Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When Rules Can Be Code, They Should Be!

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

Opinion

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

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less