Regulators worldwide are rushing to pass AI laws and frameworks, but face a critical gap: no agreed definition of what "adequate" regulation actually looks like. According to a LessWrong analysis, most governance indices measure only regulatory quantity—laws passed, policies adopted—without assessing effectiveness. They count inputs but not outcomes: whether rules actually improve safety, reduce harm, or build public trust. The author argues the field must shift from counting laws to measuring real-world impact, similar to banking's capital adequacy standards.

Listen to this story

Hear this and more stories in a personalized audio briefing.

Open The Chonkerton