Joe Biden

critics-question-tech-heavy-lineup-of-new-homeland-security-ai-safety-board

Critics question tech-heavy lineup of new Homeland Security AI safety board

AI, AI ethics, AI safety, alphabet, Amazon, Anthropic, Biz & IT, DHS, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, executive order, Google, Joe Biden, machine learning, Meta, microsoft, NVIDIA, openai, Policy, President Biden, sam altman, Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai / /

Adventures in 21st century regulation —

CEO-heavy board to tackle elusive AI safety concept and apply it to US infrastructure.

–

A modified photo of a 1956 scientist carefully bottling

On Friday, the US Department of Homeland Security announced the formation of an Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board that consists of 22 members pulled from the tech industry, government, academia, and civil rights organizations. But given the nebulous nature of the term “AI,” which can apply to a broad spectrum of computer technology, it’s unclear if this group will even be able to agree on what exactly they are safeguarding us from.

President Biden directed DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to establish the board, which will meet for the first time in early May and subsequently on a quarterly basis.

The fundamental assumption posed by the board’s existence, and reflected in Biden’s AI executive order from October, is that AI is an inherently risky technology and that American citizens and businesses need to be protected from its misuse. Along those lines, the goal of the group is to help guard against foreign adversaries using AI to disrupt US infrastructure; develop recommendations to ensure the safe adoption of AI tech into transportation, energy, and Internet services; foster cross-sector collaboration between government and businesses; and create a forum where AI leaders to share information on AI security risks with the DHS.

It’s worth noting that the ill-defined nature of the term “Artificial Intelligence” does the new board no favors regarding scope and focus. AI can mean many different things: It can power a chatbot, fly an airplane, control the ghosts in Pac-Man, regulate the temperature of a nuclear reactor, or play a great game of chess. It can be all those things and more, and since many of those applications of AI work very differently, there’s no guarantee any two people on the board will be thinking about the same type of AI.

This confusion is reflected in the quotes provided by the DHS press release from new board members, some of whom are already talking about different types of AI. While OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic are monetizing generative AI systems like ChatGPT based on large language models (LLMs), Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta Air Lines, refers to entirely different classes of machine learning when he says, “By driving innovative tools like crew resourcing and turbulence prediction, AI is already making significant contributions to the reliability of our nation’s air travel system.”

So, defining the scope of what AI exactly means—and which applications of AI are new or dangerous—might be one of the key challenges for the new board.

A roundtable of Big Tech CEOs attracts criticism

For the inaugural meeting of the AI Safety and Security Board, the DHS selected a tech industry-heavy group, populated with CEOs of four major AI vendors (Sam Altman of OpenAI, Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, and Dario Amodei of Anthopic), CEO Jensen Huang of top AI chipmaker Nvidia, and representatives from other major tech companies like IBM, Adobe, Amazon, Cisco, and AMD. There are also reps from big aerospace and aviation: Northrop Grumman and Delta Air Lines.

Upon reading the announcement, some critics took issue with the board composition. On LinkedIn, founder of The Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) Timnit Gebru especially criticized OpenAI’s presence on the board and wrote, “I’ve now seen the full list and it is hilarious. Foxes guarding the hen house is an understatement.”

Critics question tech-heavy lineup of new Homeland Security AI safety board Read More »

bill-that-could-ban-tiktok-passes-in-house-despite-constitutional-concerns

Bill that could ban TikTok passes in House despite constitutional concerns

bytedance, china, Chinese Communist Party, First Amendment, Joe Biden, Policy, tiktok, TikTok ban, us constitution / /
Bill that could ban TikTok passes in House despite constitutional concerns

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives passed a bill with a vote of 352–65 that could block TikTok in the US. Fifteen Republicans and 50 Democrats voted in opposition, and one Democrat voted present, CNN reported.

TikTok is not happy. A spokesperson told Ars, “This process was secret and the bill was jammed through for one reason: it’s a ban. We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents, and realize the impact on the economy, 7 million small businesses, and the 170 million Americans who use our service.”

Lawmakers insist that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is not a ban. Instead, they claim the law gives TikTok a choice: either divest from ByteDance’s China-based owners or face the consequences of TikTok being cut off in the US.

Under the law—which still must pass the Senate, a more significant hurdle, where less consensus is expected and a companion bill has not yet been introduced—app stores and hosting services would face steep consequences if they provide access to apps controlled by US foreign rivals. That includes allowing the app to be updated or maintained by US users who already have the app on their devices.

Violations subject app stores and hosting services to fines of $5,000 for each individual US user “determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary-controlled application.” With 170 million Americans currently on TikTok, that could add up quickly to eye-popping fines.

If the bill becomes law, app stores and hosting services would have 180 days to limit access to foreign adversary-controlled apps. The bill specifically names TikTok and ByteDance as restricted apps, making it clear that lawmakers intend to quash the alleged “national security threat” that TikTok poses in the US.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), a proponent of the bill, has said that “foreign adversaries like China pose the greatest national security threat of our time. With applications like TikTok, these countries are able to target, surveil, and manipulate Americans.” The proposed bill “ends this practice by banning applications controlled by foreign adversaries of the United States that pose a clear national security risk.”

McMorris Rodgers has also made it clear that “our goal is to get this legislation onto the president’s desk.” Joe Biden has indicated he will sign the bill into law, leaving the Senate as the final hurdle to clear. Senators told CNN that they were waiting to see what happened in the House before seeking a path forward in the Senate that would respect TikTok users’ civil liberties.

Attempts to ban TikTok have historically not fared well in the US, with a recent ban in Montana being reversed by a federal judge last December. Judge Donald Molloy granted TikTok’s request for a preliminary injunction, denouncing Montana’s ban as an unconstitutional infringement of Montana-based TikTok users’ rights.

More recently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has slammed House lawmakers for rushing the bill through Congress, accusing lawmakers of attempting to stifle free speech. ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff said in a press release that lawmakers were “once again attempting to trade our First Amendment rights for cheap political points during an election year.”

“Just because the bill sponsors claim that banning TikTok isn’t about suppressing speech, there’s no denying that it would do just that,” Leventoff said.

Bill that could ban TikTok passes in House despite constitutional concerns Read More »

us-funds-$5b-chip-effort-after-lagging-on-semiconductor-innovation

US funds $5B chip effort after lagging on semiconductor innovation

AI chips, Chips Act, chips and science act, chips fabs, chips plants, Joe Biden, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductor, TSMC / /

Now hiring? —

US had failed to fund the “science half” of CHIPS and Science Act, critic said.

–

US President Joe Biden speaks before signing the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.

Enlarge / US President Joe Biden speaks before signing the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.

The Biden administration announced investments Friday totaling more than $5 billion in semiconductor research and development intended to re-establish the US as a global leader manufacturing the “next generation of semiconductor technologies.”

Through sizeable investments, the US will “advance US leadership in semiconductor R&D, cut down on the time and cost of commercializing new technologies, bolster US national security, and connect and support workers in securing good semiconductor jobs,” a White House press release said.

Currently, the US produces “less than 10 percent” of the global chips supply and “none of the most advanced chips,” the White House said. But investing in programs like the National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC)—considered the “centerpiece” of the CHIPS and Science Act’s four R&D programs—and training a talented workforce could significantly increase US production of semiconductors that the Biden administration described as the “backbone of the modern economy.”

The White House projected that the NSTC’s workforce activities would launch in the summer of 2024. The Center’s prime directive will be developing new semiconductor technologies by “supporting design, prototyping, and piloting and through ensuring innovators have access to critical capabilities.”

Moving forward, the NSTC will operate as a public-private consortium, involving both government and private sector institutions, the White House confirmed. It will be run by a recently established nonprofit called the National Center for the Advancement of Semiconductor Technology (Natcast), which will coordinate with the secretaries of Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the National Science Foundation’s director. Any additional stakeholders can provide input on the NSTC’s goals by joining the NSTC Community of Interest at no cost.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has explained why achieving the NSTC’s mission to develop cutting-edge semiconductor technology in the US will not be easy:

The smallest dimensions of leading-edge semiconductor devices have reached the atomic scale and the complexity of the circuit architecture is increasing exponentially with the use of three-dimensional structures, the incorporation of new materials, and improvements in the thousands of process steps needed to make advanced chips. Into the future, as new applications demand higher-performance semiconductors, their design and production will become even more complex. This complexity makes it increasingly difficult and costly to implement innovations because of the dependencies between design and manufacturing, between manufacturing steps, and between front-end and back-end processes.

The complexity of keeping up with semiconductor tech is why it’s critical for the US to create clear pathways for skilled workers to break into this burgeoning industry. The Biden administration said it plans to invest “at least hundreds of millions of dollars in the NSTC’s workforce efforts,” creating a Workforce Center of Excellence with locations throughout the US and piloting new training programs, including initiatives engaging underserved communities. The Workforce Center will start by surveying best practices in semiconductor education programs, then establish a baseline program to attract workers seeking dependable paths to break into the industry.

Last year, the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) released a study showing that the US was not adequately preparing a highly skilled workforce. Between “67,000, or 58 percent, of projected new jobs, may remain unfulfilled at the current trajectory,” SIA estimated.

A skilled workforce is just part of the equation, though. The US also needs facilities where workers can experiment with new technologies without breaking the bank. To that end, the Department of Commerce announced it would be investing “at least $200 million” in a first-of-its-kind CHIPS Manufacturing USA Institute. That institute will “allow innovators to replicate and experiment with physical manufacturing processes at low cost.”

Other Commerce Department investments announced include “up to $300 million” for advanced packaging R&D necessary for discovering new applications for semiconductor technologies and over $100 million in funding for dozens of projects to help inventors “more easily scale innovations into commercial products.”

A Commerce Department spokesperson told Ars that “the location of the NSTC headquarters has not yet been determined” but will “directly support the NSTC research strategy and give engineers, academics, researchers, engineers at startups, small and large companies, and workforce developers the capabilities they need to innovate.” In 2024, NSTC’s efforts to kick off research appear modest, with the center expecting to prioritize engaging community members and stakeholders, launching workforce programs, and identifying early start research programs.

So far, Biden’s efforts to ramp up semiconductor manufacturing in the US have not gone smoothly. Earlier this year, TSMC predicted further delays at chips plants under construction in Arizona and confirmed that the second plant would not be able to manufacture the most advanced chips, as previously expected.

That news followed criticism from private entities last year. In November, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang predicted that the US was “somewhere between a decade and two decades away” from semiconductor supply chain independence. The US Chamber of Commerce said last August that the reason why the US remained so far behind was because the US had so far failed to prioritize funding in the “science half” of the CHIPS and Science Act.

In 2024, the Biden administration appears to be attempting to finally start funding a promised $11 billion total in research and development efforts. Once NSTC kicks off research, the pressure will be on to chase the Center’s highest ambition of turning the US into a consistent birthplace of life-changing semiconductor technologies once again.

US funds $5B chip effort after lagging on semiconductor innovation Read More »

facebook-rules-allowing-fake-biden-“pedophile”-video-deemed-“incoherent”

Facebook rules allowing fake Biden “pedophile” video deemed “incoherent”

Artificial Intelligence, cheap fakes, Deepfakes, facebook, generative ai, Joe Biden, Meta, misinformation, Policy / /

Not to be misled —

Meta may revise AI policies that experts say overlook “more misleading” content.

–

Facebook rules allowing fake Biden “pedophile” video deemed “incoherent”

A fake video manipulated to falsely depict President Joe Biden inappropriately touching his granddaughter has revealed flaws in Facebook’s “deepfake” policies, Meta’s Oversight Board concluded Monday.

Last year when the Biden video went viral, Facebook repeatedly ruled that it did not violate policies on hate speech, manipulated media, or bullying and harassment. Since the Biden video is not AI-generated content and does not manipulate the president’s speech—making him appear to say things he’s never said—the video was deemed OK to remain on the platform. Meta also noted that the video was “unlikely to mislead” the “average viewer.”

“The video does not depict President Biden saying something he did not say, and the video is not the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning in a way that merges, combines, replaces, or superimposes content onto the video (the video was merely edited to remove certain portions),” Meta’s blog said.

The Oversight Board—an independent panel of experts—reviewed the case and ultimately upheld Meta’s decision despite being “skeptical” that current policies work to reduce harms.

“The board sees little sense in the choice to limit the Manipulated Media policy to cover only people saying things they did not say, while excluding content showing people doing things they did not do,” the board said, noting that Meta claimed this distinction was made because “videos involving speech were considered the most misleading and easiest to reliably detect.”

The board called upon Meta to revise its “incoherent” policies that it said appear to be more concerned with regulating how content is created, rather than with preventing harms. For example, the Biden video’s caption described the president as a “sick pedophile” and called out anyone who would vote for him as “mentally unwell,” which could affect “electoral processes” that Meta could choose to protect, the board suggested.

“Meta should reconsider this policy quickly, given the number of elections in 2024,” the Oversight Board said.

One problem, the Oversight Board suggested, is that in its rush to combat AI technologies that make generating deepfakes a fast, cheap, and easy business, Meta policies currently overlook less technical ways of manipulating content.

Instead of using AI, the Biden video relied on basic video-editing technology to edit out the president placing an “I Voted” sticker on his adult granddaughter’s chest. The crude edit looped a 7-second clip altered to make the president appear to be, as Meta described in its blog, “inappropriately touching a young woman’s chest and kissing her on the cheek.”

Meta making this distinction is confusing, the board said, partly because videos altered using non-AI technologies are not considered less misleading or less prevalent on Facebook.

The board recommended that Meta update policies to cover not just AI-generated videos, but other forms of manipulated media, including all forms of manipulated video and audio. Audio fakes currently not covered in the policy, the board warned, offer fewer cues to alert listeners to the inauthenticity of recordings and may even be considered “more misleading than video content.”

Notably, earlier this year, a fake Biden robocall attempted to mislead Democratic voters in New Hampshire by encouraging them not to vote. The Federal Communications Commission promptly responded by declaring AI-generated robocalls illegal, but the Federal Election Commission was not able to act as swiftly to regulate AI-generated misleading campaign ads easily spread on social media, AP reported. In a statement, Oversight Board Co-Chair Michael McConnell said that manipulated audio is “one of the most potent forms of electoral disinformation.”

To better combat known harms, the board suggested that Meta revise its Manipulated Media policy to “clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent.”

Rather than pushing Meta to remove more content, however, the board urged Meta to use “less restrictive” methods of coping with fake content, such as relying on fact-checkers applying labels noting that content is “significantly altered.” In public comments, some Facebook users agreed that labels would be most effective. Others urged Meta to “start cracking down” and remove all fake videos, with one suggesting that removing the Biden video should have been a “deeply easy call.” Another commenter suggested that the Biden video should be considered acceptable speech, as harmless as a funny meme.

While the board wants Meta to also expand its policies to cover all forms of manipulated audio and video, it cautioned that including manipulated photos in the policy could “significantly expand” the policy’s scope and make it harder to enforce.

“If Meta sought to label videos, audio, and photographs but only captured a small portion, this could create a false impression that non-labeled content is inherently trustworthy,” the board warned.

Meta should therefore stop short of adding manipulated images to the policy, the board said. Instead, Meta should conduct research into the effects of manipulated photos and then consider updates when the company is prepared to enforce a ban on manipulated photos at scale, the board recommended. In the meantime, Meta should move quickly to update policies ahead of a busy election year where experts and politicians globally are bracing for waves of misinformation online.

“The volume of misleading content is rising, and the quality of tools to create it is rapidly increasing,” McConnell said. “Platforms must keep pace with these changes, especially in light of global elections during which certain actors seek to mislead the public.”

Meta’s spokesperson told Ars that Meta is “reviewing the Oversight Board’s guidance and will respond publicly to their recommendations within 60 days.”

Facebook rules allowing fake Biden “pedophile” video deemed “incoherent” Read More »