As established by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act, the powers of FSOC are largely unconstrained by legal standards. This allowed the FSOC to exercise power in an arbitrary and unfair manner. See, e.g., . The establishment by FSOC of legal standards applicable to itself is a substantial step in the right direction. While it would be even better for Congress to impose these limits on FSOC, as opposed to relying on FSOC to limit itself, this is still a good thing.

The new definition of "insider trading" contained in the House bill may have the effect of broadening the prohibition as applied to "computer data." Firms that use algorithmic models may scrape or otherwise obtain data from various third-party websites. The law is, in many instances, not clear as to whether access to, or the use of, such information is permissible. If the use of the data is impermissible, then does inclusion of the data in an algorithm make trades effected pursuant to the…

Arguments about whether firms "should" use AI are largely futile and irrelevant.* It's a bit like arguing over whether to use that four-wheel contraption, when a good horse will get you there in a few days. Likewise, demands that AI be a "resource" and not a "replacement" for humans are just words that sound caring, but that have no real substance.

AI will be used where it can do a better, faster, more efficient job than humans can do. Should U.S. legislators choose to create economic…

While the regulators are considering how the burdens imposed by Dodd-Frank can be modified, the House majority is considering how they should be increased.