Zero Trust Artificial Governance: A Framework for Responsible Artificial Intelligence that Addresses the Rise of Generative AI and its Implications for Consumer Protection

Congress is trying to figure out how to address the rise of generative artificial intelligence. Schumer told his colleagues to pick up the pace. Big AI companies like OpenAI have been open to working with the US government to craft regulations and even signed a nonbinding, unenforceable agreement with the White House to develop responsible AI.

The framework was sent to politicians and government agencies in the US, asking them to think about it as they work on new laws and regulations around artificial intelligence.

They call the framework Zero Trust Artificial Governance because it rests on three principles; enforce existing laws, create bold and easily implemented rules, and place the burden of proving that the system is not harmful in each phase of the lifecycle. Its definition of AI encompasses both generative AI and the foundation models that enable it, along with algorithmic decision-making.

“We wanted to get the framework out now because the technology is evolving quickly, but new laws can’t move at that speed,” Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech, tells The Verge.

Lehrich pointed to the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation into OpenAI as an example of existing rules being used to discover potential consumer harm. Other government agencies have also warned AI companies that they will be closely monitoring the use of AI in their specific sectors.

Discrimination and bias in artificial intelligence has been warned about for years by researchers. A recent article by Rolling Stone discussed how experts such as Timnit Gebru sounded the alarm for years but were ignored by the companies they were employed by.

Artificial Intelligence Companies Must Prove Their AI Is Safe, says Nonprofit Group [AI Companies must prove their AI is safe, says nonprofit group]

“The idea behind Section 230 makes sense in broad strokes, but there is a difference between a bad review on Yelp because someone hates the restaurant and GPT making up defamatory things,” Lehrich says. (Section 230 was passed in part precisely to shield online services from liability over defamatory content, but there’s little established precedent for whether platforms like ChatGPT can be held liable for generating false and damaging statements.)

Artificial intelligence and facial recognition in particular have been banned for use in public places, and fully automated hiring, firing, and HR management. They also ask to ban collecting or processing unnecessary amounts of sensitive data for a given service, collecting biometric data in fields like education and hiring, and “surveillance advertising.”

Accountable Tech also urged lawmakers to prevent large cloud providers from owning or having a beneficial interest in large commercial AI services to limit the impact of Big Tech companies in the AI ecosystem. Cloud providers such as Microsoft and Google have an outsize influence on generative AI. OpenAI, the most well-known generative AI developer, works with Microsoft, which also invested in the company. Google released its large language model Bard and is developing other AI models for commercial use.

The proposed method would be similar to one used in the pharmaceutical industry where companies would submit to regulation before they deploy the model to the public.

The nonprofits do not call for a single government regulatory body. However, Lehrich says this is a question that lawmakers must grapple with to see if splitting up rules will make regulations more flexible or bog down enforcement.

Smaller companies might find it hard to get too much regulation, but he believes there is room to make policies tailored to company size.

Source: AI companies must prove their AI is safe, says nonprofit group

Tik Tok: Exploring Artificial Intelligence for the Protection of Cognitive Liberty in the Age of Neurotechnology and a Free-Memory Approach

We need to identify the appropriate design requirements for each phase of the artificial intelligence supply chain.

Tik Tok learns from users interactions, how long they watch, what they like, when they share a video and can create a highlytailored and immersive experience that can shape their mental state, preferences, and behaviors. An opt-out feature is a great step toward protecting cognitive liberty, the fundamental right to self-determination over our brains and mental experiences. Rather than being limited to a specific area and page, users will be able to see videos that are relevant to their region and language. This focuses on popular content in the region rather than choosing something that is popular in the region. Targeted advertisement to users between 13 and 17 years of age is banned by the law.

The Battle for Your Brain was written by Nita’s mother. Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology (St. Martin’s Press 2023) and Robinson O. Everett Professor of Law and Philosophy at Duke University.

Similar to corporate social responsibility guidelines, the companies should be required to assess their technology for its impact on cognitive liberty and provide transparency on data use and moderation practices. Legislative proposals worldwide include the EU’s Digital Services Act and the US’s proposed American Data Privacy and Protection Act. The impact assessment tool for cognitive liberty would be based on transparency, data practices, and mental manipulation, in order to measure the influence of the artificial intelligence on freedom of thought and decisionmaking. Detailed descriptions of the technology’s effects on user cognitive are included in the required data.

Technology companies should also adopt design principles embodying cognitive liberty. Options like adjustable settings on TikTok or greater control over notifications on Apple devices are steps in the right direction. Some features that allow for self-determination should become a standard feature on digital platforms.

WIRED Opinion has writers with a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here. Submit an op-ed at [email protected].