No federal law in the United States specifically regulates AI. Not one. Meanwhile, Marquette Law's legal scholars have coined a precise term for what is happening instead: a regulatory tsunami — a metaphorical overproduction of regulation that, without a protective shield like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, gives regulators limitless options to dictate how generative AI functions. Section 230 is what allowed the Internet to bloom in the 1990s under light-handed oversight. Generative AI has no equivalent protection. That gap is not a technicality. It is the entire battlefield. Last lecture touched on Israel's cybersecurity sector, but now let's focus on how Israel's pragmatic regulatory strategies in AI differ from the US and EU, shaping where AI innovation can thrive. Here is the structural problem, Sergey. Without a federal AI framework in the US, states are filling the vacuum unilaterally. Illinois has already banned AI-powered therapy tools. That is not a fringe move — it is a preview of fifty divergent regulatory environments that every AI company operating in America must now navigate simultaneously. The EU moved differently. The EU AI Act, effective August 2024, categorizes AI by risk level — banning high-risk uses like manipulative applications and mass public surveillance outright, while requiring rigorous testing and registration for AI deployed in education, finance, law, and healthcare. The compliance architecture this creates is not neutral. Regulations consistently favor large incumbents over startups, because the cost of compliance scales with organizational complexity, not revenue. Regulators, Marquette's analysis notes bluntly, frequently lack computer science expertise — producing heavy-handed, blunt rules that misunderstand the technology they govern. Three specific regulatory failure modes are already documented. First, ignorant regulations built on moral panics rather than technical understanding. Second, censorial regulations that control AI outputs without triggering First Amendment protections — because no publisher-liability framework has been established for generative AI. Third, partisan regulations that favor certain narratives in AI outputs. Generative AI is also flooding courtrooms: users are filing AI-generated legal pleadings across multiple states simultaneously, a volume courts were never designed to absorb. And existing privacy law like HIPAA is actively impeding the data flows that healthcare AI requires to function. Here is the synthesis that matters for you, Sergey. The diverging regulatory paths of the US, EU, and Israel are not just a compliance headache — they are a structural filter on where AI innovation can actually survive. Israel's pragmatic regulatory approach, emphasizing innovation-friendly policies, positions it as a hub for AI development, contrasting with the more restrictive environments of the US and EU. For anyone tracking where the next IPO wave originates or where sovereign tech capital flows next, the regulatory map is now as important as the technology map. They are the same map.