AI in the Balance: How the 2024 US Presidential Election Could Shape the Future of Artificial Intelligence Regulation

To go back to this article, go to My Profile, and then click on View saved stories.

A Victory for Trump Might Lead to Risky AI Advancements

Should Donald Trump emerge victorious in the upcoming US presidential election this November, there's a possibility that the current restrictions on the progression of artificial intelligence could be lifted. This comes at a time when the threats posed by flawed AI systems are becoming more alarming.

Should Trump secure a second term in office, it could profoundly alter, and potentially undermine, initiatives aimed at safeguarding US citizens from the various risks associated with flawed artificial intelligence. This includes challenges like the spread of false information, biased practices, and the corruption of algorithms in technologies such as self-driving cars.

Under an executive order issued by President Joe Biden in October 2023, the federal government has started to supervise and counsel companies involved in artificial intelligence. However, Trump has promised to overturn this directive, arguing through the Republican Party's stance that it obstructs the progress of AI technology and enforces extreme liberal concepts on the development of AI.

Trump's commitment has excited detractors of the executive order, which they view as unlawful, perilous, and a hindrance to the United States' technological competition with China. Among those detractors are several of Trump's key supporters, ranging from X CEO Elon Musk and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen to Republican congresspeople and almost 24 Republican state attorneys general. Trump's vice-presidential candidate, Senator JD Vance from Ohio, is firmly against regulating AI.

"Jacob Helberg, a technology leader and advocate for artificial intelligence, often referred to as the 'Silicon Valley’s liaison to Trump,' states that Republicans are cautious about hastily imposing excessive regulations on the sector."

However, technology and cybersecurity specialists caution that removing the Executive Order's safeguards could compromise the reliability of artificial intelligence systems, which are progressively becoming a part of every facet of life in the United States, including areas such as transport, healthcare, job markets, and monitoring activities.

The forthcoming presidential race could play a pivotal role in deciding if artificial intelligence will emerge as an unmatched instrument of efficiency or a wild catalyst for disorder.

Guidance and Counsel Working Together

The directive issued by Biden encompasses a range of topics, including the application of AI to enhance the healthcare of veterans and establishing protective measures for the utilization of AI in pharmaceutical research. However, the majority of the political debate surrounding the Executive Order arises from two clauses focused on managing digital security threats and the effects of AI on physical safety.

A specific clause mandates that proprietors of potent AI technologies must inform the authorities regarding their methods of model training and safeguarding against manipulation and theft. This includes submitting findings from "red-team tests," which are exercises aimed at identifying weaknesses in AI systems through mock assaults. Additionally, a separate clause instructs the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create guidelines assisting businesses in creating AI models that are secure against cyber threats and devoid of biases.

Progress on these initiatives is ongoing. The authorities have suggested that AI creators submit reports every three months, while the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published guidelines for AI on managing risks, developing secure software, watermarking digital content, and safeguarding against misuse of models. Furthermore, NIST has initiated several programs aimed at encouraging the testing of models.

Proponents argue that these initiatives are crucial for ensuring fundamental regulatory supervision over the swiftly growing artificial intelligence sector and encouraging developers to enhance security measures. However, opponents from the conservative spectrum view the mandatory reporting as an unauthorized intrusion by the government that could stifle innovation in AI and risk the exposure of developers' proprietary information. Additionally, they criticize the NIST guidelines as a strategy by liberals to introduce extreme leftist ideas regarding disinformation and bias into AI, which they believe equates to the suppression of conservative voices.

During a gathering in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in December, Trump targeted Biden's Executive Order, claiming without proof that the Biden administration had previously employed artificial intelligence for malicious intents.

"He stated, "Upon my reelection, I intend to revoke Biden's executive order on artificial intelligence and impose a prohibition on employing AI to suppress the expression of American citizens from the very first day."

Investigative Overreach or Necessary Inquiry?

The initiative by Biden to gather insights on the practices of companies in creating, examining, and securing their artificial intelligence systems immediately caused a commotion among lawmakers as soon as it was introduced.

Republican members of Congress highlighted President Biden's reliance on the 1950 Defense Production Act—a law designed for wartime to allow the government to guide the activities of the private sector for a steady supply of goods and services—as the basis for his new mandate. They criticized Biden's action as unsuitable, unlawful, and superfluous.

Critics from the conservative side have criticized the mandate for reporting as an unnecessary load on businesses. During a March session focused on "White House overreach on AI," which she led, Representative Nancy Mace expressed concerns that this requirement might deter potential innovators and hinder further developments akin to ChatGPT.

Helberg argues that a demanding obligation would advantage well-established firms while disadvantaging new ventures. Additionally, he mentions that critics from Silicon Valley are concerned that these mandates could pave the way for a regulatory system where developers are required to obtain official authorization to experiment with models.

Steve DelBianco, head of the right-leaning technology organization NetChoice, argues that mandating the disclosure of red-team test outcomes essentially acts as indirect censorship. This is because the government will scrutinize for issues such as bias and misinformation. "I am deeply concerned about an administration with liberal leanings… whose red-teaming examinations will lead AI to limit its output in order to avoid setting off these alarms," he states.

Conservatives maintain that regulations hindering AI development could lead to significant disadvantages for the US in its tech rivalry against China.

"Helberg remarks on their assertiveness and how making AI supremacy a central goal in their military strategy has been prioritized. He notes that the disparity in abilities between us and the Chinese is continuously narrowing as years go by."

"Progressive" Security Measures

By incorporating societal damages into its artificial intelligence safety protocols, NIST has sparked anger among conservative groups, igniting a new battleground in the ongoing cultural clash over content regulation and freedom of expression.

Republicans have criticized the NIST guidelines, describing them as a covert form of government-imposed censorship. Senator Ted Cruz harshly criticized the "woke AI 'safety' standards" set by NIST, which he perceives as a tactic by the Biden administration to regulate speech based on vague definitions of social harm. Furthermore, NetChoice has cautioned NIST against overstepping its boundaries by issuing semi-regulatory guidelines that disrupt the proper equilibrium between openness and freedom of expression.

Numerous conservatives outright reject the notion that AI can continue to cause societal damages and argue that it should be created to avoid such issues.

"Helberg argues that the proposed solution is addressing an issue that, in reality, seems nonexistent. He points out that there is a lack of substantial evidence to suggest widespread problems with AI bias."

Research and analyses consistently demonstrate that artificial intelligence systems harbor prejudices which continue to fuel discrimination in areas such as employment, law enforcement, and medical services. It has been indicated that individuals exposed to these biases might unknowingly internalize them.

Right-leaning individuals express greater concern over AI firms' excessive adjustments to this issue rather than the issue at hand. "The level of political correctness in an AI is inversely related to how useful the AI is," Helberg notes, referring to an initial problem with Google's AI creation platform.

Republicans are urging the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to prioritize the examination of the physical dangers AI poses, especially its potential in assisting terrorists in creating biological weapons, a concern that is partially covered in President Biden's executive order. Should Trump return to office, it's expected that his chosen officials will scale back on federal investigations into the societal impacts of AI. Helberg has voiced concerns that the vast volume of research focusing on AI discrimination has overshadowed the investigation into more significant dangers, such as terrorism and biological warfare.

Advocating for a "Minimalist Strategy"

Authorities in artificial intelligence and legislative members strongly support President Biden's plan for AI security.

These initiatives allow the United States to stay at the forefront of AI innovation, while safeguarding Americans from possible dangers, explains Representative Ted Lieu, the Democrat leading the House's AI task force.

A US government official involved in AI matters stresses the importance of reporting mandates to notify authorities about the emergence of potentially hazardous advancements in progressively sophisticated AI technologies. The official, who wished to remain unnamed to express opinions openly, refers to OpenAI's acknowledgment regarding its new model's "irregular denial to create nerve agents."

The representative states that the mandate for reporting is not excessively demanding. They contend that in comparison to AI directives in the European Union and China, Biden's Executive Order embodies a "wide-ranging, gentle approach that still promotes innovation."

Nick Reese, the inaugural director of emerging technology at the Department of Homeland Security from 2019 to 2023, dismisses right-leaning arguments suggesting that the new reporting mandate will threaten the intellectual property of businesses. He believes that this requirement might actually advantage new companies by motivating them to create AI models that are "more computationally efficient" and use less data, thereby staying below the threshold for reporting.

Ami Fields-Meyer, a former White House technology official involved in crafting Biden's executive order, emphasizes the necessity of governmental regulation given the significant capabilities of artificial intelligence.

Fields-Meyer mentions, "These firms claim to be developing the strongest technologies ever known to mankind. It's the primary duty of the government to safeguard its citizens. The assurance of 'Don't worry, we're handling it' doesn't quite inspire confidence."

Specialists commend the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) security recommendations as an essential tool for integrating safeguards into emerging technologies. They highlight that defective artificial intelligence (AI) systems can lead to significant societal damages, such as discrimination in housing and finance, as well as wrongful deprivation of state-provided benefits.

Trump's initial AI directive during his presidency mandated that federal AI technologies adhere to civil liberties, necessitating investigations into societal damages.

The artificial intelligence sector has generally embraced President Biden's agenda for safety. "The feedback we're getting indicates that outlining these guidelines is quite beneficial," remarks a US official. For emerging companies with limited staff, "it enhances their team's ability to tackle these issues."

Reversing Biden's Executive Order would transmit a concerning message that "the US government plans to adopt a laissez-faire stance on AI security," according to Michael Daniel, a past adviser on cybersecurity to the president who currently heads the Cyber Threat Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to the exchange of information.

Supporters of the Executive Order argue that implementing safety regulations will give the United States an advantage in its rivalry with China by guaranteeing that American AI systems outperform those developed by China and safeguarding them against economic espionage from Beijing.

Divergent Routes Ahead

Should Trump secure the presidency in the upcoming election, anticipate a significant shift in the government's strategy regarding AI safety.

Republicans are aiming to address the potential issues caused by AI through the use of "current tort and statutory laws" instead of imposing new, wide-ranging limitations on the technology, according to Helberg. They prefer to put a stronger emphasis on leveraging the benefits AI brings, rather than concentrating too much on minimizing risks. This approach could mean the end for the reporting requirement and might also affect some of the recommendations made by NIST.

The obligation to report might also encounter judicial obstacles, especially after the Supreme Court has diminished the level of respect that courts previously extended to agencies when assessing their rules.

Opposition from the Republican Party might also threaten the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) optional AI evaluation collaborations with top firms. “What will become of those agreements under a different government?” questions the official from the United States.

The division over AI has exasperated tech experts concerned that Trump might jeopardize efforts to develop more secure models.

"Nicol Turner Lee, who leads the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution, points out that while AI holds great promise, it also comes with significant risks. She emphasizes the importance of the forthcoming president maintaining the safety and security of these technologies."

Discover More…

Delivered to your email: A selection of top and most unusual tales from the vault of WIRED.

Interview: Marissa Mayer Doesn't Identify as a Feminist. She Prefers Being Called a Software Enthusiast

An AI system was utilized in detaining individuals until it underwent further scrutiny.

The Impact of a 12-Ounce Foam Layer on the NFL

Occasion: Be part of The Major Interview happening on December 3rd in San Francisco.

Additional Content from WIRED

Evaluations and Tutorials

© 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Purchases made through our site may result in a commission for WIRED, as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retail outlets. Content from this site cannot be copied, distributed, transmitted, stored, or used in any form without explicit written consent from Condé Nast. Advertisement Options

Choose a global website