If the presidential election has provided relief from anything, it has been the generative-AI boom. Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump has made much of the technology in their public messaging, and they have not articulated particularly detailed AI platforms. Bots do not seem to rank among the economy, immigration, abortion rights, and other issues that can make or break campaigns. Americans are very invested, and very worried, about the future of artificial intelligence. Polling consistently shows that a majority of adults from both major parties support government regulation of AI, and that demand for regulation might even be growing.

The burgeoning AI industry has barrelled clean past the "move fast" portion of its development, right into the part where we "break things" -- like society! Since the release of ChatGPT last November, generative AI systems have taken the digital world by storm, finding use in everything from machine coding and industrial applications to game design and virtual entertainment. It's also quickly been adopted for illicit purposes like scaling spam email operations and creating deepfakes. That's one technological genie we're never getting back in its bottle so we'd better get working on regulating it, argues Silicon Valley–based author, entrepreneur, investor, and policy advisor, Tom Kemp, in his new book, Containing Big Tech: How to Protect Our Civil Rights, Economy, and Democracy. In the excerpt below, Kemp explains what form that regulation might take and what its enforcement would mean for consumers.

The Biden administration on Tuesday sought input from the public on how to ensure artificial intelligence develops in a way that supports "equity" and civil rights and helps "underserved communities," as part of a broader plan to promote "responsible" AI. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced it is seeking input from any interested party on how to reach these and other goals as AI systems are developed. Policymakers and AI developers are increasingly in agreement on the need for federal rules, and possibly even a new federal agency, to ensure the risks of AI are managed. To inform this work, OSTP asked a series of questions on how to protect people's rights and safety as AI systems become more widely used, as well as questions related to "advancing equity and strengthening civil rights. HERE'S HOW AI IS BEING USED TO UNLOCK SECRETS STILL HIDDEN IN THE HUMAN BRAIN President Biden on Tuesday released a new plan for government research into AI, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is asking how to make sure AI boosts'equity.' (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) "What are the opportunities for AI to enhance equity and how can these be fostered?" "For example, what are the potential benefits for AI in enabling broadened prosperity, expanding economic and educational opportunity, increasing access to services, and advancing civil rights?

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. Connecticut needs safeguards on state government's use of artificial intelligence including algorithms at child welfare and other agencies to prevent discrimination and increase transparency, an advisory panel to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said Thursday. The Connecticut Advisory Committee to the federal commission called on state lawmakers to pass laws regulating such systems, which have sparked concerns in other parts of the country. The problem, critics say, is algorithms can use flawed data that can disproportionately identify minorities, low-income families, disabled people and other groups when agencies make decisions on removing children from homes, approving health, housing and other benefits, where to concentrate law enforcement and assigning children to schools, among other uses.

The Biden administration unveiled a set of far-reaching goals Tuesday aimed at averting harms caused by the rise of artificial intelligence systems, including guidelines for how to protect people's personal data and limit surveillance. The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights notably does not set out specific enforcement actions, but instead is intended as a White House call to action for the U.S. government to safeguard digital and civil rights in an AI-fueled world, officials said. "This is the Biden-Harris administration really saying that we need to work together, not only just across government, but across all sectors, to really put equity at the center and civil rights at the center of the ways that we make and use and govern technologies," said Alondra Nelson, deputy director for science and society at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "We can and should expect better and demand better from our technologies." The office said the white paper represents a major advance in the administration's agenda to hold technology companies accountable, and highlighted various federal agencies' commitments to weighing new rules and studying the specific impacts of AI technologies.

The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights notably does not set out specific enforcement actions, but instead is intended as a White House call to action for the U.S. government to safeguard digital and civil rights in an AI-fueled world, officials said. "This is the Biden-Harris administration really saying that we need to work together, not only just across government, but across all sectors, to really put equity at the center and civil rights at the center of the ways that we make and use and govern technologies," said Alondra Nelson, deputy director for science and society at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "We can and should expect better and demand better from our technologies." The office said the white paper represents a major advance in the administration's agenda to hold technology companies accountable, and highlighted various federal agencies' commitments to weighing new rules and studying the specific impacts of AI technologies. The document emerged after a year-long consultation with more than two dozen different departments, and also incorporates feedback from civil society groups, technologists, industry researchers and tech companies including Palantir and Microsoft.

Yes, it denies women and girls reproductive autonomy, but it also augurs a future where no aspect of our intimate life is ours, where even the most private spaces or relationships are ripe for surveillance, where every detail about our bodies, health, and relationships is amassed and sold. Everyone's life opportunities are on the line in a world without intimate privacy. With the evisceration of Roe and the triggering of state laws criminalizing abortion, police can access the evidence they need to pursue investigations. Our fertility, dating, and health apps, digital assistants, and cellphones track our every move, doctor visit, health condition, prescription, and search; the details of our intimate lives are sold to advertisers, marketers, and data brokers. Law enforcers can purchase or subpoena data about women's missed periods, health clinic visits, and resumed menstruation.

The Biden administration established several artificial intelligence bodies in 2021 likely to impact how agencies use the technology moving forward, but oversight mechanisms are lacking, experts say. Bills mandating greater accountability around AI haven't gained traction because the U.S. lacks comprehensive privacy legislation, like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which would serve as a foundation for regulating algorithmic systems, according to an Open Technology Institute brief published in November. Still the White House launched the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) Task Force and the National AI Advisory Committee, both authorized by the National AI Initiative Act of 2020, hoping to strengthen the U.S.'s competitive position globally, which may prove a losing battle absent oversight. "Right now most advocates and experts in the space are really looking to the EU as the place that's laying the groundwork for these kinds of issues," Spandana Singh, policy analyst at OTI, told FedScoop. "And the U.S. is kind of lagging behind because it hasn't been able to identify a more consolidated approach."

This story was published in partnership with Type Investigations with support from the Puffin Foundation. In California, non-English speakers handed COVID-19 vaccination cards without information on what they mean. In Pennsylvania, people who speak Mandarin, Korean, and Japanese unable to make vaccine appointments due to a lack of interpreters at hospital call centers. These are just a few of the examples captured in a new complaint filed on Friday to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights, Federal Emergency Management Agency's Office of Equal Rights, and Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The complaint, brought by the National Health Law Program, finds widespread problems across the country that inhibit access to COVID-19 resources for people with limited English proficiency (LEP).

Darryl Richardson was delighted when he landed a job as a "picker" at the Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama. "I thought, 'Wow, I'm going to work for Amazon, work for the richest man around," he said. "I thought it would be a nice facility that would treat you right." Richardson, a sturdily built 51-year-old with a short, charcoal beard, took a job at the gargantuan warehouse after the auto parts plant where he worked for nine years closed. Now he is strongly supporting the ambitious effort to unionize its 5,800 workers because, he says, the job is so demanding and working for Amazon has fallen far below his expectations. Last August, five months after the warehouse opened, Richardson began pushing for a union in what is not only the first effort to organize an entire Amazon warehouse in the United States, but also the biggest private-sector union drive in the south in years. "I thought the opportunities for moving up would be better. I thought safety at the plant would be better," Richardson said. "And when it comes to letting people go for no reason – job security – I thought it would be different."