California’s laws could drive autonomous vehicle innovation to other states

At the christening of the new technology and research center at the University of California in January, Governor Gavin Newsom delivered quite typical rhetoric about California’s leading role in technology development: “California is the epicenter of global innovation – from the creation of the Internet to the dominance of artificial intelligence, the future of humanity will happen here first. “

However, for the so-called epicenter of innovation, our country certainly does not give innovators much scope to experiment with new ideas. California lawmakers and regulators are so intent on limiting and controlling any promising new investment that we have instead become the poster child for Ronald Reagan’s famous quote: “If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. And if the move is stopped, subsidize it.”

Newsom and the Democratic Legislature may not have noticed, but California is facing a tech exodus as many high-profile companies leave for states that give them more room to create the next wave of promising innovations. Given the state’s dependence on capital gains revenues, this is one reason we currently have a budget deficit of $45 billion or more.

As for the good news, Crunch Base reports that the San Francisco Bay Area may see a technological resurgence based on AI systems, with the region receiving “over 50 percent of all global funding for AI startups.” But will the state kill this boom before it grows? Based on the Legislature’s recent actions, the answer is “probably.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved Senate Bill 915, which would “prioritize local control when deciding whether to launch autonomous vehicle services.” In addition to obtaining multiple state permits, robo-taxi companies would also face exploding local regulations.

The legislation has been changed to apply to the 15 largest cities and prohibit local authorities from banning autonomous cars, but that doesn’t alleviate my concerns. This technology is mainly implemented in large cities anyway. It’s easy to kill technology without completely banning it, for example by forcing these companies to follow radically different traffic rules in every city they go to.

Like all cutting-edge innovations, autonomous cars are an ominous and dangerous phenomenon for many of us. However, most new cars are already equipped with various autonomous driving features (lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring). And computers are almost certainly better drivers than humans. Each year, nearly 43,000 Americans die in car crashes, almost all of them at the hands of human drivers. According to research by RAND, widespread use of AVs could save thousands of lives.

AVs offer great benefits to people with disabilities, the elderly, and others who cannot or do not want to drive. But federal, state and local officials worry about a few small and inevitable problems that have cropped up as the technology becomes more problematic – such as minor accidents and concerns about traffic violations (as if regular drivers don’t also sometimes break traffic laws road) ).

One supporter of SB 915 expressed concern about the potential for robotic taxis to get stuck on a tricky turn – as if that was a good excuse to add a pointless hodgepodge of local regulations to the mix. Ironically, AV development is an area where state regulators have taken a surprisingly restrained approach. In March, the California Public Utilities Commission granted Waymo, Alphabet’s self-driving car division, the ability to expand operations in the Bay Area and Los Angeles and even operate on highways at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour. But even if the state takes a reasonable approach, locals want to step in to fix the work.

SB 915 is not the only example of the California Legislature’s reflexive hostility to innovation. Many states are trying to regulate AI technology, but California’s Senate Bill 1047, which passed the Senate and heads to the Assembly, is certainly the most far-reaching example. The bill would create a new state regulatory department to regulate artificial intelligence. We all know how effectively state bureaucrats handle complex cases and the impact of pro-litigation laws.

Essentially, the measure forces AI developers to mitigate any possible harm from their technology by engaging in “speculative fiction about imagined dangers of machines running amok, computer models out of control, and other nightmare scenarios for which there is no basis.” in fact”. expressed his opinion on the letter of objection from the pro-technical Chamber of Progress. The group is rightly concerned that the measure undermines California’s leadership in the technology sector.

Last week, I wrote about lawmakers’ efforts to limit artificial intelligence technology in a simple, real-world application – self-checkout. Under the guise of helping stores combat retail theft, Senate Bill 1446 is a union concoction aimed at limiting the use of this technology to protect union jobs in the grocery industry.

So yes, California has been the epicenter of global innovation, but apparently it won’t stay that way for long. Hopefully Newsom will heed his own words and whip out his veto pen.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.