Various global groups have been actively setting forth their views and publishing their output notable examples include the recently released AI Risk Management Framework from the U.S.-based National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) and Europe’s proposed EU AI Act - and there are many others. The good news is that we are not starting from scratch. We should not delay anything to wait for a global consensus, but at the same time, global working groups and frameworks should be explored. Governance and rules are only as good as the weakest link. Existing industries and government bodies move too slowly, so new approaches need to be established that can proceed more quickly. AI risk management and authoritative guidance need to be quick and nimble otherwise, it will fall far behind the path of innovation and be worthless. The reality is that we don’t know enough today to write all the regulations and rules, so what we need is a good starting point and some authoritative bodies that will be trusted to issue new rules as they become necessary. However, some types of AI are inherently so dangerous that they need to be carefully managed, limited or restricted. The intentions are what matters, and the level of governance should coincide with the level of risk (or whether inherently good, or bad, or somewhere in between). The use of AI, like all technological innovations, can be used with good intentions or with bad intentions. There are two things that need to be governed when it comes to AI: Its use and its creation. In the end, we need a public-private partnership to achieve our goals. Therefore, I believe that industry groups must be engaged and play a leading role in shaping the thinking and building for the broadest base of support. Notwithstanding, governments are notoriously slow-moving and prone to political cross-currents - definitely not good in these circumstances. The reality is that only governments have the heft to make the rules binding, and to incentivize or cajole other governments globally to participate. As to whether governments of industry groups should lead the way, the answer is both.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |