Draft rules from the White House would require federal agencies to assess AI systems currently in use in law enforcement, health care, and other areas—and to shut down any algorithms doing harm.

Highlights: The White House issued draft rules today that would require federal agencies to evaluate and constantly monitor algorithms used in health care, law enforcement, and housing for potential discrimination or other harmful effects on human rights.

Once in effect, the rules could force changes in US government activity dependent on AI, such as the FBI’s use of face recognition technology, which has been criticized for not taking steps called for by Congress to protect civil liberties. The new rules would require government agencies to assess existing algorithms by August 2024 and stop using any that don’t comply.

@twisted28@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
9
edit-2
10M

deleted by creator

@paf0@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
-21Y

Interesting. I want algorithms to warn us about potential harms by Joe Biden. What if we were able to fund an AI run by the GAO that can tell us when government decisions make the majority of our lives worse?

It’s a long way off and might be a bad idea to trust an AI outright, but I just wish we had a more data informed government.

@Syringe@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
51Y

You might be interested in data.gov. The Obama admin kicked of the Government Open Data Initiative to provide transparency in government. Agencies have been given a means to publish their data, which US taxes pay for. You’d be surprised what’s in there. It’s not an algorithm, but you could certainly build one from that if you wanted to.

@kapx132@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
3
edit-2
1Y

Watchmen watching over themselves, what could possibly go wrong right?

@KeraKali@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
53
edit-2
1Y

“If the benefits do not meaningfully outweigh the risks, agencies should not use the AI,” the memo says. But the draft memo carves out an exemption for models that deal with national security and allows agencies to effectively issue themselves waivers if ending use of an AI model “would create an unacceptable impediment to critical agency operations.”

This tells me that nothing is going to change if people can just say their algoriths would make them too inefficient. Great sentiment but this loophole will make it useless.

Folksy narrator: “Turns out, the U.S. government can not operate without racism.”

doom_and_gloom
link
fedilink
English
2
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

@masquenox@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
41Y

Great sentiment but

It’s not a “great sentiment” - it’s essentially just more of the same liberal “let’s pretend we care by doing something completely ineffective” posturing and little else.

Cris
link
fedilink
English
581Y

I mean that broadly seems like a good thing. Execution is important, but on paper this seems like the kind of forward thinking policy we need

@pandacoder@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
11Y

Quite frankly it didn’t put enough restrictions on the various “national security” agencies, and so while it may help to stem the tide of irresponsible usage by many of the lesser-impact agencies, it doesn’t do the same for the agencies that we know will be the worst offenders (and have been the worst offenders).

@Wakmrow@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
11Y

deleted by creator

@db2@sopuli.xyz
link
fedilink
English
-341Y

Joe Biden probably has no idea what most of those words mean, let’s be honest here. He’s only the president because the only other option we were given was worse.

Jo Miran
link
fedilink
English
381Y

I don’t want somebody that knows and understands everything. I want somebody that surround themselves with people that collectively know and understand, and can then explain it to him like he’s an octogenarian.

@5BC2E7@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
71Y

Just because some of us understand this issue better than him it doesn’t mean that we should expect him to understand everything at the same level as if he worked in the area… it’s impossible he can’t be an expert economist, computer scientist, anthropologist, chemist, biologist, etc… rolled into one.

For the record I don’t think he is a great president.

@Motavader@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
101Y

So what? The biggest part of picking a President is the people they’re going to put in their cabinet and surround themselves with. That’s the problem with Trump. He’s going to fill the presidency with a bunch of maga ass hats, on top of doing his own damage.

deleted by creator

Create a post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


  • 1 user online
  • 191 users / day
  • 586 users / week
  • 1.37K users / month
  • 4.49K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 7.41K Posts
  • 84.7K Comments
  • Modlog