October 5, 2020 — Germany has attempted to improve awareness of the potential degree of consumer harm that artificial intelligence systems cause by developing categories about the degree of environmental, economic, and societal impact it could cause.
To hear expert opinions on whether policymakers and stakeholders in the United States should adopt similar models and utilize AI certifications, ratings and labeling, the Brookings Institute hosted a panel on Thursday to consider potential “blind spots.”
“We need some sort of testing or auditing mechanism,” said Elham Tabassi, chief of staff of the information technology laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
“Standards for AI are lacking right now,” Tabassi said, and experts “don’t know how to test AI systems for bias.”
Mark MacCarthy, adjunct faculty of communication, culture, and technology at Georgetown University, detailed what has traditionally occurred when industry applied ethics systems in an attempt to manage new forms of media or technology.
The Platform for Privacy Preferences Project, or P3P, was “a system developed when the public was worried about safety online, which allowed users to opt out of online tracking,” said MacMarthy.
The idea was that websites would post their privacy policies in P3P format and web browsers would download them automatically and compare them with each user’s privacy settings.
“A vast number of systems have been proposed for ethics of artificial intelligence,” said MacMarthy. “The rating system is not well developed, but I hope this conversation can help it,” he said.
MacCarthy maintained that he held two reservations. First, he noted that most non-mandatory ethics regulations have failed because of a lack of industry buy-in. It “would need to be mandatory,” as “industry has no reason to use it,” said MacCarthy.
Second, “even with coercion the objective of an AI rating system is to give consumers more information about these systems, and to be honest, that may not be enough,” he concluded.
“There are so many complications in the AI process, it makes it extremely difficult,” to pinpoint where systems go wrong, said John Villasenor, nonresident senior fellow of governance studies at the Center for Technology.
One issue, according to Villasenor, is that AI systems are “produced by commercial entities, to make a profit.”
“Many companies don’t put their source code on the internet because they want to remain competitive,” he said. Further, there are over “500,000 lines of code, it may not be easy to figure out exactly what the algorithm is doing.”
The panelists did not rally around the German approach of looking at high risk algorithms and labeling them.
“How to decide if something is high risk?,” questioned Elham. He also wondered if labeling and categorizing AI would create a false sense of complacency.
Deepfakes Pose National Security Threat, Private Sector Tackles Issue
Content manipulation can include misinformation from authoritarian governments.
WASHINGTON, July 20, 2022 – Content manipulation techniques known as deepfakes are concerning policy makers and forcing the public and private sectors to work together to tackle the problem, a Center for Democracy and Technology event heard on Wednesday.
A deepfake is a technical method of generating synthetic media in which a person’s likeness is inserted into a photograph or video in such a way that creates the illusion that they were actually there. Policymakers are concerned that deepfakes could pose a threat to the country’s national security as the technology is being increasingly offered to the general population.
Deepfake concerns that policymakers have identified, said participants at Wednesday’s event, include misinformation from authoritarian governments, faked compromising and abusive images, and illegal profiting from faked celebrity content.
“We should not and cannot have our guard down in the cyberspace,” said Representative John Katko, R-NY, ranking member of House Committee on homeland security.
Adobe pitches technology to identify deepfakes
Software company Adobe released an open-source toolkit to counter deepfake concerns earlier this month, said Dana Rao, executive vice president of Adobe. The companies’ Content Credentials feature is a technology developed over three years that tracks changes made to images, videos, and audio recordings.
Content Credentials is now an opt-in feature in the company’s photo editing software Photoshop that it says will help establish credibility for creators by adding “robust, tamper-evident provenance data about how a piece of content was produced, edited, and published,” read the announcement.
Adobe’s Connect Authenticity Initiative project is dedicated to addressing problems establishing trust after the damage caused by deepfakes. “Once we stop believing in true things, I don’t know how we are going to be able to function in society,” said Rao. “We have to believe in something.”
As part of its initiative, Adobe is working with the public sector in supporting the Deepfake Task Force Act, which was introduced in August of 2021. If adopted, the bill would establish a National Deepfake and Digital task force comprised of members from the private sector, public sector, and academia to address disinformation.
For now, said Cailin Crockett, senior advisor to the White House Gender Policy Council, it is important to educate the public on the threat of disinformation.
Should the Federal Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
Two experts were on opposite sides of the debate about how to mitigate the downsides of AI.
WASHINGTON, July 12, 2022 – Representatives from academia and a nonprofit diverged at a Bipartisan Policy Center event Tuesday about whether the government should step in and minimize problems associated with artificial intelligence, including bias and discrimination in algorithms.
“We really do want actors to help us establish national and international guidelines,” said Miriam Vogel, president, and CEO of EqualAI, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce bias in AI. “We are driving full speed without lanes, without speed limits to manage the expectations.”
While acknowledging the benefits of AI in society today, Vogel said its algorithms present risk that often leads to bias and discrimination. She shared the example of how facial recognition misses certain voices or skin tones.
AI is used in various sectors and powers algorithms that cater services to individuals. Panelists referenced the use of AI algorithms in suspect identification for criminal justice, in disease diagnosis in health care, and for movie and employment recommendations.
Vogel said regulation will establish clear expectations for AI companies to minimize such risks.
Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, said he is “a little skeptical that we should create a regulatory AI structure” and instead proposed educating workers on how to set best practices for risk management. He called this an “educational institution approach.”
He said that because of how long federal law takes to enact, he wants to reach AI workers directly, such as the computer programmers and AI innovators “of tomorrow” to do a better job of “baking best practices” into AI.
“I think baking best practice principles in by design begins with an educational focus,” said Thierer.
Thierer said he wants to give this job to trusted third parties to suggest pathways forward, including ethical evaluations and consultations with AI companies. He said that when it comes to AI rules across different sectors, “we don’t need one overarching standard to rule them all.”
Thierer added that because of how fast AI is changing, “it can’t go through the same regulatory process.” He argued if regulation is put in place, we will lose AI innovators.
Vogel disagreed with Thierer, saying she doesn’t believe that there is a risk of losing innovators with regulating AI, and instead, said, “I see regulation is the partner to innovation.”
She said that because there is no government regulation for AI, companies are left to do it themselves if they choose, referencing the Badge Program at EqualAI that seeks to help companies navigate risks.
“We need to have a governance system put in place to make sure continual testing is taking place,” said Vogel.
FTC Commissioner Says Agency Report on AI for Online Harms Did Not Consult Outside Experts
The FTC released a report that warned about the dangers of AI’s use to combat online harms.
WASHINGTON, June 22, 2022 – Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips said last week that a report by the commission about the use of artificial intelligence to tackle online harms did not consult outside experts as Congress asked.
The FTC’s “Combatting Online Harms through Innovation” report – approved by a 4-1 vote to send to Congress and released on June 16 – warns against using AI as a policy solution for online problems, as the commission says it contains inherent design flaws, bias and discrimination, and features commercial surveillance concerns. The commission concluded that the potential adoption of AI could increase additional harms.
However, the report found that amid the use of AI by Big Tech platforms to address online harms, “lawmakers should consider focusing on developing legal frameworks that would ensure that AI tools do not cause additional harm.”
The one dissenting opinion on the report was from Phillips, who said the FTC did not do the study that was required by Congress. As part of the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress asked the FTC to conduct a study on how artificial intelligence could address online harms such as fake reviews, hate crimes and harassment and child sexual abuse.
“I do not believe we conducted the requisite study, and I do not think the report on AI issued by the Commission takes sufficient care to answer the questions Congress asked,” Phillips said in his dissenting statement.
Phillips said the report mainly focuses on the technology of AI itself and lacks the outside perspective from individuals and companies who use AI and try to combat the harms of AI online, which he said is “precisely what Congress asked us to evaluate.”
Phillips added that in the 12 months the FTC was given to complete this study, “rather than use this time to solicit input from all relevant stakeholders, the Commission chose to conduct a kind of literature review.
Phillips said in his statement he would have liked to see interviews of market participants or surveys conducted, which allegedly isn’t included in the recent report and adds that he is instead concerned about the “quantity of self-reference” used by the FTC in the report.
“Still, we should at least endeavor to produce a report that reflects the full diversity of experiences and viewpoints on these important issues concerning AI.” Phillips also noted the report doesn’t include a serious cost-benefit analysis of using AI to combat online harms.
- Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chair Takes FCC to Task for Communication With Tribes
- Dianne Crocker: Recession Fears Have Real Estate Market Forecasters Hitting the Reset Button
- Kenosha Gets Fiber, Judiciary Committee Advances Journalism Bill, Rosenworcel Touts Women in Tech
- 62% of Americans Have Access to High-Speed 5G, Says New BroadbandNow Map
- Reason 3 to Attend Broadband Mapping Masterclass: State Maps vs. Federal Maps
- Panelists at Broadband Breakfast Event Urge the FCC Mapping Fabric Be Made Public
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
Comcast and Charter’s State Grants, AT&T Fiber in Arizona, New US Cellular Lobbyist
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
AT&T Sues T-Mobile Over Ad, Nokia Partners with Ready, LightPath Expanding
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on September 21, 2022 – Broadband Mapping and Data
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
Promoting Affordable Connectivity Program, Google Bars Truth Social, T-Mobile Wins 2.5 GHz Auction
Fiber3 weeks ago
Missouri City Utility to Complete Fiber Build Using Utility Lease Model
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on September 14, 2022 – How Can Cities Take Advantage of Federal Broadband Funding?
Rural4 weeks ago
FCC Commits Additional $800 Million From Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on September 7, 2022 – Assessing the NTIA’s Middle Mile Grant Application Process