\n
![](\"https:\/\/cdn.flipboard.com\/venturebeat.com\/b5644018ba667c561c070d8ade8743946d0529be\/original.jpg\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
On Sunday, the Financial Times published an op-ed penned by Sundar Pichai titled \u201cWhy Google thinks we need to regulate AI<\/a>.\u201d Whether he wrote it himself or merely<\/a> signed<\/a> off on it, Pichai clearly wants the world to know that as the CEO of Alphabet and Google<\/a>, he believes AI is too important not to be regulated. He has concerns about the potential negative consequences of AI, and like any technology, he believes there needs to be some ground rules.<\/p>\n I simply don\u2019t believe that\u2019s the full story.<\/p>\n \u201cCompanies such as ours cannot just build promising new technology and let market forces decide how it will be used,\u201d writes Pichai. \u201cIt is equally incumbent on us to make sure that technology is harnessed for good and available to everyone. Now there is no question in my mind that artificial intelligence needs to be regulated. It is too important not to. The only question is how to approach it.\u201d<\/p>\n On Monday, I still had not bought into the idea that Pichai believed \u201cartificial intelligence needs to be regulated.\u201d Surely if his team thought so, they could get more done by deploying the lobbyists?<\/p>\n Imagine if @sundarpichai<\/a> deployed Alphabet\/Google lobbyists for AI regulation rather than penning a feel-good op-ed https:\/\/t.co\/Z22DRhtqEL<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Emil Protalinski (@EPro) January 20, 2020<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n By Tuesday, I had concluded the two were not mutually exclusive. After all, it wouldn\u2019t be the first time a corporation made a selfless appeal in the press while making selfish moves with its pocketbook.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, The Washington Post published an overview<\/a> of the nearly half a billion dollars that tech companies spent on U.S. lobbying over the past decade. Guess which company led the way? Google, of course, spending roughly $150 million. In fact, the $150 million figure is likely conservative, since disclosed lobbying doesn\u2019t account for all the many ways tech giants buy influence<\/a>.<\/p>\n By Thursday, I had connected the dots. Yes, Google wants \u201cAI regulation.\u201d But it\u2019s not for the same reasons you or I might. Pichai\u2019s motivations are the same as any CEO of a large corporation: He simply wants what is best for his company. And AI regulation, which many see as inevitable anyway, is what\u2019s best for Googlebet<\/a>. Or at least, it certainly can be shaped to be.<\/p>\n It\u2019s telling that the only example Pichai offers in his op-ed is that Europe\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR<\/a>) \u201ccan serve as a strong foundation.\u201d Remember, while privacy advocates don\u2019t scoff at what GDPR has achieved, many also point out that it has been a boon for Google and Facebook<\/a>. In tech, rules and regulations can help market leaders. In AI, Google is undoubtedly<\/a> a<\/a> market<\/a> leader<\/a>.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t get me wrong. I absolutely do believe that we need ground rules for AI, some parts of it more urgently than for others. Everything from algorithm bias in financial loan agreements<\/a> to facial recognition<\/a> deserves a closer look.<\/p>\n But the definition of AI is so broad that a government will struggle to effectively regulate its various forms. Pichai knows that. Whether governments can pull it off<\/a> remains to be seen, but what they will almost certainly succeed at is creating barriers to entry for competition. Indeed, that\u2019s exactly where I suspect Google\u2019s lobbying dollars will go next \u2014 ensuring any upcoming \u201cAI regulation\u201d helps Google more than anything else.<\/p>\n What if Google spent its lobbying money educating the U.S. government about the pros and cons of AI instead? I doubt the Financial Times op-ed cost much, all things considered. But if Google did the work, it wouldn\u2019t need to try to convince the public with the power of the pen. Plus, journalists would spend their Fridays writing about Google\u2019s efforts to outline what \u201cAI regulation\u201d might look like rather than critiquing an op-ed.<\/p>\n\n