President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at limiting states' ability to regulate AI independent of the federal government may seem like a pro-business move, but it could have a negative impact on the development of responsible technology regulation locally, a Northeastern AI expert says.
“At the end of the day, I don't think the state will hurt businesses,” said Osama Fayyad, senior vice president for AI and data strategy at Northeastern University. “When states make regulations, there's usually a good reason behind it. People in the federal government don't know everything or know much about it.”
The executive order, which will likely be challenged in court, would create a new AI Litigation Task Force to be led by the attorney general. The task force's primary responsibility will be to challenge state AI laws deemed inconsistent with the government's new Minimized Burden National Policy Framework for AI.
In an executive order released this week, the Trump administration argued that state regulations have created a “patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes,” making compliance particularly difficult and difficult for startups.
“For U.S. AI companies to win, they must be free to innovate without burdensome regulations. [sic] “Regulations preclude this obligation,” the executive order reads in part.
The order also requires government agencies, including the Department of Commerce, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission, to work with the administration's special adviser on AI and virtual currencies to evaluate current state laws regulating AI and their consistency with the policies outlined in the executive order.
The order is seen as a victory for the technology industry, especially AI companies like OpenAI, which have long campaigned for a national regulatory framework to replace state AI laws.
Northeastern Global News spoke with Fayyad about the new executive order.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
As an AI expert, could you talk about the rationale behind establishing a national framework for AI development?
The rationale is simple. It's about making life easier and simpler for businesses, researchers, and consumers. You're avoiding a world where what you can do in one state is no longer possible in another state once you cross the border. That's the spirit. I'm not agreeing with or defending it. I'm just saying that's the idea.
The order has sections that provide carve-outs for AI laws regarding child safety, computing and data infrastructure, state government procurement, and several other areas. With that in mind, how do you think this executive order could impact the future development of safe and responsible AI technology?
This is difficult to predict. Because one argument might say, “This might stimulate further efforts to define a unified framework for what responsible AI is.'' What is ethical? What is not? But history suggests the opposite.
History shows us that we learn a lot from different states coming up with different rules. I always like the example of California's emissions standards and specific requirements for vehicles. They were hated by the auto industry. They created a more complex environment. Selling a car in California requires different standards.
But what happened was that California was such a big part of the economy that the federal government and other states stopped and said, “Wait a minute, this makes sense. Let's actually increase the burden of requirements and standards.”
Congress has attempted to pass similar legislation in the past, but it has not passed. Although executive orders are signed by the president, they do not carry the same weight as laws passed by Congress. How much legal force does this order actually have?
It is not a law and will be challenged. A court could rule that this is unconstitutional and that the president does not have the authority to do so as an executive order. …This is one of the beauties of checks and balances in our system of governance. people can ask questions. People can resist or overturn these executive orders.
Executive orders generally seek to take advantage of a lack of clarity on a particular topic, and they can sometimes be helpful in that sense. But it is not clear whether there will be an absence here.
