Over the past three months, there have been several reports on how, or even whether, AI should be legally constrained. What did they say?
On the issue
of its largest supplier, there was “As Regulators Close In, Nvidia Scrambles
for a Response” (Tripp Mickle and David McCabe, The New York Times,
August 6th). It’s not
surprising that this company, which not only is doing a gigantic amount of
business but “by the end of last year… had more than a 90 percent share of
(AI-building) chips sold around the world,” had drawn “government scrutiny.” It has come from China, the United Kingdom,
and the European Union as well as the United States Justice Department, causing
Nvidia to start “developing a strategy to respond to government interest.” Although, per a tech research firm CEO,
“there’s no evidence they’re doing anything monopolistic or anticompetitive,”
“the conditions are right because of their market leadership,” and “in the wake
of complaints about Nvidia’s chokehold on the market, Washington’s concerns
have shifted from China to competition, with everyone from start-up founders to
Elon Musk grumbling about the company’s influence.” It will not be easy for either the company or
the governments.
Meanwhile, “A
California Bill to Regulate A.I. Causes Alarm in Silicon Valley” (Cade Metz and
Cecilia Kang, The New York Times, August 14th). The legislation “that could impose
restrictions on artificial intelligence,” was then “still winding its way
through the state capital,” and “would require companies to test the safety of
powerful A.I. technologies before releasing them to the public.” It could also, per its opposition, “choke the
progress of technologies that promise to increase worker productivity, improve
health care and fight climate change” and are in their infancies, pointing
toward real uncertainty in how they will affect people. Per leginfo.com, it was vetoed by
state governor Gavin Newsom, who said “by focusing only on the most expensive
and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could
give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology.
Smaller, specialized models may emerge
as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 - at the
potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in
favor of the public good.” Expect a
different but related bill in California soon.
A thoughtful
overview, “Risks and regulations,” came out in the August 24th Economist. It stated that “artificial intelligence needs
regulation. But what kind, and how much?,”
and came up with various ideas. It
started with the point that AI’s “best-known risk is embodied by the killer
robots in the “Terminator” films – the idea that AI will turn against its human
creators,” the kind of risk that some people think is “largely speculative,”
and others think is less important than “real risks posed by AI that exist
today, such as bias, discrimination, AI-generated disinformation and violation
of intellectual-property rights.” With
Chinese authorities most wanting to “control the flow of information” and the
European Union’s now-the-law AI Act which “is mostly a product-safety document
which regulates applications of the technology according to how risky they
are,” “different governments take different approaches to regulating AI.” Combined with most American legislation being
from states, international and even national accord seem a long way off.
What can we
gain from “Rethinking ‘Checks and Balances’ for the A.I. Age” (Steve Lohr, The
New York Times, September 24th)?
Recalling the Federalist Papers, a Stanford University project, now with
12 essays known as the Digitalist Papers, “contends that today is a broadly
similar historical moment of economic and political upheaval that calls for a
rethinking of society’s institutional arrangements.” The writings’ “overarching concern” is that
“a powerful new technology… explodes onto the scene and threatens to transform,
for better or worse, all legacy social institutions,” therefore “citizens need
to be more involved in determining how to regulate and incorporate A.I. into
their lives.” This effort seems designed
to be a starting point, as, before, we have no more idea how, if it meets its
high-importance expectations, AI will affect society than we did about cars in
1900.
Overall, per
Garrison Lovely in the September 29th New York Times, it may
be that “Laws Need to Catch Up to Artificial Intelligence’s Unique Risks.” Or not.
Over the past year, OpenAI has been in controversy about its safety
practices, and, per Lovely, federal “protections are essential for an industry
that works so closely with such exceptionally risky technology.” As before, we do not have enough agreement
between governments to do that now, but the day will come. Sooner?
Later? We do not know, but
someday, we hope, we can get together on this potentially critical issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment