Tag: Cigi Papers Series

Building trust in artificial intelligence (AI) is an elusive goal, especially if AI models are closed or partially open, making it difficult for users to determine if these models are reliable, fair or trustworthy. For this reason, the Biden administration sought public input on the potential risks and benefits of these models as well as policy approaches. In an executive order, he tasked the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information (who was also head of the National Telecommunications and Information Agency [NTIA]) to solicit feedback through a public consultation process. NTIA advises the president on information, telecommunications and related technology policy, including AI. The author used a landscape analysis to examine the dialogue between US officials and the public response. Although some 300 Americans participated in the dialogue, these commenters did not provide a representative sample of Americans who use or might be affected by open versus closed AI systems. Those who did provide their opinions likely had a direct stake in these issues. The dialogue was also dysfunctional because policy makers did not really listen to — or even report on — what they heard.

Read More Publications

Policy makers in many countries are determined to develop artificial intelligence (AI) within their borders because they view AI as essential to both national security and economic growth. Some countries have proposed adopting AI sovereignty, where the nation develops AI for its people, by its people and within its borders. In this paper, the author makes a distinction between policies designed to advance domestic AI and policies that, with or without direct intent, hamper the production or trade of foreign-produced AI (known as “AI nationalism”). AI nationalist policies in one country can make it harder for firms in another country to develop AI. If officials can limit access to key components of the AI supply chain, such as data, capital, expertise or computing power, they may be able to limit the AI prowess of competitors in country Y and/or Z. Moreover, if policy makers can shape regulations in ways that benefit local AI competitors, they may also impede the competitiveness of other nations’ AI developers. AI nationalism may seem appropriate given the import of AI, but this paper aims to illuminate how AI nationalistic policies may backfire and could divide the world into AI haves and have nots.

Read More Publications