the images? view this message online.
Center for Policy Studies
Public Affairs Discussion Group |
| Regulating AI: What, How, Where? |
Joseph White, Ph.D. - Luxenberg Family Professor of Public Policy |
Friday March 20, 2026
12:30-1:30 p.m.
Meeting Both In-Person and by Zoom
Dampeer Room, Second Floor of Kelvin Smith Library
Case Western Reserve University
For those interested in participating by Zoom please e-mail padg@case.edu for more information.
Dear Colleagues:
As we return from what I hope was a good break for all, it seems to me a good time to address one of the great uncertainties in current public policy, and actually in all our lives as we look forward. Namely, what should be done about the proliferation of implementations of “AI,” meaning both “discriminative” and “generative,” especially generative, artificial intelligence models?
This topic has far too many dimensions for any single talk. But perhaps I can bring a little insight about how to think about it, and if we’re lucky maybe others who attend the discussion will have greater expertise.
I want to highlight a few things. The first is the large difference between the approaches of European political authorities, especially the EU, and the United States federal government. EU policy-makers have been much more visibly worried about what could go wrong, and the European Commission has described the European AI Act, enacted in 2024, as “the first ever comprehensive legal framework on AI worldwide.” In the meantime, as one report in Politico put it, “Europe wants to regulate, while the U.S. government is letting companies run free.”
I will try to explain the difference, but also how European experience highlights some difficulties. It turns out to be very hard to transform the general principles of the law into specific recommendations, and the European Commission has already missed some deadlines. A big part of the problem is that European policy-makers are of two minds: they want to limit risks from implementing AI, but fear that having a stronger regulatory structure will ensure that the AI sales and profits go mainly to U.S. corporations, leaving Europe behind in a tech race. So at the same time as it seeks to regulate more strongly, the EU also has a “European AI Strategy aimed at making the EU a world-class hub for AI.” Of course in a time of economic stress across the “first world,” companies can put great pressure on governments by threatening to move operations to other countries, and the EU and its members fear losing business to the United States. For reasons of both substance and economic pressures, therefore, EU AI regulation is caught in a series of “paradoxes” that can make AI seem, as the Politico piece linked above put it, “a nightmare for the EU.”
The second main theme of my comments will be on the potential objects of regulation. First, should regulation be on AI products, or on specific applications? For example, it might be okay to have products that can make fake images, but wrong for the government to ever produce such images as part of its own communications. In short, should regulation be at the level of the supplier or the user? Second, are there uses of AI that should be regulated because they are simply another version of something that is already illegal or tortuous – as in uses that seem libelous? Third, are there application types, such as in medical care, military targeting, or investment trading, that seem especially dangerous? Fourth, are there uses that are seriously bothersome but do not seem amenable to government regulation – such as, for example, cheating on college assignments?
Last, I will suggest a further distinction among risks from uses of AI. One kind of risk is that AI will do serious damage to some people but help others. After all, the shareholders of companies that shed jobs might think that’s a great idea, even as the workers do not. A second risk is that use of AI may be, essentially, bad for everyone: as when there are externalities such as massive increases in energy costs along with further global warming. A third, I think less-appreciated but fairly likely risk, is that most applications of AI technology may be a gigantic waste of money. At best this would involve opportunity costs, what the money didn’t buy that would have contributed more to the social good. But at worst this could lead to an economic crash when the bubble bursts.
We’ll see if anything I say seems useful. And please, if you get this notice and know more, please join the conversation!
Best wishes for safety and security for you and yours,
Joe White
Luxenberg Family Professor of Public Policy and Director, Center for Policy Studies
About Our Guest
Joe White is organizer of the Public Affairs Discussion Group due to his position as Director of the Center for Policy Studies in CWRU’s College of Arts and Sciences. He holds the Luxenberg Family Professorship in Public Policy with his primary appointment in the Department of Political Science and a secondary appointment in the Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences.
Dr. White joined our faculty in 2000 and served as Political Science Department Chair from 2003 – 2015. Before coming to CWRU he was an Associate Professor of Health Systems Management at Tulane University, and first Research Associate and then Senior Fellow in the Governmental Studies Program of the Brookings Institution. He earned his A.B. from the University of Chicago and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California Berkeley, all in political science.
Dr. White’s research focuses especially on both U.S. federal budgeting and health care policy and politics. As he likes to point out, that means his work focuses on the two largest things in the world, in financial terms, that are generally believed to be wildly screwed up: the U.S. federal budget and health care non-system. A lot of his health policy work compares policies across rich democracies. He has authored or co-authored three books, co-edited two, and authored or co-authored 85 articles or book chapters. His c.v. and a selection of his work can be found at https://policy.case.edu/research/health-care-federal-budget-articles/.
Schedule of Friday Lunch Upcoming Topics and Speakers:
March 27: War in the Gulf. With Pete W. Moore, Ph.D., Marcus A. Hanna Associate Professor of Politics.
April 3: Youth Justice in Ohio: An Untold Story of Success and Possibility. With Gabriella Celeste, J.D., Policy Director for the Schubert Center for Childhood Studies, and Co-Director of the Child Studies Program.
April 10: April 10: Technological Change and the Labor Market. With David Clingingsmith, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.
April 17: Iran’s Water Crisis. With Neda A. Zawahri, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, Cleveland State University.
April 24: The Immigration Crackdown – Some Things To Know. With Bridget M. Haas, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology. | |
|