Miranda Bogen

 My latest in Federal News Network discussing key priorities for the newly created Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board. 1. I might sound like a broken record - but the first step will be to prioritize targets. "Critical infrastructure" has massive scope and members should concentrate core systems including the grid, water, energy, transportation, and healthcare. Focusing on these essential areas will allow for deep consideration and effective action. 2. Prioritize preparation for cyber. Focus on analyzing existing regulations, identifying gaps, opportunities for harmonization, and ensuring government agencies are adequately resourced to address potential AI-related threats. While such threats have yet to emerge in force, policy should focus less on trying to avert specific threats and instead on preparing for unknown. We don't know what may come down the line but building the capacity for nimble analysis and well-resourced action will be key to future success. 3. Prioritize Diffusion. Recognize AI's potential to improve reliability and efficiency in critical infrastructure by studying bottlenecks, regulations, and research needs that hold back success. AI applications such as predicting wind power supply, detecting downed powerlines, and augmenting cyber defenses could significantly benefit these systems. By concentrating on these priorities and developing clear strategies, the AI Safety and Security Board can ensure much needed trust and maximum AI success in our nation's most essential systems, leading to a more prosperous future. https://lnkd.in/eRrZKSew

5

Yesterday, International Center for Law & Economics and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation filed an amicus in the 8th Circuit opposing the FCC's new "digital discrimination" rules. "The Order will not only stifle new deployment to unserved areas, but also will delay network upgrades and maintenance out of fear of alleged disparate effects." A summary of our arguments are on Truth on the Market. https://lnkd.in/gu3d3jKC

9

I'm keeping an open mind about the potential for AI to impact CBRN threats and generally encourage efforts to measure these issues in order to ground the conversation and minimize often-fantastical dooms-day scenarios. That said, evidence that AI is meaningfully changing current CBRN threat levels is lacking and probably overstated. Beyond this report, DHS must consider how to best prioritize its limited AI bandwidth. With a fixed budget, any excess money spent on mitigating or analyzing these hypotheticals nessesarily comes at the expense of other, evidence-backed priorities. Rather than over-invest in AI-CBRN issues, DHS should spend on the following: 1. Cybersecurity and other evidence-based challenges: while early days, there is indeed evidence that AI has changed the cyber game. In the past year spear phishing increase 1,200%, machine translation improved the quality of social engineering attacks, and state backed actors have used LLMs to generate operational malware. While not quite a crisis, this is a meaningful change that could portend a real challenge if capabilities continue to improve. Rather than chase CBRN 'what ifs,' resources should focus on this very real, evidence-backed challenge. 2. Preparing for the unknown: Its still early days, the tech is changing rapidly, and its uncertain what challenges will be the core AI issues of the coming years. Rather than overinvest resources on CBRN threats, DHS should invest in the agility and capacity needed to quickly identify and react to a range of unexpected, emergent challenges. The first step is state capcaity, DHS should focus on upskilling and hiring to build a work force that not only understands AI, but AI's intersection in a broad diversity of domains. Second is regulatory flexibility, DHS should actively analyze its rules to ensure it can act with minimal bureaucratic delay if we see a black swan AI development. Third is vigilance, DHS should foster the infrastructure, such as Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, needed to quickly identify unexpected changes in the threat environment. It is indeed worthwhile for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office to analyze how AI could impact their work. Without evidence, however, this shouldn't become a preoccupation. As the DHS proceeds it should focus limited bandwidth on proven challenges and for all else, build the threat-agnostic capacity needed to act with agility.

7

Today, the Department of Homeland Security announced the establishment of the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board to advise the secretary on critical infrastructure risks. While a worthwhile initiative, the design of our current critical infrastrucure policy structure is a fundamental disservice to such efforts. Today, critical infrastrucure encompasses 16 industrial sectors, an unwieldy 60% or more of the U.S. economy, and a grab bag of non-critical assets including casinos, ride share vehicles and the cosmetics industry. For a small committee of 22, this unwieldy scope will strain priorities, waste time, and distract focus from the core systems that really matter. Effectively securing our critical infrastrucure demand we set the priorities, shrink policy scope, and finally determine what is indeed the most critical and the most deserving of DHS’s limited resources. https://lnkd.in/eXdRveWB

5

1 Comment

Still, the response to AI from both policymakers and Congress requires far more urgency. We must discard the often-unstated presumption that an AI-driven solution is necessarily preferable or inevitable. Instead we must ask ourselves, as a threshold question, whether an AI tool or model is sufficiently accurate, accountable, transparent, fair, and safe to be used in this way. And we must ensure that deployers of AI tools—in both government and the private sector—understand, train for, and communicate publicly about limitations and biases. — From my remarks to the NAIAC yesterday (full text at link below)

10

Flagging Federal Registry notice seems akin to tuning into a Congressional Roll Call on C-SPAN, but this is the State Department’s attempt to lean on the #privatesector, #academia, and #thinktanks by establishing Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC). Written comments are due on August 15, 2024, at 5 PM ET, and I hope we can benefit from broad experience and insights to set these up to modernize our systems, operations, and the field of diplomacy. The goal is to create mechanisms for the State Department to benefit from deep technical research that isn't normally associated with the field of #diplomacy and #foreignaffairs. #doingbusinesswithdepartmentofstate #modernization

36

1 Comment

If you are a company or organization currently paying or looking for government relations, public affairs, or lobbying help in the Washington, DC area, don't pay the additional premium for the firm with the unnecessary office image in DC to support. Doing so is like Jim Croce continuing to put dimes into a pay phone to keep the connection going with the operator while a growing digital era takes hold. Instead look at smaller firms, like Avison Strategies, LLC, with similar experience, a much smaller fee structure and a business model focused on results, the latest AI and ML technology, and personal attention to reach people where they are and when it is needed. Retainers average $4,000-$5,000/month for firms like mine compared to $10,000-$15,000/month for firms like those. Office costs and the impact through association fallacy will make you overpay and results will frequently under deliver. Support a small business instead and see the difference.

1

Last week, we filed supplemental testimony with the United States Commission on Civil Rights on the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-- we close them with a what we hope is a useful set of questions for DHS: 1) What stakeholder engagement is planned around specific use cases? 2) What empirical testing has been conducted with real-world users (e.g., has TSA measured whether or not airline passengers fully understand their ability to withhold consent at checkpoints to FRT uses? What evidence suggests that they do or do not feel at liberty to make a choice?) 3) What changes in biometric surveillance policy or other steps are DHS considering, if any, in light of the OMB EO? 4) What programs at DHS will likely receive waivers in December and what is the timeline for aligning those uses with the requirements of the EO? 5) What are the implications for FRT of Secretary Mayorkas’s new AI initiative? 6) What evidence of consent for data collection does DHS regarding its well-publicized collections of DMV and utility data that include US citizens? 7) Why does DHS feel a need to hold onto non-citizen data for an astonishing 75 years? 8) What training has been completed at this stage in terms of the timeline and what has yet to be done? 9) Does the planned training adequately capture the human factors and limitations of the tech use cases? Will the training be shared with the Commission? Has it been independently evaluated? 10) What are safety evaluations that have been conducted by DHS regarding risks to migrants and new, more hazardous corridors that may be created in light of the plan to expand DHS surveillance technologies and towers at the border? https://lnkd.in/eM3K7vm7

3

The Bipartisan Senate #AI Working Group unveiled their AI Roadmap. Their focus areas are spot on: fostering #innovation, enhancing #workforce development, and implementing a risk-based approach to #AIgovernance and #responsibleAI. In my latest blog, I explore the key elements of this roadmap, including: 🤝 Promoting public-private partnerships to mitigate AI risks. 🔩 Securing funding for AI initiatives at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 🎓 Creating incentives for employers to integrate #technology and #reskilling, and for workers to pursue #retraining.

50

3 Comments

Improving FOIA should have been at the center of a 5th #OpenGov U.S. national action plan in 2022, but this White House chose to prioritize equity plans & commitments over restoring transparency & accountability in accord with the mandates of Congress & the petitions of civil society advocates. https://lnkd.in/eXC3PP76 The ongoing lack of oversight of FOIA in Congress is paired with an appalling lack of oversight of open government and US participation in the Open Government Partnership: https://lnkd.in/gz3CEuvy

4

The State Department is offering a stellar picture of how AI can and should be used, diffused, and experimented with in the federal government. Agencies like State fundamentally depend on the human. Diplomacy is centered around relationships, rapport and common understanding - things robots cannot easily replace. What robots *can* replace is the tedious work holding back this essential relationship building labor. These are the very tasks State is trying to automate. Other human-centric agencies should look to this model, borrow what works, learn from what doesn't, and try to lean into the experimental process of discovering how AI can be best used so that we can maximize the value of our public services and use our ever-limited budgets to maximum effect. https://lnkd.in/eKH9uz3N

6

3 Comments

Our official statement on the release of last week’s Roadmap: “The Senate AI Roadmap takes some encouraging steps by acknowledging critical risks around privacy, bias and accountability that experts have warned about for years. However, after a year of work, mere acknowledgment is not enough. Our communities must see Congress take decisive action to address AI risks. “The release of the Roadmap occurred the same week as major product announcements from multiple industry giants, further highlighting the need for swift and responsive action from lawmakers. The Roadmap makes clear that there are essential areas of bipartisan agreement, including: privacy and data minimization, stakeholder participation in shaping guardrails, safeguarding election integrity, disparate impact audits, and creating liability for harms caused by AI. Now we need new legislation to address these areas as well as other major gaps left out of the Roadmap, including on civil liberties. “The Roadmap’s emphasis on investments in AI innovation risks hyper-powering the technology, unless these investments are accompanied by similar resources in robust guardrails to ensure equitable and responsible use. Building community capacity to co-lead the governance of AI and to reap equal benefits from technology cannot be treated as an afterthought. It must be at the heart of any national AI strategy. “Executing on the Roadmap and work over the prior year should mean urgent Congressional movement to enact pending AI legislation, including comprehensive federal data privacy reform and a suite of AI and elections bills. In areas such as hiring, lending, healthcare, immigration, and criminal justice, lawmakers must now demonstrate leadership by delivering on additional needed legislative solutions to keep technology accountable, transparent and safe. Our communities are counting on Congress to center people and create strong rules of the road for responsible AI as we build a technology future that can work for everyone.” https://lnkd.in/eDvgAgAE

13

In my latest "#AI Legislative Outlook: Spring 2024 Update," I compare 3 important new federal legislative proposals: * “Promoting U.S. Leadership in Standards Act” (Warner-Blackburn) * “Future of AI Innovation Act” (Cantwell-Young) * “AI Research, Innovation & Accountability Act” (Thune- Klobuchar) I explain how all three measures blend hard-law and soft-law governance techniques to varying degrees. That is, they all push for the continued development of voluntary best practices for AI safety but also envision an expanded role for government in helping to formulate or steer those policies. I discuss the upsides and downsides of this approach to AI governance. https://lnkd.in/dhYui32N #techpolicy #machinelearning #artificialintelligence #softlaw

20

2 Comments

Amid the challenges posed by the Israel/Gaza demonstrations on American campuses, along with a rising tide of political attacks on the autonomy of American universities, shared governance is also eroding on many campuses. The internal conflict that is splitting university communities, and fueling outside criticism, is also lending momentum to university presidents, and governing boards, ignoring and downgrading the voice and role of faculty senates – to some degree joining forces with lawmakers in some states who are attacking tenure, forcing curricular changes, demanding the end to the nomenclature of DEI, and view faculty as the problem. See Ryan Quinn’s recent InsideHE article which discusses the desire of some faculty at Harvard to establish a greater role in university management in the wake of the Claudine Gay resignation, as well as a scan of legislation demoting the role of faculty in university affairs in states like Florida, Arizona and West Virginia. https://lnkd.in/g_NQNudj See also my article on the critical role of shared governance in developing the University of California’s multi-campus system. https://lnkd.in/gt8YnzRS #universities #faculty #Israelgaza #sharedgovernance

6

My latest in the The Federalist Society blog: Some Thoughts on NTIA's New "Artificial Intelligence Accountability Policy Report" #NTIA #AI #ArtificialIntelligence https://lnkd.in/eu_8rFj6

2

Last week’s Supreme Court's decision to overturn the #Chevron doctrine has sent ripples through the regulatory and #policy communities, especially in the world of healthcare, particularly concerning #AI. This landmark ruling limits federal agencies' authority to interpret ambiguous laws, potentially complicating efforts to oversee rapidly evolving technologies like AI, something my colleague Joseph Hoefer and I have been tracking closely. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting opinion, raised alarm bells about the decision's impact on regulating complex fields such as AI, warning that it could hinder Congress's ability to delegate regulatory power to federal agencies effectively. The ruling presents a significant challenge for lawmakers and regulatory bodies like the FDA, which have been working on programs to regulate health AI. These efforts, including draft guidance for AI/ML-enabled device software, may now face new hurdles under the changed legal landscape. Lawmakers are already at a crossroads, needing to decide whether to regulate health AI through existing agencies or create a new body dedicated to AI oversight. The Chevron ruling emphasizes the need for Congress to be more specific and prescriptive in future legislation, potentially delaying much-needed oversight of advancing technologies. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that deferring to regulators under Chevron is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. However, dissenting justices contend that this ruling puts courts at the apex of the administrative process across all subjects, potentially overreaching their intended role. As AI continues to integrate into various aspects of healthcare, the implications of this ruling will likely be felt for years to come. The decision could significantly slow down efforts to establish necessary guardrails for AI in #healthcare, leaving the industry in a state of uncertainty as it grapples with how to ensure responsible development and deployment of these powerful technologies.

32

Thrilled to announce that the first draft of the U.S. Federal Low Code No Code Adoption Playbook will be sent out this week for socialization to U.S. Federal Low-Code No-Code Subcommittee members!   The playbook is organized to align with a Federal Agency's low code adoption journey and this first draft will offer a set of initial findings and recommendations that covers adoption stages from initial exploration to full-scale implementation.... and we need help to make this an even better product!  We’ll be hosting a series of working group sessions in May and June where we'll work together to refine the playbook outline and initial content in this first draft.  Our work on this playbook will not stop there either… over the course of the following months, we’ll dive even deeper into each section of the playbook to further build it out with Agency lessons learned, best practices, associated resources and more. I encourage our registered community members to dive into this first draft, engage in discussions in our upcoming working groups, and share your feedback so we can make our first coordinated release a valuable tool for our community. If you are an Agency LCNC representative, Federal IT modernization champion, Industry Partner, or even a state, local, tribal and territorial representative, you too can register for Subcommunity membership and participate in our inter-agency work by joining our listserv.  To do this, send an email (from your .gov or .mil domain) requesting US Federal Low Code No Code Subcommunity of Practice membership to LCNC-subscribe-request@listserv.gsa.gov . I couldn't be prouder of this huge step forward to help Federal Agencies accelerate IT modernization.  U.S. Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council #digitaltransformation  #itmodernization #lowcode #lcnc #reinventinggovernment #oneteam

26

Four veteran senators are calling on Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and his AI working group to develop a framework for addressing extreme risks posed by artificial intelligence, “including biological, chemical, cyber, and nuclear threats,” while offering several options for oversight of AI frontier models. “Congress should consider a permanent framework to mitigate extreme risks. This framework should also serve as the basis for international coordination to mitigate extreme risks posed by AI. This letter is an attempt to start a dialogue about the need for such a framework, which would be in addition to, not at the exclusion of, proposals focused on other risks presented by developments in AI,” according to the April 16 letter from Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Angus King (I-ME). READ MORE: #artificialintelligence

1