AI Regulation — Laws on Artificial Intelligence

Why the state needs to regulate AI

It's obvious that the state will want to regulate the use of neural networks. They have a systemic influence on everything. But the motivation is not "protecting citizens." The motivation is to gain profit from regulation.

The classic cycle of any technology: first there is no regulation — it's not needed at the start. Then regulation appears where disproportionate losses from use arise. The state comes not to ban — but to control.

States that have databases on their residents will want to apply all the opportunities that AI gives to businesses. Not to ban — but to implement. Under their own control.

Government AI Models

Every country will want its own model. Everyone will want to plant a flag in AI. And not just one. Government models for the state apparatus will appear — trained on internal data, controlled by the state, certified for officials.

A city mayor would like to have an AI agent. To ask: "Why the hell haven't the sidewalks been cleared?" — and the agent, like a proper deputy, goes and sorts it out. The mayor would like to set tasks to the neural network by voice — and get results.

What this means for business

Three scenarios:

• Bans. Somewhere AI will be banned. But most likely — only in sensitive areas (military, elections, courts).
• Licensing. To use AI in government contracts — a certified model is needed. A market of their own for their own.
• GovAI as a service. The state provides AI infrastructure to businesses. Like Government Services but for neural networks.

I develop AI agents for government structures and deputies. Mayor → voice → agent → solution. Deputy → request → agent → analytics. The state doesn't need bans — the state needs tools.