Generative AI Policy Must Be Precise, Careful, and Practical

FIRST SEEN 2026-07-29 · VERSION 20260729_rev01 · COMPARED WITH 20240227_rev01

Full text changes — 20240227_rev01 to 20260729_rev01

COLOUR MARKS THE SEVERITY OF A FLAGGED CLAUSE · + AND − MARK ADDED AND REMOVED

1	1	Anxiety about generative AI is growing almost as fast as the use of the technology itself, fueled by dramatic rhetoric from prominent figures in tech, entertainment, and national security. _Something_, they suggest, must be done to stave off any number of [catastrophes](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1183684732/ai-generated-text-is-hard-to-spot-it-could-play-a-big-role-in-the-2024-campaign), from the [death of the artist](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists) to the birth [of new robot overlords](https://medium.com/our-new-robot-overlords/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-robot-overlords-9349eeef2a3f).
2	2
3		Given the [often hyperbolic tone](https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/30/ai-extiction-risk-statement/), it might be tempting (and correct) to dismiss much of this as the [usual moral panic new technologies provoke](https://xkcd.com/1227/), or self-interested hype. But there are legitimate concerns that may require some rules of the road. But policymakers should answer some important questions before crafting or passing on those rules. As always, the devil is in the details, and EFF is here to help you sort through them to identify solid strategies and potential collateral damage.
	3	Given the [often hyperbolic tone](https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/30/ai-extiction-risk-statement/), it might be tempting (and correct) to dismiss much of this as the [usual moral panic new technologies provoke](https://xkcd.com/1227/), or self-interested hype. In fact, there are legitimate concerns that may require some rules of the road. But policymakers should answer some important questions before crafting or passing on those rules. As always, the devil is in the details, and EFF is here to help you sort through them to identify solid strategies and potential collateral damage.
4	4
5	5	First, policymakers should be asking [whether the new legislation is both necessary](https://www.information-age.com/elizabeth-renieris-our-robot-overlords-arent-quite-here-just-yet-123504209/) and properly focused. Generative AI is a category of general-purpose tools with many valuable uses. For every image that displaces a potential low-dollar commission for a working artist, there are countless more that don't displace anyone's living-images created by people expressing themselves or adding art to projects that would simply not have been illustrated. Remember: the major impact of automated translation technology wasn't displacing translators-it was the creation of free and simple ways to read tweets and webpages in other languages when a person would otherwise not know what was being said.
6	6
7	7	Sometimes we don't need a new law- we just need to do a better job with the ones we already have
8	8
9	9	But a lot of the rhetoric we are hearing ignores those benefits and focuses solely on potentially harmful uses, as if the tool itself were the problem (rather than how people use it). The ironic result: a missed opportunity to pass and enforce laws that can actually address those harms.
10	10
11	11	For example, if policymakers are worried about privacy violations stemming from the collection and use of images and personal information in generative AI, a focus on the use rather than the tool could lead to a _broader_ law: real and comprehensive privacy legislation that covers _all_ corporate surveillance and data use. Ideally, that law would both limit the privacy harms of AI (generative and other forms) and be flexible enough to stay abreast of new technological developments.
12	12
13		But sometimes we don't need a new law- we just need to do a better job with the ones we already have. If lawmakers are worried about misinformation, for example, they might start by reviewing (and, where necessary, strengthening) resources for enforcement of existing laws on fraud and defamation. It helps that courts have spent decades assessing those legal protections and balancing them against countervailing interests (such as free expression); it makes little sense to relitigate those issues for a specific technology. And where existing regulations are truly ineffective in other contexts, proponents must explain why they will be more effective against misuses of generative AI.
	13	But sometimes we don't need a new law- we just need to do a better job with the ones we already have. If lawmakers are worried about misinformation, for example, they might start by reviewing (and, where necessary, strengthening) resources for enforcement of existing laws on fraud and defamation. It helps that courts have spent decades assessing those legal protections and balancing them against countervailing interests (such as free expression); it makes little sense to re-litigate those issues for a specific technology. And where existing regulations are truly ineffective in other contexts, proponents must explain why they will be more effective against misuses of generative AI.
14	14
15	15	Second, are the harms the proposal is supposed to alleviate documented or still speculative? For example, for years lawmakers (and others) have raised alarms about the mental health effects of social media use. But [there's little research](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/upshot/social-media-teen-mental-health.html) to prove it, which makes it difficult to tailor a regulatory response. In other areas, such as the encryption debate, we've seen how law enforcement's hypothetical or unproven concerns, [raised under the flag of "online safety,](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/uk-online-safety-bill-must-not-violate-our-rights-free-speech-and-private)" are used to justify undermining essential protections for online expression and privacy. To create evidence-based laws, policymakers must review the research, talk to experts and civil society ([not just CEOs](https://fortune.com/2023/06/28/openai-chatgpt-sued-private-data/)), and watch out for [AI snake oil](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/talks/MIT-STS-AI-snakeoil.pdf) or [magical](https://www.theverge.com/features/23764584/ai-artificial-intelligence-data-notation-labor-scale-surge-remotasks-openai-chatbots) thinking.
16	16
17	17	We should not let hyperbole and headlines about the future of generative AI distract us from addressing the damage being done today
18	18
19	19	Third and relatedly, to what extent does a new proposal embrace speculative harms at the expense of addressing [practical and well-documented existing harms](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02094-7)? Thoughtful researchers and civil society groups have been [sounding the alarm](https://medium.com/women-in-ai-ethics/the-ai-ethics-revolution-a-timeline-276593eef416) for over a decade about the risks of predictive policing, government use of facial recognition systems, and biased decision-making in housing, hiring, and government benefits. We should not let hyperbole and headlines about the future of generative AI distract us from addressing the damage being done today. There is much that can and should be done to ensure transparency, empower communities to reject or select technologies, engage in impact assessment, and create accountability and remedies for those already suffering from those harms. People serious about ensuring that generative AI serves humanity already have a full agenda that shouldn't be swept aside because of rich-guy hype.