The breakneck pace of artificial intelligence (AI) development stands in contrast to the sluggish process of protecting public interests affected by the technology. Private and government surveillance systems developed to deal with the industrial revolution are no match for the AI revolution.
AI monitoring requires a methodology that is as innovative as the technology itself.
When faced with industrial technology challenges, Americans responded with new concepts such as antitrust enforcement and regulatory oversight. So far, policymakers have failed to cope with the new realities of the digital revolution. These realities will only become more difficult with AI. Addressing intelligent technology cannot repeat the regulatory cruise control experience we’ve had with digital platforms. Consumer-facing digital services, whether platforms such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, or AI services (led by many of the same companies) are staffed with appropriately compensated professionals requires a dedicated, focused federal agency.
What worked before is not enough
When it comes to the new challenges of the AI age, it’s not enough to brush aside what previously worked to protect consumers, competition, and national security in the industrial age. It takes specialized expertise to understand not only how AI technology works, but also the resulting social, economic, and security implications. Determining accountability for these impacts while encouraging continued development is a tightrope walk between innovation and responsibility. Relying on old laws and regulatory structures to keep up with the speed and scalability of AI is anticipating the impossible, where old systems can’t keep pace and private gains are allowed. If we are allowed to determine our actions, we incur the inevitable harm of the public interest.
Similarly, stopping or slowing AI development is as futile as stopping the sun from rising. In the first information revolution following Gutenberg’s printing press, the Catholic Church tried unsuccessfully to slow the new technology down. If the threat of eternal doom was not enough then to stop the inertia of new ideas and economic opportunities, why do you think we can stop the AI revolution now?
The reaction of policy leaders around the world to AI has been bipartisan. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for guidelines on pre-release review and testing of AI technology. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s office points to how he brought a group of lawmakers to his MIT to learn about AI. A report from the Presidential Advisory Committee concluded that “direct and deliberate action is needed to realize the benefits of AI and ensure its equitable distribution across society.” increase. His AI rights bill in the Biden administration was the starting point, but rights come with obligations, and he needs to establish responsibilities for AI providers to protect those rights.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Rina Khan has said that while she has exercised her agency’s powers appropriately, “there is no AI exemption to the law on the books.” Of course she is right. But book law was written to address the problems created by the industrial economy. The main statute of Chairman Khan’s own agency was drafted by her in 1914.
Beyond obvious statutory limits, relying on existing regulators such as the FTC, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) to address AI issues Sectoral regulation. A piecemeal sectoral basis should not be confused with the establishment of national policy. Yes, these agencies are responsible for specific impacts in specific sectors, but sector mandates determined by the actions of independent agencies do not represent the establishment of a coherent overall AI policy. is not.
The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is running a process to solicit ideas for AI surveillance. This is an important step forward. But the answer lies before us. What is needed is a specialized agency to identify and implement the broader public interest obligations of AI companies.
New regulatory model
The headlines are new institutions, but the real regulatory revolution must lie in the way they operate. The goals of AI surveillance should be two-fold: protecting the public interest and promoting AI innovation. The old top-down micromanagement that characterized industry regulation slows the benefits of AI innovation. Instead of old utility-style micro-management, AI monitoring requires agile risk management.
Such a new regulatory paradigm works in three parts:
- Identifying and quantifying risks: The effectiveness of AI technology is uneven. AI that aids search choices and online games will have a very different impact than AI affecting personal and national security. Monitoring should be tailored to your needs rather than one size fits all.
- Code of Conduct: Instead of strict utility-style regulation, AI surveillance must be agile and innovative. Once a risk is identified, there should be a behavioral obligation designed to mitigate that risk. Achieving such a code of conduct will require a new level of government and industry cooperation. In this collaboration, the new agency will identify issues, convene industry experts to work with agency experts to develop a code of conduct, and determine if the results are appropriate. Accepted answer.
- Enforcement: The new agency should have the power to determine whether the new code is being followed and to impose penalties for non-compliance.
known unknown
The future impact of AI is unknown. What is known is what we have learned so far in the digital age about how failing to protect the public interest in rapidly changing technology can have detrimental consequences.
Again, we see new technologies being developed and deployed with little regard for the consequences. Now is the time to establish a public good standard for this powerful new technology. Without a greater force than the commercial incentives of those willing to apply the technology, the history of the early digital age of innovators making the rules and society bearing the consequences would repeat itself.
