Washington's Growing AI Anxiety

Most people don't understand the nuances ofartificial intelligence (AI), but at some level they comprehend that it'll bebig, transformative and cause disruptions across multiple sectors. And even if AIproliferation won't lead to a robot uprising, Americans are worried about how AI and automation willaffect their livelihoods.

Recognizing this anxiety, our policymakershave increasingly turned their attention to the subject. In the 115th Congress,there have already been more mentions of "artificial intelligence" in proposed legislation and in the Congressional Record than ever before.

While not everyone agrees on how we shouldapproach AI regulation, one approach that has gained considerable interest isaugmenting the federal government's expertise and capacity to tackle the issue.In particular, Sen. Brian Schatz has called for a new commission on AI; and Sen.Maria Cantwell hasintroduced legislation setting up a new committee within the Department ofCommerce to study and report on the policy implications ofAI.

This latter bill, the "FUTURE of Artificial Intelligence Act" (S.2217/H.4625), sets forth a bipartisan proposal thatseems to be gainingsome traction. Whilethe bill's sponsors should be commended for taking a moderate approach in theface of growing populist anxiety, it's not clear that the proposed advisorycommittee would be particularly effective at all it sets out to do.

One problem with the bill is how it sets thedefinition of AI as a regulatory subject. For most of us, it's hard toarticulate precisely what we mean when we talk about AI. The term "AI" can describea sophisticated program like Apple's Siri, but it can also refer to Microsoft'sClippy, or pretty much any kind of computer software.

It turns out that AI is a difficult thing to define, even for experts.Some even argue that it's a meaninglessbuzzword. While this is a fine debate to have in the academy, prematurelyenshrining a definition in a statute - as this bill does - is likely to be thebasis for future policy (indeed, another recent bill offers a totally different definition). Downthe road, this could lead to confusion and misapplication of AI regulations. Thisprovision also seems unnecessary, since the committee is empowered to changethe definition for its own use.

The committee's stated goals are also overly-ambitious.In the course of a year and a half, it would set out to "study and assess" overa dozen different technical issues, from economic investment, to workerdisplacement, to privacy, to government use and adoption of AI (although,notably, not defense or cyber issues). These are all important issues. However,the expertise required to adequately deal with these subjects is likely beyondthe capabilities of 19 voting members of the committee, which includes onlyfive academics. While the committee could theoretically choose to focus on anarrower set of topics in its final report, this structure is fundamentally notgeared towards producing the sort of deep analysis that would advance thedebate.

Instead of trying to address every AI-relatedpolicy issue with one entity, a better approach might be to build separate, specializedadvisory committees based in different agencies. For instance, the Departmentof Justice might have a committee on using AI for risk assessment, the GeneralServices Administration might have a committee on using AI to streamlinegovernment services and ITinfrastructure, and the Department of Labor might have a committee on worker displacementcaused by AI and automation or on using AI in employment decisions. While thisapproach risks some duplicative work, it would also be much more likely toproduce deep, focused analysis relevant to specific areas of oversight.

Of course, even the best public advisorycommittees have limitations, including politicization, resource constraints andcompliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, notall advisory bodies have to be within (or funded by) government. Outsideresearch groups, policy forums and advisory committees exist within the privatesector and can operate beyond the limitations of government bureaucracy whilestill effectively informing policymakers. Particularly for those issues notdirectly tied to government use of AI, academic centers, philanthropies and other groupscould step in to fill this gap without any need for new public expenditures orenabling legislation.

If Sen. Cantwell's advisory committee-focusedproposal lacks robustness, Sen. Schatz's call for creating a new "independent federalcommission" with a mission to "ensure that AI is adopted in the best interestsof the public" could go beyond the bounds of political possibility. To hiscredit, Sen. Schatz identifies real challenges with government use of AI, such as those posed by criminal justice applications,and in coordinating between different agencies. These are real issues thatwarrant thoughtful solutions. Nonetheless, the creation of a new agency for AIis likely to run into a great deal of pushback from industry groups and thepolitical right (like similar proposals in the past), making it a difficultproposal to move forward.

Beyond creating a new commission or advisorycommittees, the challenge of federal expertise in AI could also besubstantially addressed by reviving Congress' Office of Technology Assessment(which I discuss in a recent paper withKevin Kosar). Reviving OTA has a number of advantages: OTA raneffectively for years and still exists in statute, it isn't a regulatory body,it is structurally bipartisan and it would have the capacity to produce deep-diveanalysis in a technology-neutral manner. Indeed, there's good reason tostrengthen the First Branch first, since Congress is ultimately responsible formaking the legal frameworks governing AI as well as overseeing governmentusage.

Lawmakers are right to characterize AI as a big deal. Indeed, there are trillions ofdollars in potential economic benefits at stake. Whilethe instincts to build expertise and understanding first make for a commendableapproach, policymakers will need to do it the right way - across multiplefacets of government - to successfully shape the future of AI without hinderingits transformative potential.