This is John Batchel, a conversation with colleague Kevin Fraser of the University of Texas Law School

fellow there looking at AI and how it is being regarded by legislatures, by individuals, by corporations, by the future.

AI now faces a regulatory gamut in Europe and in America. The concern here is that there'll be

50 different states looking to AI for income, for taxes. And the way to do that is to regulate

and fine. The way to do that is to restrict use until you pay for it. Regulation for AI, 50 states plus the United States, plus whatever else

comes down from the various agencies and associations that are created in Washington.

All of this to get a hold of the AI and restrict it in some fashion to make it pay. Here's Kevin worrying about the future at

AI. More of this tonight. Well, it's very much my hope that Congress will step in and provide a national

framework for AI regulation as called for by President Trump in his recent

AI executive order, and as acknowledged as a necessary step by many of the state legislators

who are rushing ahead with state AI regulations.

John, you really made a great point when you stress that there's a inclination among us to expect that the law and more law is the right answer to developing and adopting new technologies like AI.

But we've seen over time that a far more reliable strategy is in fact trial and error.

Allowing for technology to diffuse and to be used in novel contexts is often the best way we find out

what are the pros, what are the cons before we come in with heavy-handed laws that oftentimes

never get removed off the books.

And so I am fearful that states are rushing ahead with regulation rather than studying AI.

And that's a far more difficult task that requires more intellectual humility and more

institutional capacity.