It's Time for a "Truth in Technology Act"

Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore's law — computational power is doubling every six months

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which finally came into force in August 2024, is already lagging behind. It does not yet consider AI agents and is still grappling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.

As we delve more into robotics and the utilization of virtual reality devices, a "new paradigm of AI architectures" will emerge, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices capable of comprehending the world, in contrast to GenAI models. Perhaps we should be focusing on drafting a new article about GenAI.

Furthermore, technology regulations are currently arranged in a dichotomous manner. We have regulations for AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.

This dichotomy poses difficulties for users and businesses in keeping track of. Moreover, it does not align with the manner in which solutions and products are developed. Each solution integrates multiple technologies, while each technology component is subject to separate regulations.

It might be pertinent to reconsider our approach to regulating technology.

A Comprehensive Approach

Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing, and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies.

Everything is becoming digital, and each product combines several technologies. Consider the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They incorporate hardware, goggle technology, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets, and more, and soon they will be integrated with Web3 technology.

A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable in the following principal cases:

A Full-System Solution

Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure that the product/service is compliant? At what point does one rule start and the other end?

Recent: Animoca Brands Revenue Soars as AI Contributes to 12% Cost Reduction

Having separate guidelines would likely introduce more complexity, errors, and misinterpretations, which might ultimately result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, then the approach to regulating it should also be.

Different Technologies Support Each Other’s Weaknesses

All technologies have their strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can help to mitigate the shortcomings of another.

For instance, AI can be used to improve the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can be instrumental in realizing "responsible AI," as blockchain embodies the essence of what AI is not—transparency, traceability, trustworthiness, and resistance to tampering.

When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we are effectively deploying a collective solution that is both safe and secure and ensures trustworthiness. Would these solutions be deemed AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? In the case of this solution, it would be a time-consuming endeavor to segregate and categorize compliance. The solution itself should be compliant and adhere to all relevant guidelines/policies. Ideally, these guidelines/policies would comprehensively cover all technologies, including their integration.

A Proactive Approach

We require a more proactive stance on regulation. Many of the proposed regulation acts, across all regions, appear to be reactions to changes that are already known today and do not go far enough in devising frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line.

If, for example, we are already aware that a "new paradigm of AI architectures" will be emerging, probably within the next five years, then why are we not starting to think about how to regulate it now, rather than in five years? Or, better yet, we should be searching for a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.

Let's consider the concept of responsible innovation. In its simplest form, responsible innovation principles are designed to cut across all technologies. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders, and society, and it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.

Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation, but companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.

Truth in Technology Act

The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in