It is ironic that the US Government touts the benefits of AI for use by the Government, while setting an impossible standard (full explainability) for regulated institutions that seek to use AI.  

Chair Gensler divides AI risks into three types, and then says, never mind, the SEC is going to treat them all the same. It would have been helpful had he considered how the differences might manifest themselves in particular situations and how the SEC would view those differences.  

The irony is that the regulators tout the uses that they can make of AI, even though AI is not fully predictable. Yet, the regulators treat use of AI by firms as creating not merely strict…

That the CFTC permits trading on carbon credits notwithstanding the difficulty of policing fraud in the underlying market (see e.g. ), while attempting to prohibit trading on Congressional control contracts allegedly out of a fear of fraud, is illustrative of the extent to which regulatory decisions that are supposed to be made on the basis of terms set out in the relevant statutes are instead based on political considerations. (See also, .) In the case of the CFTC's refusing to…

As the District Court stated, its decision was not about whether election contracts should be permitted. Rather, its decision was about whether the CFTC had the legal authority under the CEA to prohibit the listing of such contracts. The District Court determined that, on a plain reading of the words of the CEA, the CFTC did not have such authority, and thus the District Court ruled against the CFTC.  

No doubt that the CFTC majority believes that it is inappropriate, as a public…