As artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies rapidly reshape our world, legal scholars and policymakers face new challenges in regulating their impact. Daniel Crane, the Richard W. Pogue professor of law at the University of Michigan and a member of the Mackinac Center’s Board of Scholars, explores these issues on The Overton Window podcast.

Crane, who recently published a paper in the New York University Law Review, examines how AI, quantum computing, and nanotechnology will redefine economic structures and civil society. He advocates for embracing innovation while ensuring that regulation remains limited, strategic, and adaptive to the evolving technological landscape.

“The technological revolution that we’re going through is not just about AI,” Crane says. He mentions synthetic biology, robotics, nanotechnology, and energy expansion among advancements contributing to the coming wave of technological revolution. According to Crane, these advancements are poised to “reshape our economy and maybe, at their limit, reshape what it means to be human.”

One of the most striking aspects of artificial intelligence is its ability to analyze human behavior and preferences in ways never before possible. Crane points to a case study in which Disney leveraged artificial intelligence to study audience reactions in a 400-seat test theater, using neural networks to detect emotional responses such as smiles and frowns. This technology allowed the company to predict audience preferences with great accuracy — an insight that central planners and traditional market analysts could never achieve.

Historically, antitrust policies have focused on preventing monopolistic practices such as predatory pricing or exclusionary tactics. But in a world where AI-driven firms are capable of predicting and even shaping consumer demand, the regulatory framework must adapt. “The extent that we need to control these productive systems going forward, the whole apparatus needs to change,” Crane says. Specifically, regulators must shift their focus from penalizing anti-competitive behavior to scrutinizing the objective functions that AI systems are programmed to pursue.

Crane warns that multinational tech companies, supercharged by artificial intelligence, will continue to grow in scale, potentially surpassing nation-states in economic power. While antitrust law can attempt to slow this process, he believes such expansion is inevitable. Rather than banning AI-driven decision-making, policymakers should focus on maintaining transparency in how these systems operate.

“Regulation is not stopping the companies from using these technologies but asking them to be accountable for what the objective function is,” Crane explains. If artificial intelligence becomes more intelligent than human regulators, he argues, society must develop democratically accountable AI tools to oversee these systems.

Despite the concerns surrounding AI’s influence, Crane does not advocate halting technological progress. “I don’t think this is something that we need to stop as opposed to try to understand, anticipate and stay on top of it as it evolves,” he says. Instead, he calls for smarter, more targeted regulation that aligns with democratic values and human welfare.

Crane urges citizens to remain engaged in the debate over AI’s future. “Those are the kinds of things I think people should be alert to — understanding the potential abuses of the coming wave technology, understanding the hopes and the ways these things could be good, and then particularly thinking about how we are going to regulate them in a smart way.” For Crane, the goal is to ensure that technological advancements continue to promote individual liberty, economic opportunity, and the diffusion of power.

Crane’s notes that embracing innovation does not mean abandoning oversight. Instead, society must craft policies that harness AI’s benefits while mitigating its risks — requiring that the technological revolution remains aligned with democratic values and human well-being.

Listen to the full conversation on The Overton Window Podcast.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.