Search
Close this search box.

Tag: AI Policy

5 Changes the Biden-Harris Administration will Bring to AI Policy

As a new administration takes the reins of the federal government, there is a lot of speculation as to how they will steer policy in the area of technology and innovation. This issue is even more relevant as social media giants grapple with free speech in their platforms, Google is struggles with AI ethics and concerns over video surveillance grows. In the global stage, China moves forward with its ambitions of AI dominance and Europe continues to grapple with issues of data governance and privacy.

In this scenario, what will a Biden-Harris administration mean for AI in the US and global stage? In a previous blog, I described the decentralized US AI strategy, mainly driven by large corporations in Silicon Valley. Will a Biden administration bring continuity to this trend or will it change direction? While it is early to say for sure, we should expect 5 shifts as outlined below:

(1) Increased investment in non-military AI applications: In contrast to the $2 Bi promised by the Trump White House, Biden plans to ramp up public investment in R&D for AI and other emerging technologies. Official campaign statements promise a whopping $300 billion of investment. This is a significant change since public research funds tend to aim at socially conscious applications rather than profit-seeking ventures preferred by private investment. These investments should steer innovation towards social goals such as climate change, revitalizing the economy, and expanding opportunity. In the education front, $5 billion is earmarked for graduate programs in teaching STEM. These are important steps as nations across the globe seek to gain the upper hand on this crucial technology.

(2) Stricter bans on facial recognition: While this is mostly speculation at this point, industry observers cite Kamala’s recent statements and actions as an indication of forthcoming stricter rules. In her plan to reform the justice system, she cites concerns with law enforcement’s use of facial recognition and surveillance. In 2018, she sent letters to federal agencies urging them to take a closer look at the use of facial recognition in their practices as well as the industries they oversee. This keen interest in this AI application could eventually translate into strong legislation to regulate, curtail or even ban the use of facial recognition. It will probably fall somewhere between Europe’s 5-year ban on it and China’s pervasive use to keep the population in check.

Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash

(3) Renewed anti-trust push on Big Tech: The recent move started by Trump administration to challenge the big tech oligarchy should intensify under the new administration. Considering that the “FAMG”(Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google) group is in the avant-garde of AI innovation, any disruption to their business structures could impact advances in this area. Yet, a more competitive tech industry could also mean an increase in innovation. It is hard to determine how this will ultimately impact AI development in the US but it is a trend to watch in the next few years.

(4) Increased regulation: It is likely but not certain at this point. Every time a Democratic administration takes power, the underlying assumption by Wall Street is that regulation will increase. Compared to the previous administration’s appetite for dismantling regulation, the Biden presidency will certainly be a change. Yet, it remains to be seen how they will go about in the area of technology. Will they listen to experts and put science in front of politics? AI will definitely be a test of it. They will certainly see government as a strong partner with private industry. Also, they will likely walk back Trump’s tax cuts on business which could hamper innovations for some players.

(5) Greater involvement in the global stage: the Biden administration is likely to work closer with allies, especially in Europe. Obama’s AI principles released in 2012 became a starting point for the vigorous regulatory efforts that arose in Europe in the last 5 years. It would be great to see increased collaboration that would help the US establish strong privacy safeguards as the ones outlined by the GDPR. In regards to China, Biden will probably be more assertive than Obama but less belligerent than Trump. This could translate into restricting access to key technologies and holding China’s feet to the fire on surveillance abuses.

The challenges in this area are immense requiring careful analysis and deliberation. Brash decisions based on ideological short-cuts can both hamper innovation and fail to safeguard privacy. It is also important to build a nimble apparatus that can respond to the evolving nature of this technology. While not as urgent as COVID and the economy, the federal government cannot afford to delay reforming regulation for AI. Ethical concerns and privacy protection should be at the forefront seconded by incentives for social innovation.

Who Will Win the AI Race? Part II: The European Way

In a previous blog, I compared the approaches from China and the US as they compete in the global AI race. In short, China proposed a government-led approach while the US is leaning on a business-led approach. The European approach represents an attempt to balance both business’ and government’s efforts in directing AI innovation, therefore showing a third way to compete in the global AI race.

Great Britain recently announced a national AI strategy. In a mixture of private, academic and government resources, the country is pledging $ 1.4 Billion in investment. A remarkable piece of the plan is allocated funding for a Center for Data Ethics. The center will develop codes for safety and ethical use of machine learning.  Another noteworthy part of the plan is the initiative to fund 1,000 new PhDs and 8,000 teachers for UK secondary schools. This move will not only spur further innovation but also ensure the British workforce is prepared to absorb the changes brought by AI developments. It is essential that governments plan ahead to prepare the next generation for the challenges of opportunities of emerging technologies like AI. In this area, the UK’s plan sets a good precedent for others countries to follow as they look for ways to prepare their workforce for future AI disruptions. Such moral leadership will be a guide not only to European institutions but also help companies worldwide make better choices with their AI technologies. This perspective is essential to ensure AI development does not descend into an uncontrolled arms race.

 

In the European Union, France has also announced a national plan following a similar approach as the UK. Beyond the mix of private and government investment to the total of 1.5 billion euros, the country is also setting up an open data approach that both helps businesses and customers. On the one hand business can look at a centralized place for data on the other customers get centralized transparency of how their data is being collected and used. If executed well, this central data place can both provide quality data for AI models while still ensuring privacy concerns are mitigated. The strategy also includes innovative ideas such as harnessing the power of AI to solve environmental challenges and a narrow focus on industries that country can compete in. Similar to the British approach, the French plan also includes funding for an Ethics center.

While Germany has not announced a comprehensive plan to date, the country already leads in AI within the automotive industry. Berlin is considered the 4th largest hub for AI startups. An area in Southern Germany known as Cyber Valley is becoming a hub for collaboration between academia and industry for AI. Even without a stated national strategy, the country is well-positioned to become a hub of AI innovation for years to come.

These countries individual strategies are further bolstered by a regional strategy that aims to foster collaboration between countries. Earlier this year, the European commission pledged 20 Billion Euros over the next 2 years for the 25 country bloc. It proposed a three-pronged approach: 1) increase  investment in AI; 2) prepare for socio-economic changes; 3)Devise an appropriate ethical and legal framework. This holistic approach may not win the race but will certainly keep Europe as the moral leader in the field.

Conclusion

This short survey from these two blogs gives us a glimpse of the unfolding global AI race. The list here is not complete but represent three different types of approaches. In an axis of government involvement, China is at one extreme (most) compared to the US on the other (least). Europeans countries sit somewhere in the middle. In all cases, advances in AI will come from education, government and private enterprise. Yet a nation’s ability to coordinate, focus and control the development of AI can be the difference between harnessing the upcoming technological revolution for prosperity of their people and those that will struggle to survive its disruptions. Unlike previous races, this is not just about military supremacy. It touches every aspect of society and could become the dividing line between thriving and struggling nations.

Furthermore, how countries pursue this race can also have global impacts on the application of AI. This is where I believe the European model holds the most promise. The plans put forth by France and the UK could not only ensure these countries geo-political position but could have benefits for all nations. The regional approach and focus can also yield significant fruits for the future. Tying AI development efforts with ethical principles and sound policy is the best way to ensure that AI will be used towards human flourishing. I hope other countries follow their lead and start anticipating how they want AI to be used inside their borders. The true winner of the global AI race should not be any nation or region but humanity as a whole. Here is where France’s intention to use AI innovation to address environmental challenges is most welcome. When humanity wins, all countries benefit and the planet is better for it.