Artificial intelligence oversight: While the Senate twiddles, California makes progress

The intricacy of AI contributes to the perplexity, as well as the various facets of AI that necessitate oversight.

The intricacy of AI contributes to the perplexity, as well as the various facets of AI that necessitate oversight. The checklist is extensive, encompassing employment safeguard, customer confidentiality, prejudice prevention and exclusion, synthetic media, misinformation, election manipulation, innovation rights, intellectual property, accommodation, biometrics, healthcare, financial amenities, and hazards to national security.

To date, the central government has been lethargic in AI oversight, seemingly more preoccupied with partisan politics and internal conflicts than with developing effective guidelines. As a consequence, Congress has not proven itself as a valuable instrument for shaping oversight principles.

The period for Senate intervention in AI oversight was a couple of years ago. However, with minimal progress at the federal level, states, notably California, are striving to step in.

About Author

AndyC

Andy Curtis is an award-winning security consultant, researcher and public speaker. He has been working in the computer security industry since the early 1990s, having been employed by state and federal government, leading healthcare and banking providers across three continents. He has given talks about computer security for some of the world’s largest companies, worked with law enforcement agencies on investigations into hacking groups, and is a regular voice on TV and radio explaining IT security threats.

See author's posts