I'm all for improving the processes themselves, and increasing the speed at which everything is handled. But the solution to this issue isn't to do away with the regulations and cautious approach completely, it's to focus on the implementation.
As a society, it's insane to let companies market tools in e.g. the educational space that are based on a technology that's still making things up to a considerable degree, without asking them to identify 1) who issues could affect, 2) what issues could affect them, 3) what they are doing to mitigate those issues, and 4) what they'll do if issues to occur. But that's part of this regulation, and this article (and a large part of the opposition) keeps asking for the regulation itself to be repealed.
Why not focus on improving the implementation? You'll find many proponents that would agree with you, and we're not potentially exposing children to bad education, medical patients to bad medical advice, and so on. Arguing against the regulation itself makes your voice far less effective.
This is more of a vent, but I can't focus on the implementation because it has never improved in my lifetime, so I'd rather the government get out of my way.
As a society, it's insane to let companies market tools in e.g. the educational space that are based on a technology that's still making things up to a considerable degree, without asking them to identify 1) who issues could affect, 2) what issues could affect them, 3) what they are doing to mitigate those issues, and 4) what they'll do if issues to occur. But that's part of this regulation, and this article (and a large part of the opposition) keeps asking for the regulation itself to be repealed.
Why not focus on improving the implementation? You'll find many proponents that would agree with you, and we're not potentially exposing children to bad education, medical patients to bad medical advice, and so on. Arguing against the regulation itself makes your voice far less effective.