How might, and might not, generative AI make a difference when it comes to the political landscape?
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard a great deal over the last year about generative AI and how it’s going to reshape various aspects of our society. That includes elections. With one year until the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we thought it would be a good time to step back and take a look at how generative AI might and might not make a difference when it comes to the political landscape. Luckily, Matt Perault and Scott Babwah Brennen of the UNC Center on Technology Policy have a new report out on just that subject, examining generative AI and political ads.
On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare’s Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Matt and Scott to talk through the potential risks and benefits of generative AI when it comes to political advertising. Which concerns are overstated, and which are worth closer attention as we move toward 2024? How should policymakers respond to new uses of this technology in the context of elections?
(July 9, 2021) A slow, methodical approach should be taken to determining the best regulatory scheme to address the use of the developing technology of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) by financial institutions, the state system has advised NCUA and the CFPB in a comment letter submitted late last week.
In addition, NASCUS wrote in its comment letter to the agencies, that approach must also incorporate “close coordination and collaboration between federal and state regulators in addition to the continued collection of input from other stakeholders.”
In March, the agencies opened a 60-day comment period (which they later extended by 30 days) for Information about how financial institutions use AI in their activities, including fraud prevention, personalization of customer services, credit underwriting, and more.
NASCUS wrote that, in developing guidance and regulation, the agencies would need to provide “insight on important factors such as choosing appropriate data sets, transparency, explainability, accountability and appropriate assessment standards among other things.”
Noting that any guidance and regulation would need to be risk-based and flexible but not stifle innovation, NASCUS said it strongly encouraged the agencies to develop rules and guidelines that would accommodate the needs of all institutional asset sizes. “Guidance or regulation that is too inflexible or that makes AI/ML cost prohibitive may severely impact smaller institutions’ ability to utilize these tools, which may ultimately result in lost opportunities/advantages for impacted consumers,” NASCUS wrote.
The state system also recommended a common lexicon be developed for use of AI to establish a common understanding of just what the technology (and related concepts) constitutes. “An agreed-upon set of foundational definitions would likely go a long way toward avoiding future confusion among stakeholders related to divergent regulatory guidance and rules issued to address this area,” NASCUS advised.
LINK:
(May 21, 2021) An extension to July 1 for the deadline to comment on how credit unions and banks use artificial intelligence (AI) in their activities was announced this week by NCUA and other federal financial institution regulators.
The original comment deadline was June 1, but regulators said they were extending that in response to concerns from commenters noting “the complex technical nature and significance of the topic.”
The invitation to comment was provided in a request for information (RFI) published in late March by NCUA, CFPB, FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the OCC.
The five agencies are seeking information from the public on how financial institutions use AI in activities such as fraud prevention, personalization of customer services, credit underwriting, and other operations. Regulators said they are seeking to better understand the use of AI, including machine learning, by financial institutions; appropriate governance, risk management, and controls over AI; and challenges in developing, adopting, and managing AI.
LINK:
Agencies Extend Comment Period on Request for Information on Artificial Intelligence
(April 16, 2021) A request for information (RFI) about how credit unions and banks use artificial intelligence (AI) in their activities, including fraud prevention, personalization of customer services, credit underwriting, and more is summarized by NASCUS and posted on the website this week.
The summary is available to members only.
On March 29, the CFPB – along with NCUA and federal banking agencies – issued the RFI seeking information from a broad audience that includes credit unions and other financial institutions, but also trade associations, consumer groups, and other stakeholders. The agencies said they want to better understand financial institutions’ use of AI, including machine learning; appropriate governance, risk management, and controls over AI; challenges in developing, adopting, and managing AI; and whether clarifications are needed.
Regarding those clarifications, CFPB and the other agencies said they want to learn whether any are necessary from the agencies that would be helpful for financial institutions’ use of AI “in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection.”
Comments are due June 1.
(April 2, 2021) Information on how credit unions and banks use artificial intelligence (AI) in their activities, including fraud prevention, personalization of customer services, credit underwriting, and more is sought under a request for information released this week by NCUA, CFPB and the federal banking agencies.
The agencies are seeking input from a broad audience, including not only financial institutions, but also trade associations, consumer groups, and other stakeholders. The agencies said they want to better understand:
- financial institutions’ use of AI, including machine learning;
- appropriate governance, risk management, and controls over AI;
- challenges in developing, adopting, and managing AI; and
- whether clarifications are needed.
Regarding clarifications, the agencies said they are seeking to learn whether any are necessary from the agencies that would be helpful for financial institutions’ use of AI “in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection.”
Comments are due June 1 (60 days after the RFI’s publication in the Federal Register).
LINK:
Agencies Seek Wide Range of Views on Financial Institutions’ Use of Artificial Intelligence