Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2025
ISSN
1045-4241
Publisher
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Language
en-US
Abstract
So far, U.S. policy for artificial intelligence has largely consisted of industry-led approaches like encouraging transparency, mitigating bias, promoting principles of ethics, and empowering people. These approaches are vital, but they are only half measures. To bring AI within the rule of law, lawmakers must start drawing substantive lines.
In this essay, we identify four AI regulatory approaches as half measures. First, transparency does not produce accountability on its own. Next, while mitigating bias in AI systems is critical, even unbiased systems are a threat to the vulnerable. Third, while “AI ethics” are important, they are a poor substitute for laws. Finally, empowering people in their individual choices misses the larger questions about the distribution of power and collective wellbeing.
Instead of these half measures, we recommend that lawmakers reject the idea that AI systems are neutral and inevitable. When lawmakers go straight to putting up half-hearted guardrails, they fail to ask the existential question about whether some AI systems should exist at all. To avoid the mistakes of the past, lawmakers must make the hard calls. And AI half measures will certainly not be enough.
Recommended Citation
Woodrow Hartzog, Neil Richards, Ryan Durrie & Jordan Francis,
Against AI Half Measures
,
77
Florida Law Review
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/4139
Comments
Florida Law Review forthcoming 2026