Connect with us

Published

on

CbatGPT developer OpenAI announced last week that it had fired CEO Sam Altman due to a loss of confidence by the board — only to see him return to the company after 90% of OpenAI staffers threatened to resign. The firing caused a flurry of excitement from companies offering to match OpenAI salaries in an attempt to lure top-tier talent.

The debacle — and its associated lack of transparency — highlighted the need to regulate AI development, particularly when it comes to security and privacy. Companies are developing their artificial intelligence divisions rapidly and a reshuffling of talent could propel one company ahead of others and existing laws. While President Joe Biden has taken steps to that effect, he has been relying on executive orders, which do not require input from Congress. Instead, they rely on agency bureaucrats to interpret them — and could change when a new president is inaugurated.

Biden this year signed an executive order related to the “safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence.” It commanded AI companies to “protect” workers from ‘harm,’ presumably in reference to the potential loss of their jobs. It also tasked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with, in part, establishing governing structures within federal agencies. It also asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to self-evaluate and determine whether it has the authority “to ensure fair competition in the AI marketplace and to ensure that consumers and workers are protected from harms that may be enabled by the use of AI.”

Biden’s executive orders are not going to last long

The fundamental problem with an approach driven by executive fiat is its fragility and limited scope. As evident by the SEC and CFTC’s (largely unsuccessful) attempts to classify cryptocurrencies as securities, tasking agencies with promulgating laws can cause confusion and apprehension amongst investors, and are ultimately open to interpretation by the courts.

Related: WSJ debacle fueled US lawmakers’ ill-informed crusade against crypto

Policies developed by agencies without legislative support also lack permanence. While public input is necessary for the passing of agency-backed regulations, the legislative process allows consumers of artificial intelligence and digital assets to have a stronger voice and assist with the passage of laws that deal with actual problems users face — instead of problems invented by often ambitious bureaucrats.

Biden’s failure to address the complex ethical implications of AI implementation on a mass scale is dangerous; concerns such as bias in algorithms, surveillance and privacy invasion are barely being addressed. Those issues should be addressed by Congress, made up of officials elected by the people, rather than agencies composed of appointees.

Related: 3 theses that will drive Ethereum and Bitcoin in the next bull market

Without the rigorous debate required for Congress to pass a law, there is no guarantee of a law that promotes security and privacy for everyday users. Specifically, users of artificial intelligence need to have control over how this automated technology uses and stores personal data. This concern is particularly acute in the field of AI, where many users fail to understand the underlying technology and the severe security concerns that come with sharing personal information. Furthermore, we need laws that ensure companies are conducting risk assessments and maintaining their automated systems in a responsible manner.

Reliance on regulations enacted by federal agencies will ultimately lead to confusion — consumers distrusting artificial intelligence. This precise scenario played out with digital assets after the SEC’s lawsuits against Coinbase, Ripple Labs, and other crypto-involved institutions, which made some investors apprehensive about their involvement with crypto companies. A similar scenario could play out in the field of AI where the FTC and other agencies sue AI companies and tie vital issues up in the court system for years ahead.

It’s imperative that Biden engage Congress on these issues instead of hiding behind the executive  branch. Congress, in turn, must rise to the occasion, crafting legislation that encapsulates the concerns and aspirations of a diverse set of stakeholders. Without such collaborative efforts, the United States risks repeating the pitfalls experienced in the digital assets domain, potentially lagging behind other nations and driving innovation elsewhere. More importantly, the security and privacy of American citizens — as well as many around the globe — is in jeopardy.

John Cahill is an associate in national law firm Wilson Elser’s White Plains, N.Y., office. John focuses his practice on digital assets, and ensures that clients comply with current and developing laws and regulations. He received a B.A. from St. Louis University and a J.D. from New York Law School.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Wes Streeting ‘crossed the line’ by opposing assisted dying in public, says Labour peer Harriet Harman

Published

on

By

Wes Streeting 'crossed the line' by opposing assisted dying in public, says Labour peer Harriet Harman

Wes Streeting “crossed the line” by opposing assisted dying in public and the argument shouldn’t “come down to resources”, a Labour peer has said.

Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harriet Harman criticised the health secretary for revealing how he is going to vote on the matter when it comes before parliament later this month.

MPs are being given a free vote, meaning they can side with their conscience and not party lines, so the government is supposed to be staying neutral.

But Mr Streeting has made clear he will vote against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns end-of-life care is not good enough for people to make an informed choice, and that some could feel pressured into the decision to save the NHS money.

He has also ordered a review into the potential costs of changing the law, warning it could come at the expense of other NHS services if implemented.

Baroness Harman said Mr Streeting has “crossed the line in two ways”.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

“He should not have said how he was going to vote, because that breaches neutrality and sends a signal,” she said.

“And secondly… he’s said the problem is that it will cost money to bring in an assisted dying measure, and therefore he will have to cut other services.

“But paradoxically, he also said it would be a slippery slope because people will be forced to bring about their own death in order to save the NHS money. Well, it can’t be doing both things.

“It can’t be both costing the NHS money and saving the NHS money.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Review into assisted dying costs

Baroness Harman said the argument “should not come down to resources” as it is a “huge moral issue” affecting “only a tiny number of people”.

She added that people should not mistake Mr Streeting for being “a kind of proxy for Keir Starmer”.

“The government is genuinely neutral and all of those backbenchers, they can vote whichever way they want,” she added.

Read more on this story:
‘Fix care before assisted dying legislation’
Why assisted dying is controversial – and where it’s already legal

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously expressed support for assisted dying, but it is not clear how he intends to vote on the issue or if he will make his decision public ahead of time.

The cabinet has varying views on the topic, with the likes of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood siding with Mr Streeting in her opposition but Energy Secretary Ed Miliband being for it.

Britain's Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband walks on Downing Street on the day of the budget announcement, in London, Britain October 30, 2024. REUTERS/Maja Smiejkowska
Image:
Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband is said to support the bill. Pic: Reuters

Shabana Mahmood arrives 10 Downing Street.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has concerns. Pic: Reuters

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being championed by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, who wants to give people with six months left to live the choice to end their lives.

Under her proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.

MPs will debate and vote on the legislation on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015, when the proposal was defeated.

Continue Reading

Politics

SEC crypto cases will be ‘dismissed or settled’ under Trump: Consensys CEO

Published

on

By

SEC crypto cases will be ‘dismissed or settled’ under Trump: Consensys CEO

The crypto industry is “going to save hundreds of millions of dollars” with Donald Trump as president, Consensys CEO Joe Lubin forecasts.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Crypto Dad’ squashes rumors that he could replace Gensler as SEC Chair

Published

on

By

<div>'Crypto Dad' squashes rumors that he could replace Gensler as SEC Chair</div>

Former CFTC Acting Chair Chris Giancarlo said he’s “already cleaned up earlier Gary Gensler mess,” shooting down speculation he’d replace the SEC Chair.

Continue Reading

Trending