The administration clearly intends that U.S. AI policy be of the government, by the government, and for the government, not by the people, by the people, and for the people.
America's president begins the year with two high-profile opportunities to set policy direction and set out an ambitious vision for the country. It's the traditional State of the Union address and the administration's annual budget request to Congress. When it comes to the major technology policy issues of our time, what we heard from President Biden was less than inspiring.
Technology policy was clearly an afterthought in President Biden's State of the Union address. More than an hour into his speech and preparing to leave the House, the president finally half-heartedly called for a bipartisan consumer data privacy bill to protect children online. He also “harnessed the promise of AI to protect us from harm,” no doubt referring to the infamous deepfake robocall he personally victimized before the New Hampshire primary. He appealed to lawmakers to “prohibit AI voice spoofing.” That was it.
What was missing from Biden's State of the Union address? Any kind of comprehensive strategy to make America a leader in AI and emerging technologies. Reviving problematic policies like the PRO Act, given that his own State Department recently commissioned a report renewing concerns that AI could pose a “catastrophic risk” to humanity. Some may think that this should be higher on the nation's to-do list than calls for tax increases. About US business.
Meanwhile, President Biden's fiscal year 2025 budget request calls for new funding increases to implement key elements of the October 2023 Comprehensive AI Executive Order. The Commerce Department is requesting more than $100 million for AI-related efforts, including the creation of a National AI Safety Institute designed to “operationalize” the federal AI risk management framework. Although RMF was originally designed for voluntary use, some state and federal AI regulatory proposals seek to turn the framework's voluntary guidance into mandatory obligations for technology developers and adopters. There are some that do. The president's budget includes an additional $500 million for his AI research and projects across other agencies, including the Department of Energy, Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security.
The administration clearly intends that U.S. AI policy be of the government, by the government, and for the government, not by the people, by the people, and for the people. Unfortunately, these policies do not work in isolation, and there are some worrying signs that our competitiveness may already be weakening.
Axios has recently taken a more pessimistic view of AI in the workplace.Western regions (including the US, Canada, and the European Union) have lower levels of adoption and AI experimentation across the workforce, and lower potential reported missing out on significant productivity gains. Meanwhile, the opposite is true in Asia, with more than 60% of workers surveyed in India, United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia saying AI tools have increased their overall productivity.
While the Biden administration may want to slow the pace of AI development, there is no sign that foreign economic competitors will do the same. Policymakers should scrap these draconian proposals and instead encourage dynamic innovation at home, protect children online, and leverage existing consumer protection laws to combat harmful practices. A practical ALEC model policy should be supported.
So, Mr. President, which one is it? Is AI a top “whole-of-government” priority for this country, as indicated by budget requests and executive actions, or will emerging technologies take a back seat and allow our rivals to overtake us? For the United States to make the most of this pivotal moment, it will require decisive leadership rooted in ALEC's principles of limited government, free markets, and federalism.
