DENVER – While ChatGPT garnered attention in the realm of artificial intelligence, the pervasive influence of this technology extends far beyond the headlines. It now plays a significant role in various aspects of daily life, from vetting job applications and rental requests to influencing medical decisions.
Despite instances of bias in several AI systems, favoring specific demographics based on race, gender, or income, there is a notable absence of substantial government supervision in this domain.
In response to this regulatory gap at the federal level, lawmakers in seven states are embarking on ambitious legislative endeavors to address bias in artificial intelligence. These initiatives mark the initial stages of a prolonged discourse on how to balance the advantages of this innovative technology with its well-documented risks.
Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a professor at Brown University and co-author of the White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, emphasized the pervasive impact of AI on individuals’ lives. He highlighted the critical need for effective functioning of AI systems, given their ubiquitous presence.
The success or failure of these legislative efforts hinges on navigating intricate challenges while engaging with an industry valued in the hundreds of billions and evolving rapidly.
In the previous year, only a fraction of the numerous AI-related bills introduced at the state level were enacted into law, as reported by BSA The Software Alliance. These legislative actions primarily targeted specific aspects of AI, with a significant focus on issues like deepfakes and chatbot regulations.
Distinct from these measures are the state bills aimed at combating AI discrimination, a complex and pervasive issue within the technology sector. These bills, under consideration from California to Connecticut, seek to regulate the use of AI in decision-making processes, addressing one of the most pressing challenges associated with AI.
Experts studying AI’s propensity for bias assert that states are lagging behind in establishing necessary safeguards. The widespread use of AI-driven “automated decision tools” remains largely undisclosed, with a substantial portion of employers relying on algorithms for hiring processes, as indicated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The potential for bias in AI systems arises from the historical data on which they are trained, often reflecting past discriminatory practices. Notable cases, such as Amazon’s hiring algorithm favoring male applicants due to biased training data, underscore the inherent risks associated with AI-driven decision-making processes.
The lack of transparency and accountability in AI systems has prompted legal actions, such as a class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination in rental applicant screenings. These incidents underscore the imperative for regulatory measures to ensure fairness and equity in AI applications.
The proposed bills mandate companies using automated decision tools to conduct impact assessments, outlining the role of AI in decisions, data collection methods, risk analysis for discrimination, and safeguarding measures. Additionally, some bills require companies to inform customers about AI utilization in decision-making processes, allowing them to opt out under certain conditions.
While industry stakeholders generally support initiatives like impact assessments, the legislative progress has been slow. Several bills have faced challenges in advancing through committees, signaling the complexities involved in regulating AI bias effectively.
As states like California, Colorado, Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut, Virginia, and Vermont consider or introduce bills addressing AI discrimination, the road ahead remains arduous. The need for comprehensive measures, including bias audits to detect discrimination and ensure transparency, underscores the evolving nature of the discourse surrounding AI regulation.
Despite the obstacles, these legislative efforts signify the initial steps in grappling with the pervasive influence of AI technology, prompting a critical examination of its implications on society.
Associated Press reporter Trân Nguyễn in Sacramento, California, contributed.
