And at the state level
In Wisconsin, the two bills enacted in 2023 are good laws, but in reality they are only concerns about AI. They simply apply the old law to new technologies.
The work of the Legislative Task Force was more important, but ultimately it failed to delve into the bureaucratic use of AI, but if such a survey was conducted, its members touched on the starting point.
Essentially, the subcommittee has made seven recommendations, but again, it's not verbatim.
beginningInstead of focusing on adjusting new technologies that are AI, Congress should focus on ensuring that data, the “material that powers AI,” is personal and protects consumers.
Second, Congress should learn from the experiences of other states and avoid potential overreach of comprehensive AI laws. Instead, we need to prioritize areas that are more likely to be affected by exploitation and abuse.
Third, Congress should ensure that existing laws apply to AI models in the same way that they apply to individuals, but should avoid creating duplicate laws. Unnecessarily a single AI.
Fourth, Congress should ensure that programs related to education and workforce development have a wide range of scope to include AI upskills, training and education, such as fast forwarding. Funding will be provided accordingly. Works to address access disparities between rural and urban communities.
Fifth, Congress should consider establishing a permanent research committee. A new Legislative Standing Committee or a new Legislative Committee to consider emerging technologies, including AI, and make legislative recommendations on the same.
Sixth, as AI technology advances, Congress will need to advance, research and invest in AI-powered technologies that support public safety. Gun detection software, etc.
Seventh, the Congress must instruct the administrative department to promulgate the administrative rules. Provides councils with oversight on procurement, development and AI use for the state.
Most of these now have performance. It's like the vague shell of empty scavengers vent when they don't have a clue, but want to be seen as actually doing something.
And then there's something really scary: Using AI to detect guns is a disaster recipe, not to mention a terrible violation of individual liberty. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out, software “rarely generates evidence of gun-related crimes,” and often refers to people who miss the weapons they are carrying, but then they don't carry them. Last year's New York City pilot program on the subway had 118 false positives, or 4.3 percent, out of 2,749 scans. No guns were found.
Of course, when a police officer approaches someone who appears to be armed, it automatically becomes a dangerous situation, especially for those who find themselves not carrying a gun. And, for example, what about illegal searches?
Earlier this year in Florida, two Republican state lawmakers introduced laws banning AI gun detection, except for certain exemptions at police departments, prisons and courts. State Sen. Blaze Ingoglia called for the use of AI to detect guns “There is nothing but a technical infringement on both the Second and Fourth Amendment rights.” Meanwhile, Rep. Monique Miller said the state should not allow local governments to infringe the right to carry firearms or not to illegally search them simply because artificial intelligence is enabled.
I agree with Florida lawmakers. Don't invest is a better way. Otherwise, we will only slid down the path to one technological advancement at a time, totalitarianism.
However, the true swings and mistakes of Wisconsin's Legislative AI Task Force had called for the governor to promulgate the bureaucracy to establish rules to establish guiding principles on the use of state AI. Allowing bureaucracy to set its own rules is a major lapse, and given the recent Supreme Court decisions on legislative oversight, there is no oversight of those rules.
The promulgation of rules in ambiguous directions causes most of our troubles. Congress must do the work itself through a committee or task force, and the enumerated law must establish certain concerns that need to be addressed and the standards for doing so. That's the first action and should be implemented immediately.
