In February, 2019, OpenAI, a little-known artificial-intelligence company, announced that its large-language-model text generator, GPT-2, would not be released to the public "due to our concerns about malicious applications of the technology." Among the dangers, the company stated, was a potential for misleading news articles, online impersonation, and automating the production of abusive or faked social-media content and of spam and phishing content. As a consequence, Open AI proposed that "governments should consider expanding or commencing initiatives to more systematically monitor the societal impact and diffusion of AI technologies, and to measure the progression in the capabilities of such systems." This week, four years after that warning, members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law met to discuss "Oversight of A.I.: Rules for Artificial Intelligence." As has been the case with other tech hearings on the Hill, this one came after a new technology with the capacity to fundamentally alter our social and political lives was already in circulation. Like many Americans, the lawmakers became concerned about the pitfalls of large-language-model artificial intelligence in March, when OpenAI released GPT-4, the latest and most polished iteration of its text generator.

FOX Business correspondent Lydia Hu has the latest on jobs at risk as AI further develops on "America's Newsroom." The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is making a play to be a key regulator of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, just as technology heavyweights and policymakers are clamoring for federal government oversight of AI applications. Last week's call for a moratorium on new AI development from tech giants like Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak kick-started a discussion about whether and how the government should step in and put guardrails up around potentially dangerous AI systems. Several lawmakers responded by saying a moratorium would be difficult to impose, leaving a huge gap between calls for action and the realities of how quickly Congress can act. However, the FTC has made it clear over the last week that it is prepared to bridge that gap and take a stab at regulating emerging AI systems. The federal agency tasked with policing "deceptive or unfair business practices" says it has a dog in this fight and is building up a capacity to take on the threats that AI poses to wary consumers.

There's a lot of technology that's gone into what we call the Internet. From unique IP addresses and fibre-optic cables, to taxonomy and naming conventions, standards, protocols, and so much more;a congregation of new technologies to solve more complex challenges, as use cases and users of the internet developed. As the number of users grows exponentially, it took 12 years for the Internet to reach one billion users, and only five to reach two billion. That's the thing about exponential growth: human brains have trouble predicting it and grasping the consequences, sometimes until it's too late. But as we move more of our lives online, and start to spend more time with family and friends in virtual worlds, trading virtual goods and speaking with virtual avatars, we need to seriously consider the potential for bias and harm, while providing a free and open structure from which the world can build upon.

When even the companies developing AI themselves agree with the need for regulation, it is time to stop discussing abstract principles and get down to the business of how to regulate a rapidly advancing technology landscape. It is clear that our regulatory system needs an update. If we try to regulate 21st century technology and beyond with 20th century tools, we'll get none of the benefits of regulation and all of the downsides. So, if we need to reinvent the rules to keep pace with the technological change advanced by the likes of Google, Amazon, and Facebook, where do we start? Google's Sundar Pichai is right that technology companies cannot simply build AI and leave it to the will of the market. But what we can do is try to use the best traits of markets -- competition, transparency, rapid iteration -- to reform our regulatory system.

When tech entrepreneur David Heinmeier Hansson recently took to Twitter saying the Apple Card gave him a credit limit that was 20 times higher than his wife's, despite the fact that she had a higher credit score, it may have been the first major headline about algorithmic bias you read in your everyday life. It was not the first -- there have been major stories about potential algorithmic bias in child care and insurance -- and it won't be the last. The chief technology officer of project management software firm Basecamp, Heinmeier was not the only tech figure speaking out about algorithmic bias and the Apple Card. In fact, Apple's own co-founder Steve Wozniak had a similar experience. Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren even got in on the action, bashing Apple and Goldman, and regulators said they are launching a probe.

There is a logic behind a newly revealed use of data by federal immigration authorities. Many states welcome people who are in the U.S. without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Now researchers have found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with the FBI, have been running databases filled with driver's license photos through facial recognition software, looking for immigrants of interest. Jake Laperruque is here to talk about this. He is senior counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent group that focuses on corruption and abuse of power.