Highlights: The White House issued draft rules today that would require federal agencies to evaluate and constantly monitor algorithms used in health care, law enforcement, and housing for potential discrimination or other harmful effects on human rights.

Once in effect, the rules could force changes in US government activity dependent on AI, such as the FBI’s use of face recognition technology, which has been criticized for not taking steps called for by Congress to protect civil liberties. The new rules would require government agencies to assess existing algorithms by August 2024 and stop using any that don’t comply.

  • paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This seems to me like an exception that would realistically only apply to the CIA, NSA, and sometimes the FBI. I doubt the Department of Housing and Urban Development will get a pass. Overall seems like a good change in a good direction.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed but it’s at least a step forward, setting a precedent for AI in government use. I would love a perfect world where all bills passed are “all or nothing” legislation but realistically this is a good start, and then citizens should demand tighter oversight on national security agencies as the next issue to tackle

        • pandacoder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “next issue to tackle”

          It’s been the next issue to tackle since at least October 26th, 2001. They have no accountability. Adding these carve outs is just making it harder to get accountability.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re exactly who will carry on using it, even if there weren’t any exemptions.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like either of those agencies will let us know what they are doing in the first place.

        At a certain level, there are no rules when they never have to tell what they are doing.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        given the “success” of Israel’s hi tech border fence it seems like bureacracies think tech will work better than actually, you know, resolving/preventing geopolitical problems with diplomacy and intelligence.

        I worry these kind of tech solutions become a predictable crutch. Assuming there is some kind of real necessity to these spy programs (debatable) it seems like reliance on data tech can become a weakness as soon as those intending harm understand how it works

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m actually less worried about them.

        Local police departments on the other hand, can arrest and get you sent to jail based on flimsy facial recognition, and it doesn’t even make the local news.

      • Redrum714
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well they already are lol. It makes their jobs much easier so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have better library’s than the public services.

      • intensely_human
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        the fact that the CIA and NSA will have the AI is the most effective argument for why we should have the AI.

        It’s the basic idea of the second amendment all over again:

        • It would be great if nobody had guns
        • But the government isn’t going to stop having guns
        • And only one side having guns is way worse than everyone having guns
        • So everyone gets to have guns

        The exact same applies in this situation with AI:

        • It would be great if nobody had AI
        • But the government isn’t going to stop having AI
        • And only one side having AI is way worse than everyone having AI
        • So everyone gets to have AI