Some experts share the view that, in the short-term at least, it is up to the AI companies to regulate themselves responsibly.
“You might want an act of Congress, and I would love a congressionally mandated regime that requires safety and testing and bias testing,” said Asad Ramzanali, the director of AI & Technology Policy at Vanderbilt University.
“But absent that action, the companies have autonomy.”
Others have expressed scepticism at the recent flurry of warnings by AI staffers.
Trevor Traina, a tech executive who was a diplomat during Trump’s first term, said: “I don’t think the typical citizen has encountered anything scary or really problematic with AI.”
“We’re relying on the tweets of a half-dozen people who are all vying for perceived supremacy,” he said. “The cynic in me thinks, ‘Are they are really concerned, or are they trying to prove which model is the most awesome?'”
Alexandra Reeve Givens, who previously worked in government and now leads the US non-profit the Center for Democracy and Technology, said she did not think meaningful federal AI regulation would pass in the foreseeable future.
While the Trump administration has set up an entirely voluntary framework for AI companies to submit their models and tools for government assessment, Givens noted that the framework itself remains a secret.
“There’s no clear standard to make sure that the approach is even grounded in the rule of law,” she said.
Appeals from various groups to release the framework have so far gone ignored.
The White House approach, combined with a lack of political will and consensus, makes passing laws around AI difficult.
“There is no question that federal legislation is challenging in this climate, but Congress also has to grapple with which of the many types of AI risk need to be addressed,” Givens said.
“It’s not that AI is ungovernable, it’s that each risk needs a tailored approach.”
