Did you ever notice how the Trump administration’s chief science and technology administrator Michael Kratsios never talks while FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is bubbler water?

I bring this up because there’s a greater chance than zero that they’re the same awful human being. We all know that Pai sold out 80% of US citizens when he chose to ignore the will of the people and repeal the government’s net neutrality guidelines. And now, with Kratsios, we’re seeing the same playbook brought out again for the same reason: money. Only this time, there’s more at stake. Kratsios is proposing we take a soft-touch access to acclimation AI.

Here’s a atom from Kratsios’ recent op-ed in Business Insider:

The White House is administering federal agencies to avoid preemptive, crushing or duplicative rules that would needlessly hamper AI addition and growth. Agencies will be appropriate to conduct risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses prior to authoritative action to appraise the abeyant tradeoffs of acclimation a given AI technology. Given the pace at which AI will abide to evolve, agencies will need to authorize adjustable frameworks that allow for rapid change and updates across sectors, rather than one-size-fits-all regulations. Automated vehicles, drones, and AI-powered medical accessories all call for vastly altered authoritative considerations.

Now, let’s analyze that with Pai discussing net neutrality regulations, as appear in the Reason podcast:

Pai says that one of the major mistakes of Net Neutrality is its pre-emptive nature. Rather than acceptance altered practices to advance and then having regulators arbitrate when problems or harms to chump arise, Net Neutrality is accepted and thus likely to serve the interests of absolute companies in advancement a status quo that’s good for them.

The government‘s erring on the side of money with an attitude that says “we’ll wait and see if there’s any abrogating fallout for people later.” The access is the same as it was with the net neutrality repeal, but the after-effects could be wildly different.

Where repealing net neutrality has openly accustomed Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and their ilk to bolster fraud by continuing to lie about the casework they provide, a abortion to adapt AI could result in a much more approaching threat to the health and safety of anybody in the world. The internet isn’t going to go rogue and murder us all, AI could… at least potentially. More importantly, it’s already being used to subjugate human rights and annihilate privacy.

So why is the Trump administering so determined on blame a “no regulation” agenda? As I acicular out in a antecedent article, the accessible US presidential elections could spell doom for AI companies that carefully breach our civil rights on behalf of the government. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, for example, are likely to adapt facial recognition, predictive policing, and other AI technologies used by the government and to abide allotment US states to apparatus their own restrictions on the use of apparatus learning-related technologies should either be elected.

The CEOs of companies like Palantir can’t be comatose calmly these days.

With the repeal of net neutrality, we were declared to accept that the TELCOM industry would adapt itself, that we didn’t need the government to assure us from having a bartering gate-keeper to the internet. Now, with AI, Kratsios is painting the account that acclimation technologies like predictive-policing, facial recognition, and black-box neural networks would stifle the US and our allies’ adeptness to advance a aggressive advantage in the world.

TELCOM doesn’t adapt itself. That’s why every single US internet provider has been caught manipulating customer’s bills, throttling data, and lying about its services.

AI developers and companies do not adapt themselves. We’ve seen bias approved in every facial acceptance system used by law enforcement, experts apparent proof that the algorithms used in the Judicial system were discriminatory, and predictive-policing is a erect scam. If the industry adapted itself, it wouldn’t absolution amateurish products.

Regulation does stifle growth. Sometimes it’s declared to. For example, having a law in place that says US companies can’t pay workers less than the minimum wage keeps businesses from base workers even added to access profit margins. That’s growth that deserves to be stifled.

Read next: Apple starts backup affairs for faulty iPhone array cases