Millions of Americans are already benefiting from artificial intelligence in countless ways at work and at home. Unfortunately the public debate overwhelmingly focuses on the transformative technology’s costs. A new Goldwater Institute report seeks to restore balance and urges policymakers to not only recognize AI’s promise, but to take steps to harness its value while managing its costs responsibly.
In Harnessing the Value of AI at Home and in the Workplace, Arizona State University economist Domenico Ferraro, PhD, says that AI “represents a once-in-a-generation technological opportunity,” but its value is often difficult to quantify—AI’s benefits show up in the way people save time, learn new skills, and organize information. But many people see AI mainly as a threat to jobs, the electric grid, and the environment. Those concerns aren’t imaginary and shouldn’t be ignored, but AI’s many benefits are likely to outweigh its costs.
Policymakers must enable responsible AI deployment while helping workers and communities adapt to the changes it brings. That’s why the Goldwater Institute recognizes that data centers—the physical foundation of AI—are essential infrastructure for the digital future that shouldn’t be treated as burdens detached from their benefits.
Read more here.
It’s a bedrock legal principle: the government can’t discriminate against people based on their point of view. But that’s exactly what a Wyoming school district is doing when it censors public speakers critical of district employees. That’s why the Goldwater Institute is demanding the Sweetwater County School District #1 end its unconstitutional practice of viewpoint discrimination.
Last fall, district leaders amended their public comment policy to prohibit discussions of employee “performance or employment.” But enforcement has been one-sided—the district has focused its enforcement against parents critical of school employees, not against parents praising those employees. That is viewpoint discrimination, and it’s a violation of the First Amendment.
District leaders are also violating the Wyoming Public Records Act by refusing to provide Goldwater with unredacted written public comments—they wrongly claim that those records are confidential “personnel files.”
In letters to district leaders, the Goldwater Institute is demanding Sweetwater #1 leaders reverse course on their viewpoint discrimination practices and abide by the state’s public records law. Citizens of Wyoming have a right to speak freely without fear of government censorship, and Goldwater will always be there to defend them.
Read more here.
When a state passes a law, that law typically doesn’t apply beyond the state’s borders—and for good reason. State lawmakers may have a right to pass destructive laws, but they shouldn’t also have the right to inflict damage on other states. That’s why the Goldwater Institute filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals urging the judges not to apply California’s uniquely bad antitrust law to people who live elsewhere.
The case involves a class-action lawsuit targeting a vaping company accused of engaging in monopolistic practices. The company, Altria, stopped producing its own vaping products and instead purchased a competitor. The class of plaintiffs is trying to use California’s uniquely bad antitrust law to sue Altria, even though the people suing the company live in a bunch of states and many of them never even bought an Altria product in California.
The fact is, Altria had good reasons for its actions that have nothing to do with monopolies. And while the most important goal of federal antitrust law is to encourage competition, California’s law has a far different aim—protecting less competent and less diligent businesses against legitimate competition.
As Goldwater argues, California’s anti-trust legal theories aren’t just anomalous, they’re obsolete. And there’s simply no justification for the court to apply them to people who don’t even live in California.
Read more here.
