We’re Going Down A Very Dangerous Path With AI Regulation, Despite Better Options

…The biggest problem here, Adam Thierer rightly points out in his analysis of these rules, is that the one thing that is implicit in that entire list is that innovation in the AI space (under Schumer’s view of regulations) is going to have to be permissioned, rather than permissionless…

…But it is undeniable that areas of industry that require getting government approval for each new thing are… not particularly innovative. They’re stagnant. So, there’s a real concern here that the structure being discussed would greatly limit innovation, which again, works to the big company’s advantage.

As Thierer notes, this would be a huge shift in regulatory frameworks for the US when looking at how a rapidly changing, innovative industry is regulated:

Schumer’s address is a major moment in the growing battle over AI policy because it represents a push from the top ranks of Congress for a broad-based legislative framework for algorithmic systems and applications. His proposed policies make it clear that the United States might be abandoning the “permissionless innovation” policy vision that made America a global digital powerhouse.

He also said that the traditional legislative policymaking process is incapable of crafting law for fast-moving emerging tech like AI, meaning that “Congress will also need to invent a new process to develop the right policies to implement our framework.” Schumer aims to address this problem through “AI Insight Forums,” which will bring together “the top minds in artificial intelligence” to do “years of work in a matter of months,” and then advise Congress how to proceed.

With this speech, Schumer has signaled a potential sea change in the way the United States will regulate AI and perhaps many other emerging technologies going forward.

As Thierer also highlights, what Schumer is describing seems antithetical to not just the way that innovation actually works, but also to the way in which Congress actually works, which is… slowly and not very well. And that’s kind of a problem when we’re talking about a rapidly changing space.

Regarding the “AI Insight Forums,” Thierer points out that this is just a version of multistakehodlerism:

What Schumer is describing is a variant of what is often called multistakeholderism, which is a collaborative governance model that has been used widely within information technology sectors. Multistakeholder efforts have been a central feature of internet governance from the start, with a wide variety of institutions working together to create standards, norms, and best practices for various digital systems and applications. While government bodies sometimes play a role in multistakeholder processes, it has typically been focused more on helping to convene dialogues in the hope that the various parties hammer out agreements and standards in a collaborative, flexible and mostly voluntary fashion. This is also sometimes referred to as “soft law” governance.

In practice, these AI Insight Forums represent something quite different than what Schumer has proposed. They are more akin to congressionally appointed expert advisory committees created with the express intent of formulating formal legislation and filling in the details for how Congress should regulate specific technological systems and applications. Perhaps some consensus will come out of this process, but these new Insight Forums are not going to make traditional policymaking problems go away. Many different special interest groups and regulatory advocates will be clamoring for a seat at the table. Meanwhile, many other AI bills have already been introduced in this session and more are likely coming as almost every congressional committee lines up to take a stab at AI policy...

…Thierer suggests focusing on smaller, more targeted regulations for specific areas of concern, rather than overreaching rules regarding all AI:

If Congress hopes to get anything done at all on AI policy, lawmakers will have to be willing to break the issue down into much smaller components and focus on tractable objectives. It would be easier for lawmakers to address more targeted goals in stand-alone bills, such as proposals to keep AI away from nuclear weapons launch systems or other critical public infrastruture; disclosure for AI-generated political advertising; limits on so-called “predictive policing” algorithmic applications or the use of facial recognition tools by law enforcement bodies; or even measures to promote more robust supercomputing labs and systems and other research and development efforts...