18-07-2025
5 questions for Ryan Calo
Ryan Calo, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law and co-founder of its Tech Policy Lab, is widely regarded as an expert in artificial intelligence, drones and privacy. He's testified three times before the Senate, including on the security implications of big data solutions to the Covid-19 pandemic, and serves as a privacy judge for the World Bank. Calo's new book, 'Law and Technology: A Methodical Approach,' examines how society can handle challenging new technologies. He talks to us about why we don't have to passively adopt all innovations, and how we can rethink our interactions with technology.
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
What's one big, underrated idea?
The Amish have a great idea about technology. We do not have to accept technological advancement that does not comport with our values. In the United States, we've understood our job is simply to adapt to the new technology: What needs to change in the law to adapt to people summoning a car with an app? Surgeries are being done by robots, how do we make sure they pass their boards?
Like the Amish, we should only accept technology that comports with human values, that promotes human flourishing. We should only accept the version of technology that does that, should we decide to accept it.
What technology right now do you think is overhyped?
Cryptocurrency is dramatically overhyped. I don't think it can do anything like what its proponents hope.
There's a tension inherent in cryptocurrency — call it a crypto catch-22. It serves as a viable alternative to standard state-backed currency, while at the same time obscuring transactions that may involve crime, violence, theft or fraud. The state needs to have a role, in which case we do not get the benefit of a trusted, privatized, third-party system. I don't see a way out of that box.
What do you think the government could be doing now about tech that it isn't?
It needs to refund the Office of Technology Assessment. Between the '70s until the Gingrich revolution in the '90s, every time a new technology was on the horizon, you had a group of bipartisan, interdisciplinary researchers who would talk about ways to maximize its potential for human flourishing while minimizing its harm.
That Gingrich Congress, the reason they ended the OTA was because they could see it led to more robust regulation of industry. [Ending the OTA] was such a shame because that's exactly when the commercial internet was developing. Who knows what the world would look like if we had had an OTA during those 20 subsequent years? What would AI governance look like if we had an OTA?
What has surprised you most this year?
That the set of people I associate with the saying 'don't tread on me' aren't objecting to this enormous buildup in the capacity of the government to surveil and mete out violence on its own citizens. We're sleepwalking into techno-fascism, and the people helping to shepherd it in are the very same people who were supposed to be suspicious of the government.
You are comfortable with all this privatization in the military with Palantir, with Musk getting access to citizen data? I just find that to be so shocking.
What book most shaped your conception of the future?
Neil Stepheon's 'The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer' shaped me enormously as a person. It's a book about whether you could create some kind of game-changing platform that helps develop people. What happens in the book is that these tablets get distributed to all these young women all over the world, who are being taught skills and critical thinking, but who are also being nudged toward a revolutionary mindset.
It used to make sense that we would say that we were doing things with technology: 'I'm driving in my car, I'm hammering the nail with the hammer.' But increasingly we do everything through technology and that mediation of our experience means a lot of things. Someone else's worldview and choices are present when they don't always feel like they are.
Judge unwinds a Trump firing
President Donald Trump illegally removed a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
Trump fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Biden appointee, in March, but Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia ruled that was 'blatantly unlawful.' AliKhan cited the FTC Act and Supreme Court precedent in ruling that a president can only remove independent agency officials like Slaughter for egregious malfeasance or underperformance.
'Because those protections remain constitutional, as they have for almost a century, Ms. Slaughter's purported removal was unlawful and without legal effect,' AliKhan wrote. At the same time, she dismissed a similar challenge from Biden-appointed commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, ruling that his claims were moot as he'd formally resigned in June.
The White House has vowed to appeal the case, saying in a statement, 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the President's constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers who exercise his authority.'
This decision, which gives the GOP a 3-1 advantage on the commission, comes as FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has tried to steer the agency in accordance with the GOP's priorities, zeroing in on the content moderation practices of online platforms.
Critics, though, fear that allowing the president to remove independent agency appointees for political reasons paves the way for Trump to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, which would roil the financial markets. The justices have hinted they might not uphold an attempt to fire Powell, even as they uphold his ability to remove some other appointees.
Advisers work to uphold OpenAI's nonprofit roots
OpenAI's independent panel of philanthropic advisers are urging the company to ensure that its industry-leading technology benefits the public at large.
In an independent report that POLITICO's Chase DiFeliciantonio and Christine Mui obtained before its Thursday release, the panel underscored OpenAI's mission of 'ensuring that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.' After speaking with hundreds of people in fields like labor and civil rights, the panel wrote in the preamble, 'there are understandable questions about how that mission can be put into practice in a world where 'all' too often ends up meaning 'some.''
The report encouraged OpenAI to embrace public accountability, and includes a number of suggestions to achieve that, like building partnerships with local civic groups, basing staff in rural communities and implementing a public dashboard to track its investments and grants.
In a statement on the report, OpenAI's board of directors wrote that it was committed to a 'nonprofit that is well-resourced, mission-led, and responsive to the needs of the communities it aims to serve.'
OpenAI organized the panel in April, which includes famed labor activist Dolores Huerta and Daniel Zingale, who has advised California Govs. Gavin Newsom and Arnold Schwarzenegger. This came as OpenAI was engaging in a turbulent restructuring process, which resulted in its nonprofit overseeing its for-profit public benefit corporation. OpenAI had previously planned to have the nonprofit be a shareholder in the for-profit enterprise, though that led to a lawsuit from co-founder Elon Musk, who left to start xAI.
post of the day
THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS
Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
