In a global economy that advances according to Moore’s Law, there are hidden costs to technological gradualism. Often, it is only in hindsight that these costs become obvious. For example, in Europe, Mario Draghi’s exhortation that Europe must shed productivity- and job-destroying bureaucracy in favor of dynamic approaches to enabling growth underscores the challenges. In the US, meanwhile, a deep-seated technophobia, brought about at first to keep big tech and Silicon Valley at bay, has added an unnecessary drag on the economy.

Ending the era of technology gradualism does not have to give way to a nightmarish scenario of technology feudalism or, worse yet, yawning income and opportunity inequality in which all the value goes to single postal codes. Unlocking technology competitiveness is essential in a global economy where so many sectors and systems have reached points of diminishing returns.  

Instead, a clear case can be made for both leadership and optimism that marshals a whole-of-economy approach to winning the exponential technology space race. In this domain, it is sobering to think of DeepSeek’s impact on US tech titans, for what appears to be an AI breakthrough made by MacGyver, versus the massive spending war that is looming for AI dominance. The renowned investor Marc Andreessen likened this to AI’s Sputnik moment. Competition and effective economic challenges are good, provided, of course, there are clear societal, economic, and policy destinations in mind.

The grinding costs of policy paralysis has dealt a blow to broad-based US technology competitiveness.

For far too long, the grinding costs of policy paralysis in Washington have dealt a blow to broad-based US technology competitiveness and, therefore, have blunted national security. It is time our political leaders give us a destination rivaling President Kennedy’s challenge to reach the moon.

Nowhere is the hidden cost of technological gradualism more obvious than in the void of US rules of the road for the always-on digital asset market. Like all novel sectors, especially those involving innovations in money and finance, there has been a checkered scorecard with the emergence of crypto. But barring the development of an internet of value because of fear of risks, which can be contained, is tantamount to slowing down the early internet because of the unsavory experiences of the dark web. Early flight was both perilous and terrifying, just as any industrial and economic transition must travel through a creative destructive cycle. Excessively protectionist policies have not only paused much of the development of these novel markets in the US, but they have also created a market environment that favors near-shore or offshore players, many of whom have created no jobs in the US and often come with clear, adverse impacts on the broader economy. 

No responsible actor in emerging technology wants to live or operate in a lawless, Malthusian state of technology chaos or naiveté. Instead, most actors, developments, entrepreneurs, and investors want market certainty. Herein lies the conundrum of policy and regulatory gradualism. By the time policymakers establish their version of the rules of the road for exponential technology, it is often too late, given the speed with which markets, competition, and technology itself evolve. Thus, rather than laying down excessively prescriptive rules, which is Draghi’s indictment of the state of innovation in Europe, it is much more future-proof to promote principled approaches to technology-powered free-market innovation.

As a policymaker, if you are going to do nothing, at least do not harm. The same principle should hold true for technologists, business leaders, and the new masters of the universe. But to do nothing and propose that innovation stops until guardrails can be put in place is not only naive, it also ignores the global economic stakes of losing so much technology dominance. The world depends on digital commons, as much as the modern economy’s inexorable march forward requires reaching everyone, everywhere with the basic prospects of economic security, connectivity, opportunity, and, eventually, paths to prosperity.

Re-envisioning technology as a part of the solution, as opposed to a part of the problem, can help us unlock truly profound and potentially permanent breakthroughs. In the desire to protect people from technology harms, we must take care not to inadvertently protect our economy from growth and the business models of the future.