Biden’s Executive Order Could Politicize AI
The Biden administration recently named Elizabeth Kelly as the head of the new Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institute under the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The appointment of Kelly, an economic adviser to the Biden White House and a key figure in drafting the legislation for the institute is touted by radical progressives as a step toward mitigating risks associated with AI.
Biden’s AI Executive Order Embraces Radical Ideology Over Innovationhttps://t.co/bZsWjClAt0
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) April 23, 2024
Proposed regulations have sparked concern among tech industry experts and conservative commentators that the new federal agencies will stifle innovation. Draft legislation that has been influenced by the “Center for AI Policy” would give bureaucrats sweeping powers to regulate and manipulate AI technology — including the outright seizure of AI systems under an administratively declared “state of emergency.”
The executive order also specifies the creation of the Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Administration, which would wield considerable power over the AI industry. The brand-new federal bureaucracy appears to be a handout to the “Effective Altruism” advocates like Paul Christiano, who are perceived as having outsized influence over federal policy due to the large political donations coming from far-left activists like Dustin Moskovitz, a co-founder of Facebook.
Critics such as Matthew Mittelsteadt, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center, warn that the administration’s stringent safety rules overlook the government’s practical budgetary and administrative capabilities, potentially slamming the brakes on AI development in the federal sector. Tech experts are warning readers about the likelihood of arbitrary digital censorship. Reports suggest a bias in “AI tuning” could prioritize political ideology above technological development.
The conversation around AI safety and regulation is undoubtedly complex. While the administration asserts that stringent controls are necessary to prevent misuse and ensure public safety, the debate continues about whether this approach is disproportionately influenced by a radical ideology at the expense of fostering innovation. As technology evolves, so will the discourse around its governance. However, it remains crucial that the push for “safety” upholds the dynamic nature of technological advancement and the benefits it can bring.