[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
In AI Regulation Coverage, Media Let Lawmakers off the Hook Julianne Tveten ([link removed])


Wired: Everyone Wants to Regulate AI. No One Can Agree How

Wired (5/26/23 ([link removed]) ): "It’s a giant challenge to strike the right balance between industry innovation and protecting rights and citizens."

“Everyone Wants to Regulate AI. No One Can Agree How,” Wired (5/26/23 ([link removed]) ) proclaimed earlier this year. The headline resembled one from the New Yorker (5/20/23 ([link removed]) ) published just days prior, reading “Congress Really Wants to Regulate AI, but No One Seems to Know How.” Each reflected an increasingly common thesis within the corporate press: Policymakers would like to place guardrails on so-called artificial intelligence systems, but, given the technology’s novel and evolving nature, they’ll need time before they can take action—if they ever can at all.

This narrative contains some kernels of truth; artificial intelligence can be complex and dynamic, and thus not always easily comprehensible to the layperson. But the suggestion of congressional helplessness minimizes the responsibility of lawmakers—ultimately excusing, rather than interrogating, regulatory inertia.


** Struggling to 'catch up'
------------------------------------------------------------

Amid a piecemeal, noncommittal legislative climate ([link removed]) , media insist that policymakers are unable to keep pace with AI development, inevitably resulting in regulatory delays. NPR (5/15/23 ([link removed]) ) exemplified this with the claim that Congress had “a lot of catching up to do” on AI and the later question (5/17/23 ([link removed]) ) “Can politicians catch up with AI?” Months earlier, the New York Times (3/3/23 ([link removed]) ) reported that “lawmakers have long struggled to understand new innovations,” with Washington consequently taking “a hands-off stance.”
NYT: As A.I. Booms, Lawmakers Struggle to Understand the Technology

Congress has failed to regulate technology because "lawmakers have long struggled to understand new innovations," the New York Times (3/3/23 ([link removed]) ) reports—and not because tech firms give millions of dollars ([link removed]) to politicians, especially Democrats.

The Times noted that the European Union had proposed a law that would curtail some potentially harmful AI applications, including those made by US companies, and that US lawmakers had expressed intentions to review the legislation. (The EU's AI Act, as it’s known, may ([link removed]) become law by the end of 2023.) Yet the paper didn’t feel compelled to ask why the EU—whose ([link removed]) leadership ([link removed]) isn’t exactly dominated by computer scientists—could forge ahead with restrictions on the US AI industry, but the US couldn’t.

These outlets frame AI rulemaking as a matter of technical knowledge, when it would be more accurate, and constructive, to frame it as one of moral consideration. One might argue that, in order to regulate a form of technology that affects the public—say, via “predictive policing” algorithms ([link removed]) , or automated social-services software ([link removed]) —it’s more important to grasp its societal impact than its operational minutia. (Congressional staffer Anna Lenhart told the Washington Post—6/17/23 ([link removed]) —as much, but this notion seems to be far from mainstream.)

This certainly isn’t the prevailing view of the New York Times (8/24/23 ([link removed]) ), which argued that legislators’ lag continues a pattern of slow congressional responses to new technologies, repeating the refrain that policymakers “have struggled” to enact major technology laws. The Times cited the 19th century advent of steam-powered trains as an example of a daunting legislative subject, emphasizing that Congress took more than 50 years to institute railroad price controls.

Yet the process of setting pricing rules has little, if anything, to do with the mechanical specifics of a train. Could it be that delays on price controls were caused more by pro-corporate policy choices than by a lack of technological expertise? For the Times, such a question, which might begin to expose some of the ugly underpinnings of US governance, didn’t merit attention.


** The wrong incentives
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo depiction of Rep. Don Beyer going back to school

The Washington Post (12/28/22 ([link removed]) ) did a whole story about Rep. Don Beyer (D–Va.) going back to school to learn about AI—with no mention of his investments in AI stocks.

The New York Times need look no further than its own archives to find some more illuminating context for US lawmakers’ approach to AI regulation. Last year, the paper (9/13/22 ([link removed]) ) reported that 97 members of Congress owned stock in companies that would be influenced by those members’ regulatory committees. Indeed, many of those weighing in on AI regulation have a powerful incentive not to rein the technology in.

One of those 97 was Rep. Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (D–Va.), who “bought and sold [shares in Google parent company] Alphabet and Microsoft while he was on the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.” Beyer, who serves ([link removed]) as vice chair of the House AI Caucus, has been featured in multiple articles (Washington Post, 12/28/22 ([link removed]) ; ABC News, 3/17/23 ([link removed]) ) as a model AI legislator. The New York Times (3/3/23 ([link removed]) ) itself lauded Beyer’s enrollment in evening classes on AI, sharing his alert that regulation would “take time.”

Curiously, the coverage commending Beyer’s regulatory initiative has omitted his record of investing in the two companies—which happen to rank among the US’s most prominent ([link removed]) purveyors of AI software—while he was authorized to police them.

Elsewhere in its congressional stock-trading report, the New York Times called Rep. Michael McCaul (R–Texas) “one of Congress’s most active filers,” noting his investments in a whopping 342 companies, including ([link removed]) Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, which also has a tremendous financial stake ([link removed]) in AI. McCaul, like Beyer, boasts ([link removed]) a top-brass post on the House AI Caucus.

McCaul’s trades were dwarfed by those of fellow AI Caucus member Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), who, according to the Times, has owned stock in nearly 900 companies. Among them: leading ([link removed]) AI-chip manufacturer Nvidia (as of 2021 ([link removed]) ), Alphabet and Microsoft. (Khanna has nominally endorsed ([link removed]) proposals to curb congressional stock-trading, a stance contradicted by his vast portfolio.) Save for the Times exposé, none of the above pieces addressed Khanna’s, or McCaul’s, ethical breaches; in fact, Khanna is a recurring media source on AI legislation (Semafor, 4/26/23 ([link removed]) ; San Francisco Chronicle, 7/20/23
([link removed]) ).

Congressmembers, dozens of whom have historically owned stock ([link removed]) in AI companies, surely must be capable of learning about AI—and doing so swiftly—if they’ve been choosing to reap its monetary rewards for years. Why that knowledge can’t be applied to regulating the technology seems to be yet another question media are uninterested in asking.


** Defense of toothless action
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo: Senators want to regulate AI before it gets too big. They're running out of time.

Yahoo (5/17/23 ([link removed]) ) assures us that legislators "won't make same mistake with AI" that they did with social media.

In omitting this critical information, news sources are effectively giving Congress an undeserved redemption arc. Following years of legislative apathy to the surveillance ([link removed]) , monopolization ([link removed]) , labor ([link removed]) abuses ([link removed]) and countless other iniquities of Big Tech, media declare that legislators are trying to right their wrongs by targeting an ascendant AI industry (Yahoo! Finance, 5/17/23 ([link removed]) ; GovTech, 6/21/23 ([link removed]) ).

Accordingly, media have embraced policymakers’ efforts, no matter how feeble they may be. Throughout the year, politicians have hosted chummy hearings ([link removed]) and meetings ([link removed]) , as well as private dinners ([link removed]) , with the chiefs of major AI companies to discuss regulatory frameworks. Yet, rather than impugning the influence legislators have awarded these executives, outlets present these gatherings as testaments to lawmakers’ dedication.

CBS Austin (8/29/23 ([link removed]) ) justified congressional reliance on executives, whom it called “industry experts,” trumpeting that corporations like Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta were helping policymakers “chart a path forward.” The broadcaster went on to establish a pretext for business-friendly lawmaking:

Congress is trying to find a delicate balance ([link removed]) of safeguarding the public while allowing the promising aspects of the technology to flourish and propel the economy and country into the future.

The New York Times (8/28/23 ([link removed]) ), meanwhile, stated that Congress and the Biden administration have “leaned on” industry heads for “guidance on regulation,” a clever euphemism for lobbying. The Times reported that Congress would hold a forthcoming “closed-door listening session” with executives in order to “educate” its members, evincing no skepticism over what that education might involve. (At the session, Congress will also host civil rights and labor groups, who are theoretically much more qualified than C-suiters to determine the moral content of AI policymaking, but received much less fanfare from the Times.)

The guests of the “listening session,” per the Times, will include Twitter.com's Elon Musk, Google’s Sundar Pichai, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella. Might the fact that each ([link removed]) of ([link removed]) them ([link removed].) has ([link removed]) fought tech-industry constraints have some bearing on the future? Reading the Times story, which didn’t deem this worth a mention, one wouldn’t know.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .