Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

When Rules Can Be Code, They Should Be!

Achieving safe, scalable efficiencies requires a new approach to rule making.

shallow focus photography of computer codes
Shahadat Rahman on Unsplash

Ninety years ago this month, the Federal Register Act was signed into law in a bid to shine a light on the rules driving President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—using the best tools of the time to make government more transparent and accountable. But what began as a bold step toward clarity has since collapsed under its own weight: over 100,000 pages, a million rules, and a public lost in a regulatory haystack. Today, the Trump administration’s sweeping push to cut red tape—including using AI to hunt obsolete rules—raises a deeper challenge: how do we prevent bureaucracy from rebuilding itself?

What’s needed is a new approach: rewriting the rule book itself as machine-executable code that can be analyzed, implemented, or streamlined at scale. Businesses could simply download and execute the latest regulations on their systems, with no need for costly legal analysis and compliance work. Individuals could use apps or online tools to quickly figure out how rules affect them.


These aren’t theoretical ideas. The first prominent work in this area was undertaken by Prof. Robert Kowalski at Imperial College London, who codified the British Nationality Act as a set of rules. Since then, AI researchers have explored—and, in many cases, solved—the numerous challenges associated with turning regulations into code. That includes identifying areas where human judgment remains central, ensuring that encoded regulations clearly indicate where discretion applies, flagging potential exceptions, and certifying that decisions are fully traceable.

In the European Union, the GovTech4All project is developing a “Personal Regulation Assistant,” powered by regulatory code, to assist citizens in identifying and accessing benefits, regardless of their level of digital literacy or policy knowledge. The project will serve as a model to replicate the rules-as-code approach across other areas of European regulations.

In the U.S., meanwhile, the approach has been championed by private-sector innovators. Intuit’s TurboTax is a leading example, showing how the tax code can be translated into a computational interface to help individuals. The Bay Area startup Symbium has encoded regulations to enable California homeowners to secure solar installation permits—a process that used to take weeks or months of paperwork, revisions, and waiting—in just seconds.

Such ventures show the power of using digital tools to streamline the implementation of regulations—but they require individual businesses to interpret and codify the rules in question. If the tax code, the building code, or other regulations were already available as machine-executable rules, this process would be orders of magnitude faster, could be scaled nationwide, and would deliver powerful efficiencies across the U.S. economy.

Swapping our existing mishmash of PDFs and static webpages for elegant, unified computer code would instantly unlock important new efficiencies—automatically flagging ambiguities, simplifying complex rules, and eliminating redundancies without losing substance. It would also enable powerful tools like compliance test suites and public-facing rule repositories, driving greater transparency, reducing red tape, and enhancing ease of use.

What would it take to “encode” any rule book, regardless of whether it is at the federal, state, or city government level? The first step is to identify and codify the regulations in most need of an overhaul. Obvious examples might include engineering or design standards, which are currently slow to adapt to technological changes, but which are also prescriptive and could easily be rewritten as code. The processes for permitting and environmental impact assessments—already recognized by the White House as a target for new efficiencies—would be another leading candidate.

We’ll also need to use new technologies to enable rules to be converted into code in reliable and scalable ways. Such efforts have been daunting until now because of the huge manual effort required to analyze and rewrite regulations. New AI tools, however, make it possible to both analyze vast amounts of text and to write and rigorously validate computer code, with almost superhuman speed and accuracy. With regulatory sprawl wiping 0.8 percentage points from America’s annual GDP growth, using AI to accelerate the process of turning federal rules into code would deliver clear ROI and powerful efficiencies across the federal government and beyond.

As things stand, America’s federal agencies still use a 19th-century rulemaking process—and as individuals and businesses, we’re all paying the price for that. President Trump is right to push for reductions in government red tape. But that effort should be paired with a concerted effort to bring federal regulations into the 21st century and develop a machine-readable rule book that’s ready for the challenges and opportunities of the AI era.


Vinay K. Chaudhri supports a National Science Foundation initiative on Knowledge Axiomatization. Previously, he led AI research at SRI International and taught knowledge graphs and logic programming at Stanford University.

Read More

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Microchip labeled "AI"
Preparing for an inevitable AI emergency
Eugene Mymrin/Getty Images

Nvidia and AMD’s China Chip Deal Sets Dangerous Precedent in U.S. Industrial Policy

This morning’s announcement that Nvidia and AMD will resume selling AI chips to China on the condition that they surrender 15% of their revenue from those sales to the U.S. government marks a jarring inflection point in American industrial policy.

This is not just a transaction workaround for a particular situation. This is a major philosophical government policy shift.

Keep ReadingShow less