i genuinely cannot tell if your question is a conversation starter regarding the government's role in fostering things that aren't economically rational in a commercial sense in their early development but have potentially substantial positive externalities...or if you are just using this as a springboard to bitch about regulation.
as someone who is currently dealing with city bureaucracy just to i can finish some god damned fucking landscaping adjustments to my property, you are catching me in a particular anti-regulatory mood but if you are implying that letting the marketplace dictate the direction of major areas of critical society infrastructure without regulatory guardrails, you're acting like an insane person that just waves their hands when trains carrying toxic chemicals completely destroy entire towns in ohio or chemical plants in east houston explode or fedex and swa planes nearly collide on the runway at austin bergstrom because you didn't get directly affected.
if you are asking more of the former, like most everything in life, it is a balance. is it possible to overreach, of course. if there are governmental mechanisms of exclusion from certain private parties pursuing a potentially disruptive technology are weaponized because of economic rent seeking behavior from established market participants (or others for whatever motivation) leveraging its power through the political process, that is super bad. but that doesn't mean that some upstart group of folks that are willing to deploy some experimental shit that is potentially dangerous to unsuspecting members of society (driving on i-35 next to a dipshit unwittingly beta testing his tesla's autopilot bullshit in traffic) should be able to operate with impunity or else that is also super bad.