├── Chuck Schumer SAFE Innovation Framework.md ├── EU AI Act.md ├── Future of Life Institute AI Policy Recommendations.md ├── LICENSE ├── README.md ├── Ted Lieu National AI Commaission.md └── US Senate Hearing on AI with Sam Altman.md /Chuck Schumer SAFE Innovation Framework.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | SOURCE: https://www.csis.org/events/sen-chuck-schumer-launches-safe-innovation-ai-age-csis 2 | 3 | # Summary of the Transcript 4 | 5 | Senator Chuck Schumer introduced the SAFE Innovation Framework for AI Policy during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The framework aims to address the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) and ensure safe and responsible innovation in the field. 6 | 7 | The framework is based on four key principles: security, accountability, protecting foundations, and explainability. 8 | 9 | 1. **Security:** The framework emphasizes the need for security measures to protect against the potential misuse of AI technology by foreign adversaries or domestic groups. It recognizes the risks posed by AI in areas such as national security, privacy, and the workforce. The goal is to establish guardrails that prevent the illicit use of AI and protect American interests. 10 | 11 | 2. **Accountability:** The framework calls for accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems. It aims to prevent the exploitation of individuals, such as tracking movements, targeting vulnerable populations, or promoting biased practices. It also emphasizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring fair compensation for content creators. 12 | 13 | 3. **Foundations:** The framework highlights the need to preserve and strengthen the foundations of democracy and democratic governance in the face of AI advancements. It acknowledges the potential risks to electoral processes and the spread of misinformation. The framework aims to establish norms and regulations to safeguard democratic principles and prevent the erosion of democratic institutions. 14 | 15 | 4. **Explainability:** The framework recognizes the challenge of understanding and explaining the decision-making processes of AI systems. It calls for transparency and explainability to ensure that users can comprehend how AI systems arrive at their conclusions. This is seen as crucial for accountability and trust in AI technology. 16 | 17 | To develop the framework into actionable legislation, Senator Schumer plans to convene a series of AI insight forums that bring together top AI experts, developers, scientists, advocates, and other stakeholders. These forums will focus on key issues such as innovation, copyright and intellectual property, workforce impact, national security, transparency, and privacy. The goal is to gather diverse perspectives and forge consensus on the best path forward for AI policy. 18 | 19 | Senator Schumer acknowledges the complexity and rapid pace of AI advancements, but emphasizes the importance of congressional action to guide and regulate AI innovation. He believes that a proactive approach is necessary to maximize the benefits of AI while protecting the American people and ensuring global leadership in the field. The senator also emphasizes the need for bipartisan collaboration and cooperation to address the challenges posed by AI. 20 | 21 | ## Security 22 | 23 | Senator Schumer highlighted the importance of security in the SAFE Innovation Framework for AI Policy. He emphasized the need to address the potential risks and dangers associated with AI technology, both in terms of national security and the impact on the workforce. 24 | 25 | From a national security perspective, Senator Schumer expressed concerns about the potential misuse of AI by foreign adversaries, particularly autocratic regimes. He emphasized the need to establish guardrails that prevent these groups from using AI advancements for illicit purposes. The senator recognized that the capabilities of AI could be extreme and could pose significant threats to the United States and its interests. Therefore, he stressed the importance of implementing measures to ensure the security of the country and protect American leadership in AI. 26 | 27 | In addition to national security, Senator Schumer highlighted the impact of AI on the workforce. He acknowledged that AI, particularly generative AI, is already disrupting the livelihoods of many workers, particularly those in low-income communities and communities of color. He expressed concerns about job displacement and the potential erosion of the middle class. The senator emphasized the need to prioritize security measures that protect American workers and ensure that the benefits of AI are distributed equitably. 28 | 29 | Overall, the security aspect of the framework aims to address the potential risks and challenges posed by AI technology. It seeks to establish safeguards that prevent the misuse of AI by foreign adversaries and protect the American workforce from job displacement and income inequality. By prioritizing security, Senator Schumer aims to ensure that AI innovation is safe and responsible, benefiting both the country and its citizens. 30 | 31 | ## Accountability 32 | 33 | Senator Schumer emphasized the importance of accountability in the SAFE Innovation Framework for AI Policy. He highlighted the need to establish measures that hold AI developers and users accountable for their actions and prevent the potential exploitation of individuals and communities. 34 | 35 | One area of concern is the potential misuse of AI technology to track individuals, inundate them with harmful advertisements, or manipulate their self-image and mental health. Senator Schumer raised the question of how to ensure that AI is not used to exploit vulnerable populations, individuals with addictions or financial problems, or those with serious mental illnesses. He stressed the need for regulations and guidelines that prevent these harmful practices and protect individuals from the negative impacts of AI. 36 | 37 | The senator also emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property (IP) rights. He recognized that the ideas and creations of innovators, content creators, musicians, writers, and artists are their livelihoods. Therefore, he called for accountability measures that ensure proper credit and compensation for the use of IP. This aspect of accountability aims to protect the rights and interests of creators in the AI landscape. 38 | 39 | Furthermore, Senator Schumer highlighted the need to address issues of bias and fairness in AI systems. He emphasized the importance of preventing racial bias in hiring processes and ensuring that AI algorithms do not perpetuate discriminatory practices. By promoting accountability, the framework aims to establish guidelines and regulations that ensure AI systems are developed and deployed in a responsible and ethical manner. 40 | 41 | Overall, the accountability aspect of the framework seeks to address the potential risks and negative impacts of AI technology. It aims to establish measures that hold AI developers and users accountable for their actions, protect individuals from exploitation, safeguard intellectual property rights, and promote fairness and non-discrimination in AI systems. By prioritizing accountability, Senator Schumer aims to ensure that AI innovation is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner that benefits society as a whole. 42 | 43 | ## Foundations 44 | 45 | Senator Schumer emphasized the importance of protecting the foundations of democracy and democratic governance in the context of AI advancements. He recognized the potential risks and challenges that AI poses to democratic institutions and electoral processes. 46 | 47 | One of the concerns raised by Senator Schumer is the potential for AI to undermine democratic foundations, particularly in the context of elections. He highlighted the possibility of political campaigns using fabricated yet convincing images and footage of candidates, distorting their statements and influencing election outcomes. He also mentioned the use of chatbots for political persuasion, which can target millions of individual voters with potentially misleading or manipulative information. Senator Schumer expressed the need to address these challenges and ensure that AI does not erode the integrity of democratic processes. 48 | 49 | Furthermore, the senator emphasized the importance of setting norms and regulations for the proper use of AI in democratic societies. He highlighted the risk of authoritarian regimes, such as the Chinese Communist Party, setting the rules and norms for AI if democratic nations fail to establish their own guidelines. Senator Schumer stressed the need for the United States to take the lead in shaping the direction of AI policy, ensuring that democratic values and principles are upheld. 50 | 51 | The foundations aspect of the framework aims to address these challenges by prioritizing the preservation and strengthening of democratic institutions. It calls for the development of norms and regulations that safeguard democratic governance, protect electoral processes from interference, and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation through AI technology. By focusing on the foundations of democracy, Senator Schumer aims to ensure that AI advancements do not undermine the principles and values that underpin democratic societies. 52 | 53 | Overall, the foundations aspect of the framework recognizes the potential risks and challenges that AI poses to democratic institutions and electoral processes. It emphasizes the need to establish norms, regulations, and safeguards that protect democratic governance and ensure the integrity of democratic systems in the face of AI advancements. 54 | 55 | ## Eplainability 56 | 57 | Senator Schumer highlighted the challenge of explainability in the context of AI systems and emphasized its importance in the SAFE Innovation Framework for AI Policy. Explainability refers to the ability to understand and explain the decision-making processes of AI algorithms. 58 | 59 | The senator acknowledged that AI algorithms often operate as black boxes, making it difficult for users to comprehend how they arrive at their conclusions or decisions. This lack of transparency and explainability raises concerns about accountability, trust, and potential biases in AI systems. Senator Schumer emphasized the need for users to have a clear understanding of why an AI system produced a particular answer and how it arrived at that answer. 60 | 61 | The explainability aspect of the framework recognizes that everyday users of AI systems may not have the technical expertise to understand the complex algorithms behind them. Therefore, it calls for the development of simple and understandable explanations that users can comprehend. The goal is to ensure that users can ask questions about the decision-making process of AI systems and receive clear and comprehensible answers. 62 | 63 | However, Senator Schumer also acknowledged the challenge of balancing explainability with the protection of intellectual property (IP) rights. AI algorithms represent valuable IP for developers, and forcing companies to reveal their proprietary algorithms could stifle innovation and hinder progress. Therefore, the framework calls for a fair solution that allows for transparency and explainability without compromising the IP rights of developers. 64 | 65 | The explainability aspect of the framework recognizes the importance of transparency and understanding in AI systems. It aims to address the challenge of explainability by calling for the development of user-friendly explanations that shed light on the decision-making processes of AI algorithms. By prioritizing explainability, Senator Schumer aims to ensure that AI systems are accountable, transparent, and trustworthy, fostering public confidence in the technology. 66 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /EU AI Act.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | SOURCE - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0206 2 | 3 | # Executive Summary of the EU AI Act 4 | 5 | The European Commission has proposed a comprehensive regulation for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in the European Union (EU). The proposal aims to balance the socio-economic benefits of AI with potential risks, ensuring AI systems are safe, respect fundamental rights, and provide legal certainty for investment and innovation. 6 | 7 | ## Key Provisions 8 | 9 | 1. **Risk-Based Approach**: The proposal adopts a risk-based approach, categorizing AI systems into three risk levels: unacceptable, high, and low or minimal. Certain AI practices are prohibited due to their potential to violate fundamental rights. High-risk AI systems are subject to specific requirements and obligations, including data handling, transparency, human oversight, and robustness. 10 | 11 | 2. **Governance System**: The proposal establishes a governance system at Member State level and a European Artificial Intelligence Board at Union level. It also supports innovation through AI regulatory sandboxes and measures to reduce regulatory burden on SMEs and start-ups. 12 | 13 | 3. **Transparency Obligations**: AI systems interacting with natural persons or generating content should have specific transparency obligations. Providers of high-risk AI systems should register their systems in an EU database. 14 | 15 | 4. **Conformity Assessment**: High-risk AI systems must undergo a conformity assessment before being put on the market. They should bear the CE marking for conformity and free movement within the internal market. 16 | 17 | 5. **Regulatory Sandboxes**: Regulatory sandboxes should be established for testing innovative AI systems. In the sandbox, personal data collected for other purposes can be processed for developing and testing AI systems under certain conditions. 18 | 19 | 6. **Penalties for Non-Compliance**: The legislation outlines the administrative fines for non-compliance with AI regulations. Fines can reach up to 30 million EUR or 6% of a company's total worldwide annual turnover. 20 | 21 | ## Levels of Risk 22 | 23 | The proposed EU AI Act categorizes AI systems into three levels of risk: 24 | 25 | 1. **Unacceptable Risk**: Certain AI practices are considered to have an unacceptable level of risk due to their potential to violate fundamental rights. These practices are prohibited under the proposed regulation. Examples include AI systems that manipulate human behavior, exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups, or enable social scoring by public authorities. 26 | 27 | 2. **High Risk**: High-risk AI systems are subject to strict regulation and specific requirements. These systems include those used in critical infrastructures, educational or vocational training, employment, essential private and public services, law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management, and administration of justice. High-risk AI systems must comply with requirements related to data quality, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, and robustness. They must also undergo a conformity assessment before being put on the market. 28 | 29 | 3. **Low or Minimal Risk**: AI systems that pose a low or minimal risk have fewer regulatory requirements. The majority of AI systems fall into this category. The proposal encourages providers of these systems to adhere to voluntary codes of conduct. 30 | 31 | ## Amendments to Existing Legislation 32 | 33 | The proposal also includes amendments to various EU regulations and directives. When adopting delegated or implementing acts related to AI systems, which are considered safety components, the requirements outlined in Title III, Chapter 2 of the new Regulation on Artificial Intelligence must be considered. 34 | 35 | ## Review and Implementation 36 | 37 | The Regulation will be effective 20 days after its publication and will apply 24 months after its enforcement. The Commission will submit a public report every four years, starting three years after this Regulation's application, evaluating its implementation. If needed, the Commission may propose amendments to the Regulation. 38 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /Future of Life Institute AI Policy Recommendations.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | SOURCE - https://futureoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FLI_Policymaking_In_The_Pause.pdf 2 | 3 | # Executive Summary 4 | 5 | This document provides policymakers with concrete recommendations for managing the risks associated with advanced AI systems. The rapid development of AI poses significant dangers, including the spread of misinformation, amplification of biases, concentration of power, and threats to national security. To address these risks, the Future of Life Institute recommends the following policy actions: 6 | 7 | 1. **Mandate robust third-party auditing and certification** for high-risk AI systems to ensure their safety and ethical compliance before deployment. 8 | 9 | 2. **Regulate organizations' access to computational power** by requiring a comprehensive risk assessment before granting access to large amounts of compute, and monitoring the use of compute in data centers. 10 | 11 | 3. **Establish capable AI agencies at the national level** to consolidate expertise, monitor AI progress, conduct impact assessments, and enforce regulations. 12 | 13 | 4. **Establish liability for AI-caused harm** by holding developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems strictly liable for resulting harms, and allowing joint and several liability for authorized deployments. 14 | 15 | 5. **Introduce measures to prevent and track AI model leaks** by mandating watermarking of AI models to protect against unauthorized distribution and enable legal action against leakers. 16 | 17 | 6. **Expand technical AI safety research funding** to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in a safe and secure manner, with a focus on alignment, robustness, and explainability. 18 | 19 | 7. **Develop standards for identifying and managing AI-generated content and recommendations** to distinguish between real and synthetic media, ensure transparency in AI interactions, and prevent conflicts of interest. 20 | 21 | By implementing these recommendations, policymakers can establish a strong governance foundation for AI and mitigate the risks associated with advanced AI systems. The coordinated efforts of civil society, governments, academia, industry, and the public are crucial to realizing the benefits of AI while ensuring its responsible development and use. 22 | 23 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /LICENSE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | MIT License 2 | 3 | Copyright (c) 2023 David Shapiro 4 | 5 | Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy 6 | of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal 7 | in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights 8 | to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell 9 | copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is 10 | furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: 11 | 12 | The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all 13 | copies or substantial portions of the Software. 14 | 15 | THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR 16 | IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, 17 | FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE 18 | AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER 19 | LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, 20 | OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE 21 | SOFTWARE. 22 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Global AI Agencies (GAIA) Initiative 2 | 3 | Global AI Agencies - an offshoot of [GATO Framework](https://www.gatoframework.org/). Advocating for national, international, and global AI research and safety. 4 | 5 | ## News 6 | 7 | ### 2023-03-22 - FLI Open Letter: Pause Giant AI Models 8 | 9 | TLDR: Future of Life Institute [published an open letter](https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/), signed by more than 32,000 people, asking for a moratorium on giant LLM research. It was accompanied with a more [comprehensive paper describing](https://futureoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FLI_Policymaking_In_The_Pause.pdf) the technological risks and policy recommendations. A [summary of the policy recommendations is available here](https://github.com/daveshap/GAIA_Initiative/blob/main/Future%20of%20Life%20Institute%20AI%20Policy%20Recommendations.md). 10 | 11 | ### 2023-03-29 - UK Pro-Innovation AI Regulation 12 | 13 | TLDR: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-regulation-a-pro-innovation-approach (more coming) 14 | 15 | ### 2023-05-12 - U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres amenable to "IAEA for AI" 16 | 17 | TLDR: https://www.reuters.com/technology/un-chief-backs-idea-global-ai-watchdog-like-nuclear-agency-2023-06-12/ (pretty much what the header says) 18 | 19 | ### 2023-05-16 - Senate Hearing on AI 20 | 21 | TLDR: The US Senate Judiciary Committee [held a hearing](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-ai-rules-for-artificial-intelligence) with Sam Altman, Gary Marcus, and Christina Montgomery (IBM). The discussion was huge and wide ranging, but they talked extensively about the need for regulation. You can see a [comprehensive summary of the transcript here](https://github.com/daveshap/GAIA_Initiative/blob/main/US%20Senate%20Hearing%20on%20AI%20with%20Sam%20Altman.md). 22 | 23 | ### 2023-06-14 - EU AI Act 24 | 25 | TLDR: The [EU AI Act](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206) is in the works. It's a sweeping and comprehensive proposed legislation that focuses on classifying AI into several categories (unacceptable uses, high risk uses, and low risks). The central idea is to prevent businesses and governments from engaging in unacceptable uses of AI (such as a social credit and surveillance system) and to strongly regulate high risk cases (life and death, justice, rights). You can read a summary of the [EU AI Act here](https://github.com/daveshap/GAIA_Initiative/blob/main/EU%20AI%20Act.md). 26 | 27 | ### 2023-06-20 - US House AI Commission 28 | 29 | TLDR: US House to launch a bipartisan [AI advisory commission](https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-lieu-buck-eshoo-and-sen-schatz-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-bill). You can read the [summary here](https://github.com/daveshap/GAIA_Initiative/blob/main/Ted%20Lieu%20National%20AI%20Commaission.md). 30 | 31 | ### 2023-06-21 - US Senate SAFE Innovation Framework 32 | 33 | TLDR: Senator Chuck Schumer is introducing the [SAFE Innovation Framework](https://www.csis.org/events/sen-chuck-schumer-launches-safe-innovation-ai-age-csis) designed to prioritize AI innovation but to do so safely. You can read the [summary here](https://github.com/daveshap/GAIA_Initiative/blob/main/Chuck%20Schumer%20SAFE%20Innovation%20Framework.md). 34 | 35 | ### 2023-06-29 - Pope endorses ITEC Organizational Roadmap 36 | 37 | TLDR: This is a comprehensive document outlining corporate governance and ethics in AI. It is broken up into sections to address major internal departments, such as C-level, HR, Legal, and others. [ITEC Framework](https://www.scu.edu/media/ethics-center/itec/Ethics-in-the-Age-of-Disruptive-Technologies:An-Operational-Roadmap---ITEC-Handbook-June-2023.pdf) 38 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /Ted Lieu National AI Commaission.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | SOURCE - https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-lieu-buck-eshoo-and-sen-schatz-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-bill 2 | 3 | # H.R. ll - National AI Commission Act 4 | 5 | ## 118TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION 6 | 7 | Introduced by Mr. LIEU 8 | 9 | --- 10 | 11 | A BILL to establish an artificial intelligence commission, and for other purposes. 12 | 13 | --- 14 | 15 | **SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.** 16 | 17 | This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National AI Commission Act’’. 18 | 19 | **SECTION 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.** 20 | 21 | It is the sense of Congress that this Act shall not be intended to preclude any legislation Congress may deem necessary relating to Artificial Intelligence in the interim period before the reports of the Commission are released. 22 | 23 | **SECTION 3. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMISSION.** 24 | 25 | **(a) LOCATION.** There is established in the legislative branch an independent commission relating to artificial intelligence (AI), to be known as the ‘‘National AI Commission’’ (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’). 26 | 27 | **(b) COMPOSITION.** The Commission shall be comprised of 20 commissioners, of whom 10 shall be appointed by each party to ensure bipartisanship. Members of the Commission shall elect two Members to serve as co-chairs. One co-chair shall be a Democratic appointee and one co-chair shall be a Republican appointee. Members shall be appointed as follows: 28 | 29 | 1. The President, in consultation with relevant cabinet secretaries, shall appoint eight Members, four of whom shall be chosen from the lists described in subsection (c). 30 | 2. The senior most member of Republican leadership of the House of Representatives, in consultation with relevant committee leaders of the same party, shall appoint three members. 31 | 3. The senior most member of Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives, in consultation with relevant committee leaders of the same party, shall appoint three members. 32 | 4. The senior most member of Republican leadership of the Senate, in consultation with relevant committee leaders of the same party, shall appoint three members. 33 | 5. The senior most member of Democratic leadership of the Senate, in consultation with relevant committee leaders of the same party, shall appoint three members. 34 | 35 | **(c) PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES.** To carry out paragraph (1) of subsection (b), the senior most member of leadership of the House of Representatives opposite the Administration and the senior most member of leadership of the Senate opposite the Administration shall each submit to the President a list of five individuals to serve on the Commission, from which the President shall, in accordance with the consultation required under such paragraph, appoint two Members from each such list. 36 | 37 | **(d) QUALIFICATIONS.** Members of the Commission shall have a demonstrated background in at least one of the following: 38 | 39 | 1. Computer science or a technical background in artificial intelligence. 40 | 2. Civil society, including relating to the Constitution, civil liberties, ethics, and the creative community. 41 | 3. Industry and workforce. 42 | 4. Government, including national security. 43 | 44 | None of the backgrounds specified in paragraph (1) may constitute a majority of Members of the Commission. 45 | 46 | **(e) TERMS.** Members shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, and shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made. 47 | 48 | **(f) APPOINTMENTS.** Members of the Commission shall be appointed not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Commission shall hold its initial meeting on or before the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 49 | 50 | **(g) FOCUS.** The Commission shall: 51 | 52 | 1. In general, conduct its work to ensure, through its review and recommendations as described in this subsection, that through regulation the United States is mitigating the risks and possible harms of artificial intelligence, protecting the United States leadership in artificial intelligence innovation and the opportunities such innovation may bring, and ensuring that the United States takes a leading role in establishing necessary, long-term guardrails to ensure that artificial intelligence is aligned with values shared by all Americans; 53 | 2. Review the Federal Government’s current approach to artificial intelligence oversight and regulation, including how such oversight and regulation is distributed across agencies, the capacity of agencies to address challenges relating to such oversight and regulation, and alignment among agencies in their approaches to such oversight and regulation; 54 | 3. Recommend any governmental structures that may be needed to oversee and regulate artificial intelligence systems, including the feasibility of an oversight structure that can oversee powerful artificial intelligence systems with a general purpose through a careful, evidence-based approach; and 55 | 4. Build upon previous Federal efforts and international best practices and efforts to develop a binding risk-based approach to regulate and oversee artificial intelligence applications through identifying applications with unacceptable risks, high or limited risks, and minimal risks. 56 | 57 | **(h) REPORTS.** 58 | 59 | 1. **INTERIM REPORT.** Not later than six months after the appointment of all Members to the Commission, the Commission shall submit to Congress and the President an interim report containing its findings. The interim report shall include proposals for any urgent regulatory or enforcement actions. 60 | 2. **FINAL REPORT.** Not later than six months after the submission of the interim report under paragraph (1), the Commission shall submit to Congress and the President a final report containing its findings and recommendations. The final report shall constitute the Commission’s findings and recommendations for a comprehensive, binding regulatory framework. 61 | 3. **FOLLOW-UP REPORT.** Not later than one year after the submission of the final report under paragraph (2), the Commission shall submit to Congress and the President a follow-up report containing any new findings and revised recommendations. The follow-up report shall be reserved for necessary adjustments to the final report and actions pertaining to further developments since the final report’s publication. 62 | 63 | **(i) STAFF.** The Commission shall appoint a staff director, as well as such other personnel as may be necessary. Federal employees may be detailed to serve as Commission staff while retaining the rights and status of their regular employment. 64 | 65 | **(j) INFORMATION AND COOPERATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.** 66 | 67 | 1. **IN GENERAL.** All Federal departments, agencies, commissions, offices, and other entities shall provide information, suggestions, estimates, statistics, and other materials to the Commission upon request, in accordance with applicable law. 68 | 2. **INABILITY TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS OR TESTIMONY.** In the event the Commission is unable to obtain testimony or documents needed to conduct its work, the Commission shall notify the committees of Congress of jurisdiction and appropriate investigative authorities. 69 | 70 | **(k) TERMINATION.** The Commission shall terminate not later than 30 days after the submission of the follow-up report under subsection (h)(3). 71 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /US Senate Hearing on AI with Sam Altman.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | SOURCE - https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-ai-rules-for-artificial-intelligence 2 | 3 | # Senate Hearing on Artificial Intelligence: Comprehensive Summary 4 | 5 | ## Introduction 6 | 7 | The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law recently held a series of hearings to discuss the oversight, risks, and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI). The hearings aimed to address the potential dangers and advantages of AI, and the necessity for regulation and accountability in this rapidly evolving field. 8 | 9 | ## Key Witnesses 10 | 11 | The hearings featured several key witnesses from the AI industry and academia, including: 12 | 13 | - Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI 14 | - Christina Montgomery, IBM's Chief Privacy and Trust Officer 15 | - Gary Marcus, a leading voice in AI 16 | 17 | ## Key Discussion Points 18 | 19 | ### Risks and Dangers of AI 20 | 21 | The witnesses expressed concerns about the potential risks of AI, including the spread of misinformation, privacy invasion, manipulation of behavior and opinions, and national security threats. 22 | 23 | ### Need for Regulation and Oversight 24 | 25 | The hearings highlighted the need for regulation and oversight of AI. Suggestions included the establishment of an independent commission to regulate AI technology, ensuring transparency, accountability, and adherence to safety standards. Concerns were also raised about the risk of regulatory capture and the dangers of corporate concentration in the AI space. 26 | 27 | ### Transparency and Accountability 28 | 29 | The importance of transparency and accountability in AI systems was emphasized, particularly in understanding the data used and the decision-making processes of the models. The witnesses also supported the establishment of limits on the use of AI systems, particularly in sensitive areas like elections and medical advice. 30 | 31 | ### Agency or Legal Framework 32 | 33 | The idea of creating a new agency to regulate AI technology was discussed, with the need for scientific expertise, resources, and safeguards against regulatory capture highlighted. The possibility of allowing individuals to sue AI companies for harm caused by their technology was also discussed. 34 | 35 | ### Corporate Concentration and Democratization 36 | 37 | The witnesses expressed concerns about the dominance of a few large companies in the AI space and discussed the potential for democratizing AI technology by making it accessible to a wide range of users. 38 | 39 | ## Conclusion 40 | 41 | The Senate hearings underscored the transformative potential of AI, while emphasizing the need for regulation, transparency, and accountability to mitigate the associated risks. The discussions also touched upon the challenges of corporate concentration, the importance of privacy protection, and the potential role of an agency or legal framework in ensuring the responsible development and deployment of AI technology. 42 | 43 | ## Detailed Examination of Risks and Dangers of AI 44 | 45 | ### Misinformation 46 | 47 | One of the most significant risks associated with AI, as highlighted by the witnesses, is the potential for the spread of misinformation. AI systems, particularly generative models, have the ability to generate human-like text, which can be used to create false information. This is particularly concerning in the context of elections, where misinformation can manipulate public opinion and disrupt democratic processes. Similarly, AI-generated misinformation in the field of healthcare could lead to harmful consequences, with people potentially receiving and acting upon incorrect medical advice. 48 | 49 | ### Privacy Invasion 50 | 51 | AI systems often rely on large amounts of data, raising concerns about privacy invasion. AI models can potentially identify individuals based on their data, even when that data is supposed to be anonymized. This could lead to significant breaches of privacy, with sensitive personal information being exposed or misused. 52 | 53 | ### Manipulation of Behavior and Opinions 54 | 55 | AI systems have the potential to manipulate personal behavior and opinions. For example, AI algorithms used in social media platforms can create echo chambers, reinforcing existing beliefs and isolating users from diverse viewpoints. This can polarize societies and fuel conflict. Furthermore, AI systems can be used to create persuasive messages tailored to individual users, potentially manipulating their behavior in ways that serve the interests of the AI operators. 56 | 57 | ### National Security 58 | 59 | AI technology also has significant national security implications. Foreign adversaries could potentially use AI systems to launch cyberattacks, spread propaganda, or disrupt critical infrastructure. The development of autonomous weapons systems powered by AI also raises serious ethical and security concerns. 60 | 61 | ### Job Displacement 62 | 63 | AI systems, particularly those involving automation, could lead to significant job displacement. While AI may create new jobs, it may also render many existing jobs obsolete. This could lead to increased unemployment and social inequality, particularly if the benefits of AI are not broadly distributed. 64 | 65 | ### Bias and Discrimination 66 | 67 | AI systems can also perpetuate and amplify existing biases, leading to discriminatory outcomes. If an AI system is trained on biased data, it can produce biased results. This is particularly concerning in high-stakes areas such as hiring, lending, and law enforcement, where biased AI decisions could have serious implications for individuals' lives. 68 | 69 | In conclusion, while AI has significant potential benefits, it also poses substantial risks and challenges. These include the spread of misinformation, privacy invasion, manipulation of behavior and opinions, national security threats, job displacement, and bias and discrimination. It is crucial to address these risks through effective regulation, transparency, and accountability mechanisms. 70 | 71 | ## Detailed Examination of Regulation and Oversight of AI 72 | 73 | ### Need for Regulation 74 | 75 | The rapid advancement of AI technologies has outpaced the development of regulations to govern their use. The witnesses at the Senate hearings emphasized the urgent need for regulation to mitigate the risks associated with AI, such as misinformation, privacy invasion, and manipulation of behavior and opinions. They suggested that regulations should be tailored to the specific use cases of AI, rather than the underlying technology itself, and should be based on the level of risk associated with each use. 76 | 77 | ### Independent Commission 78 | 79 | One of the suggestions put forward was the establishment of an independent commission to regulate AI technology. This commission would be responsible for ensuring transparency, accountability, and adherence to safety standards in the development and deployment of AI systems. It would also be tasked with conducting independent audits and safety reviews to ensure compliance with these standards. 80 | 81 | ### Regulatory Capture 82 | 83 | The witnesses raised concerns about the risk of regulatory capture, where regulatory agencies may become influenced or controlled by the very companies they are meant to regulate. To prevent this, they suggested that the independent commission should be adequately resourced and protected from undue influence. 84 | 85 | ### Antitrust Considerations 86 | 87 | The witnesses also highlighted the dangers of corporate concentration in the AI space. A few large companies currently dominate the field, which could stifle competition and innovation. The witnesses emphasized the need for antitrust regulations to prevent monopolization and promote a diverse and competitive AI ecosystem. 88 | 89 | ### Licensing and Accountability 90 | 91 | The witnesses suggested that a licensing scheme could be implemented for AI systems above a certain scale of capabilities. This would ensure that only those systems that meet certain safety and ethical standards are allowed to operate. The ability to revoke licenses if safety standards are not met would also provide a mechanism for holding companies accountable for the harms caused by their AI systems. 92 | 93 | ### International Cooperation 94 | 95 | Given the global nature of AI technology, the witnesses suggested that international cooperation is crucial in setting standards and regulations. Organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) could play a role in convening multilateral discussions to promote responsible AI standards. 96 | 97 | In conclusion, effective regulation and oversight of AI technologies are crucial to mitigate the associated risks and ensure their responsible development and deployment. This requires a collaborative approach involving government, industry, academia, and international organizations. 98 | 99 | ## Detailed Examination of Transparency and Accountability in AI 100 | 101 | ### Transparency in AI Systems 102 | 103 | Transparency in AI systems is crucial for understanding how these systems operate and make decisions. This involves clear disclosure of the data used to train AI models and the algorithms that guide their decision-making processes. The witnesses at the Senate hearings stressed the importance of transparency, particularly in high-stakes areas such as healthcare, finance, and law enforcement, where AI decisions can have significant impacts on individuals' lives. 104 | 105 | Transparency also extends to the business practices of AI companies. This includes clear disclosure of data collection and usage practices, as well as the measures taken to protect user privacy and data security. The witnesses suggested that companies should be required to provide clear and understandable explanations of their AI systems to users, regulators, and the public. 106 | 107 | ### Accountability in AI Systems 108 | 109 | Alongside transparency, accountability is a key principle for the responsible development and deployment of AI systems. The witnesses called for holding companies accountable for the harms caused by their AI systems. This could involve legal liability for harms such as disseminating misinformation, engaging in discriminatory practices, or causing privacy breaches. 110 | 111 | Accountability also involves mechanisms for redress when harms occur. This could include the ability for individuals to challenge AI decisions that affect them, as well as the ability to seek compensation for harms caused by AI systems. The witnesses suggested that a licensing scheme for AI systems could provide a mechanism for accountability, with the ability to revoke licenses if safety standards are not met. 112 | 113 | ### Limits on Use of AI Systems 114 | 115 | The witnesses supported the establishment of limits on the use of AI systems, particularly in sensitive areas. For example, they suggested that AI should not be used to generate misinformation, particularly in the context of elections. They also suggested that AI should not be used to make decisions in high-stakes areas such as healthcare or criminal justice without human oversight and the ability to challenge these decisions. 116 | 117 | In conclusion, transparency and accountability are crucial for the responsible development and deployment of AI systems. They ensure that AI systems are understandable, that companies are held accountable for the harms caused by their systems, and that there are limits on the use of AI in sensitive areas. These principles should be enshrined in the regulation and oversight of AI technologies. 118 | 119 | ## Detailed Examination of Agency or Legal Framework for AI 120 | 121 | ### Need for a Regulatory Agency 122 | 123 | The witnesses at the Senate hearings discussed the idea of creating a new agency specifically to regulate AI technology. This agency would be responsible for ensuring that AI systems meet safety, privacy, and ethical standards. It would also oversee the licensing of AI systems, with the ability to revoke licenses if safety standards are not met. 124 | 125 | ### Challenges in Establishing an Effective Agency 126 | 127 | While the idea of a regulatory agency for AI was generally supported, the witnesses acknowledged the challenges involved in creating an effective agency. These include the need for the agency to have sufficient scientific expertise to understand and regulate complex AI technologies, adequate resources to carry out its functions, and safeguards to prevent regulatory capture. 128 | 129 | ### Legal Framework for AI 130 | 131 | In addition to a regulatory agency, the witnesses discussed the need for a comprehensive legal framework for AI. This would define the legal rights and responsibilities of AI developers and users, establish standards for transparency and accountability, and provide mechanisms for redress when harms occur. 132 | 133 | ### Private Right of Action 134 | 135 | One idea discussed was the establishment of a private right of action, which would allow individuals to sue AI companies for harm caused by their technology. This could provide a powerful mechanism for holding companies accountable and incentivizing them to prioritize safety and ethics in their AI systems. 136 | 137 | ### National Privacy Law 138 | 139 | The witnesses also discussed the need for a national privacy law to protect individuals' data from misuse by AI companies. This law would give individuals the right to control how their data is used, with the ability to opt out of data usage by AI companies. It would also require companies to provide easy options for individuals to delete their data. 140 | 141 | In conclusion, the establishment of a regulatory agency and a comprehensive legal framework are crucial for the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. These measures would ensure that AI systems meet safety, privacy, and ethical standards, and provide mechanisms for holding companies accountable and for individuals to seek redress when harms occur. 142 | 143 | ## Detailed Examination of Corporate Concentration and Democratization in AI 144 | 145 | ### Concerns about Corporate Concentration 146 | 147 | The witnesses at the Senate hearings expressed concerns about the dominance of a few large companies in the AI space. This corporate concentration could stifle competition and innovation, and potentially lead to the misuse of AI technologies. The witnesses highlighted the potential for undue influence by these dominant companies, both in terms of shaping the development and use of AI technologies and in influencing regulatory processes. 148 | 149 | ### Antitrust Regulations 150 | 151 | To address the issue of corporate concentration, the witnesses emphasized the need for robust antitrust regulations. These regulations would prevent monopolization in the AI space and promote a diverse and competitive AI ecosystem. Antitrust regulations could also prevent anti-competitive practices, such as the acquisition of potential competitors by dominant companies. 152 | 153 | ### Democratization of AI 154 | 155 | The witnesses discussed the potential for democratizing AI technology by making it accessible to a wide range of users. This could involve making AI tools and resources available to small businesses, researchers, and individuals, thereby promoting innovation and diversity in the AI field. Democratization could also involve efforts to ensure that the benefits of AI are broadly distributed, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few large companies. 156 | 157 | ### Collaboration and Open Source 158 | 159 | The witnesses also highlighted the importance of collaboration and open-source practices in promoting a diverse and competitive AI ecosystem. This could involve sharing research findings, datasets, and AI models with the wider community, as well as collaborating on the development of safety and ethical standards for AI. 160 | 161 | In conclusion, addressing corporate concentration and promoting the democratization of AI are crucial for ensuring a diverse, competitive, and ethical AI ecosystem. This requires robust antitrust regulations, efforts to make AI technologies accessible to a wide range of users, and a commitment to collaboration and open-source practices. 162 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------