// HIGHLIGHT //
The US White House’s approach to regulating AI:
Innovate, tackle risks, repeat
Generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, have reignited one of the most prominent dilemmas policymakers face: How to regulate this emerging technology without hindering innovation. The world’s three AI hotspots – the USA, the EU, and China – are each known for their distinct approaches to regulation: ranging from a hands-off attitude to strict regulation and enforcement frameworks.
Of the three, the USA has always favoured an innovation-first approach. It was this approach that helped a handful of American companies become the massive tech behemoths they are. But fast forward to 2023, a year that generative AI has hugely impacted: The ambience of today differs significantly from the atmosphere that enveloped Big Tech when they were just starting up.
US policymakers and top government officials have been sounding alarm bells over these risks in recent weeks. AI experts called for a moratorium on further development of generative AI tools: ‘We do not have the guardrails in place, the laws that we need, the public education, or the expertise in government to manage the consequences of the rapid changes that are now taking place,’ the chair of research institute Centre for AI and Digital Policy told the US Congress recently.
Despite all these warning bells, two developments last week signalled that the White House would continue favouring a guarded innovation-first approach as long as the risks are tackled.
The first was a high-level meeting between US Vice President Kamala Harris and the CEOs of Alphabet/Google, Anthropic, Microsoft, and OpenAI. According to the invitation the CEOs received, the aim was to have ‘a frank discussion of the risks we each see in current and near-term AI development, actions to mitigate those risks, and other ways we can work together’.
And the meeting, at which President Joe Biden also made a brief appearance, was exactly that. Harris told the CEOs that they needed to make sure their products were safe and secure before deploying them to the public, that they needed to mitigate the risks (to privacy, democratic values, and jobs), and that they needed to set an example for others, consistent with the US’ voluntary frameworks on AI.
In essence, the White House signalled that, for now, it has decided to trust that the companies will act responsibly, leaving it to Congress to figure out how tech companies can be held responsible. During a press call the day before, in reply to whether the administration ‘trust(ed) these companies to do that proactively given the history that we’ve seen in Silicon Valley with other technologies like social media’, the reply by senior administration officials was:
‘Clearly there will be things that we are doing and will continue to do in government, but we do think that these companies have an important responsibility. And many of them have spoken to their responsibilities. And, you know, part of what we want to do is make sure we have a conversation about how they’re going to fulfil those pledges.’
The second was the announcement of new measures ‘to promote responsible AI innovation’: funding to launch new research institutes; upcoming guidance on the use of AI by the federal government; and, interestingly, an endorsement of a red-teaming event at DEFCON 31 that will bring together AI experts, researchers, and students to dissect popular generative AI tools for vulnerabilities.
Why would the White House support a red-teaming event? First, because it’s a practical way of reducing the number of vulnerabilities and, therefore, limiting risks. Hackers will be able to experiment on jailbroken versions of the software, confidentially report vulnerabilities, and the companies will be given time to fix their software.
Second, it opens up the software to the scrutiny of the (albeit limited) public. Unless people know what’s really under the bonnet, they can’t report issues or help fix it.
Third, it’s low-hanging fruit for any approach that favours giving companies a free hand to innovate for now and taking other steps that do not involve heavy-handed regulation.
The question is not whether these steps will be enough. They’re not, as new AI tools will continue to be developed. Rather, it’s whether this guarded trust is misplaced and whether policymakers have learned from the past. As Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan wrote, ‘The trajectory of the Web 2.0 era was not inevitable — it was instead shaped by a broad range of policy choices. And we now face another moment of choice.’
AI an urgent threat, says AI pioneer
AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton, who turned 75 in December and who recently resigned from Google, tells news portal Reuters that AI could pose a ‘more urgent’ threat to humanity than climate change. In another interview with the Guardian, he says there’s no simple solution.
Starlink arrives in Africa, but South Africa left behind
Starlink, the satellite internet constellation developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, has started operating in Nigeria, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Mauritius over the past few months, with 19 more African countries scheduled for launch this year and the next. But South Africa is notably missing from this list. Could this be due to South Africa’s foreign ownership rule, which grants licences only to companies with at least 30% South African ownership of the company seeking to operate there? A Ventures Africa contributor investigates.
