China is pushing ahead on plans to regulate humanlike artificial intelligence, including by forcing AI companies to ensure that users know they are interacting with a bot online.
Under a proposal released on Saturday by China’s cyberspace regulator, people would have to be informed if they were using an AI-powered service—both when they logged in and again every two hours…
Additionally, AI companies would have to undergo security reviews and inform local government agencies if they rolled out any new humanlike AI tools. And chatbots that tried to engage users on an emotional level would be banned from generating any content that would encourage suicide or self-harm or that could be deemed damaging to mental health. They would also be barred from generating outputs related to gambling or obscene or violent content.
A mounting body of research shows that AI chatbots are incredibly persuasive, and there are growing concerns around the technology’s addictiveness and its ability to sway people toward harmful actions.
…The proposal … stands in contrast to Washington, D.C.’s stuttering approach to regulating the technology. This past January President Donald Trump scrapped a Biden-era safety proposal for regulating the AI industry. And earlier this month Trump targeted state-level rules designed to govern AI, threatening legal action against states with laws that the federal government deems to interfere with AI progress.
Pretty interesting. The current U.S. federal government under Donald Trump, abetted by his "conservative" SCOTUS majority, has been on a relentless ideological jihad to scuttle regulations at every turn, irrespective of their rational governance utility.
China's plans could change—the draft proposal is open to comment until January 25, 2026. But the effort underscores Beijing’s push to advance the nation’s domestic AI industry ahead of that of the U.S., including through the shaping of global AI regulation. —SciAm
BobbyG's quickie "regulatory" elevator speech.
EPA CLIA NRC DOE DOD OSHA HHS ONC FDA FTC OCC FDIC
The foregoing comprise the U.S. federal administrative/regulatory entities with which my wife and I have had in-depth personal experience across our respective careers.
To the extent that it casually slips your notice, human transactional affairs get “regulated“ one way or another. Pursuant to our constitution, U.S. Federal legislation passed by Congress and signed into statutes (the USC) instruct appropriate officials on the "what" that is intended to be accomplished (sometimes including "why" statements). Those USC measures include instructions pertaining to the "who," "how," "where," and "when" provisions to be "faithfully executed" within the mechanisms of governance—typically by relevant executive department executives and subordinate designees (federal statutes routinely contain phrases authorizing requisite actions "as the Secretary shall determine..."). Such activities comprise the specs within the CFR, the "Code of Federal Regulations."
The subordinate CFR development process commences with a "NPRM,"—a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" providing for public participation in the development of "Final Rules" that hew to the intent and scope of the statutes.
Yeah, regs can been bloated, inefficient, and otherwise off-point, but there are in fact long-standing "administrative law" processes available to remediate legislative operational inadequacies.
It's called "representative Democracy" at work.
BUT, THEN, THERE'S THE DONALD
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor’s attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it.
To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce…
Need I elaborate?
More to come...
No comments:
Post a Comment