seek to establish public-private partnerships with leading AI industry organizations, academic institutions, nonprofit entities, and other organizations with expertise in AI and computer science education to collaboratively develop online resources focused on teaching K-12 students foundational AI literacy and critical thinking skills.
Does the person who whipped this together think AI and critical thinking are a package, or does this construction acknowledge that AI and critical thinking are two separate things? The eo also promises all sorts of federal funding to back all this vague partnering. The eo also contains this sad line:
the Secretary of Education shall identify and implement ways to utilize existing research programs to assist State and local efforts to use AI for improved student achievement, attainment, and mobility.
"Existing research programs"? Are there some? And "achievement, attainment, and mobility" mean what?
The eo also touts using Title II funds for boosting AI training for teachers, like reducing "time-intensive administrative tasks" and training that would help teachers "effectively integrate AI-based tools and modalities in classrooms."
Bureaucratic bloviating. Fine. Whatever. But House Republicans decided to take their game up a notch this week by adding this tasty piece of baloney. Budget reconciliation now includes this chunk of billage. The first part has to do with selling off some pieces of the broadcast spectrum, but the second part--
no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10- year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
There are exceptions, mostly of the "anything that helps AI companies expand or make money is okay" variety.
A ban on AI regulation is dumb, particularly given that folks are still trying to figure out what it can or can't do.
But a ban on regulation for the next decade??!! Who knew that the GOP would be involved in launching Skynet?
"Sir, it looks like Skynet is about to send something called a terminator to kill us all. Should we take action to prevent it?"
"Stand down, kid. The Republican party has forbidden us to take action. Kiss your children goodbye."
Seriously, we can already see that AI is taking us to some undesirable places, and God only knows what might develop over the next decade. To tie our regulatory hands, to unilaterally disarm and give up any ability to put restraints on the cyber-bull in our cultural china shop is just foolish.
Of course, what the proposed anti-regulation and the eo have in common is that they prioritize the chance for corporations to profit from AI. That's common to many actions of the regime, all based on the notion that there is nothing so precious in our country or culture that it should be protected from impulse to make a buck. What the GOP proposes is a "drill, baby, drill" for AI with the nation's youths, education system, and culture playing the part of the great outdoors.
Anti-regulation for AI is worse than the other brands of deregulation being pushed, because while we have some idea what deforesting a national park might look like, we have no way of imagining what may appear under the banner of AI in the next ten years. New ways to steal content for training? Out of control faux humans who intrude in scary and dangerous ways? Whole new versions of identity theft? There are so many terrible AI ideas out there (international diplomacy by AI, anyone) and so many more to come--even as AI may be actually getting worse at doing its thing. Not all of them need to be regulated, but to pre-emptively deregulate the industry, dark future unseen, in the hopes of cashing in-- that's venal, careless stupidity of the highest order.
No comments:
Post a Comment