With the expeditious development in the field of Artificial Intelligence, the need to regulate it has become crucial to mitigate its harmful effects on the human population. Various government stakeholders around the country are concerned about AI’s need for regulation and so is Washington but is dwelling into the conundrum of the uncertain path ahead.
The burgeoning development in the field of AI and peculiarly the recent invention of ChatGPT has put alarm bells to the various stakeholders around the world including the serious concern casted out by the industry experts and researchers. The Washington officials have become particularly receptive as well as concerned about the ongoing development.
The current government of the United States has been trying to circumvent and tangentially control the AI field in non-legislative ways until now and is now inclined to frame policies for better regulation and protection through enacting legislations.
Recent effort by Washington
On May 4, this year Washington released official notification on its website as new actions to promote responsible AI innovation for the protection of rights and security of its citizens.
Through this notification, it became apparent that Washington is concerning itself to frame policies for regulating AI and its ongoing invention in different fields. The US government has been calling founders and CEOs to provide suggestions and opinions in framing policies.
The efforts by the government to regulate and harbor safe AI innovation has not been done by prescribing strict procedures. It has been prescribed by the government, like the Blueprint for an AI bill of Rights, to the AI companies and its stakeholders barely on moral grounds.
The May 4 notification also mentioned about the Washington growing concerns related to national security concerns raised by AI, particularly in areas like cybersecurity, biosecurity and safety.
The notification also announced about the $140 million in funding for responsible AI research and development (R&D).
Washington in a state of bafflement
Various stakeholders have been giving their opinions and suggestions about how the government should go about framing the policies. Some of them are concerned with AI development increasing discrimination on different bases like race, and violating other rights of the civilians. Some of the others are mainly skeptical about the loss of livelihood and income of citizens.
Washington has been looking into different approaches for framing of legislation to ensure safe AI inventions. Some suggestions which have also come from IBM and U.S. Chambers of Commerce are favoring non-uniform application of future legislation which should be dependent upon the peril of the regulated field.
The critical fields, for instance in case of medical diagnosis, as per the suggestions should be under regulation to mitigate the ill-effects of AI.
It is being reported that in framing AI legislation, the US government is taking a risk-based approach. It can be exemplified as that in case of usage of AI as means to diagnose cancer, the work would be under scrutiny of Food and Drug Administration, while under circumstances, for example in entertainment, which are risk-averse, the AI would be left unregulated.
Michael Bennet, democratic senator at the Capitol Hill is not very supportive of the risk-based approach to be the basis of regulation of AI. He is emphasizing a value-based approach to guide the framing of legislation where data privacy, civil rights and liberties would be prioritized.
Open AI founder Sam Altman to testify before the Congress
Altman who is the head of the parent company of the infamous AI bot, ChatGPT has been called on by the Congress to testify before a Senate judiciary subcommittee and for follow-up of certain regulations for AI.
He has been called on by officials to expound on how his company and its rivals are rushing to a new arena of technology and how it should be kept under regulation.
Washington is under consistent dilemma about how to ensure and encourage safe AI inventions and its promulgation and also not impeding innovation.