Politicians think they have a way to hold companies accountable for troublesome generative AI: take away their legal protection. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Josh Hawley have introduced a No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act that, as the name suggests, would prevent OpenAI, Google and similar firms from using the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 to waive liability for harmful content and avoid lawsuits. If someone created a deepfake image or sound bite to ruin a reputation, for instance, the tool developer could be held responsible alongside the person who used it. Hawley characterizes the bill as forcing AI creators to "take responsibility for business decisions" as they're developing products. He also casts the legislation as a "first step" toward creating rules for AI and establishing safety measures.

Legislation introduced last week would require companies to assess the impact of AI and automated systems they use to make decisions affecting people's employment, finances, housing and more. The Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022, sponsored by Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, would give the FTC more tech staff to oversee enforcement and let the agency publish information about the algorithmic tech that companies use. In fact, it follows an approach to AI accountability and transparency already promoted by key advisers inside the FTC. Algorithms used by social media companies are often the ones in the regulatory spotlight. However, all sorts of businesses -- from home loan providers and banks to job recruitment services -- use algorithmic systems to make automated decisions. In an effort to enable more oversight and control of technologies that make discriminatory decisions or create safety risks or other harms, the bill would require companies deploying automated systems to assess them, mitigate negative impacts and submit annual reports about those assessments to the FTC.

It's well established that algorithms can exhibit bias, however inadvertently, and a trio of US politicians believe they can do something about it. Senators Cory Booker, Yvette Clarke and Ron Wyden have introduced an Algorithmic Accountability Act that would require larger companies to test their algorithms and fix anything "inaccurate, unfair, biased or discriminatory." The move would also ask them to study how their systems protect personal data,and would let the FTC create regulations mandating impact studies for "highly sensitive" automated systems. The bill would only apply to companies that either make more than $50 million per year or have data for at least one million people or devices. Small businesses would theoretically be safe.

The US government is only dabbling in artificial intelligence at the moment. It might make a larger commitment before long, however. A bipartisan group of senators (Brian Schatz, Cory Gardner and Rob Portman) have introduced an AI in Government Act that would increase federal AI adoption by both including AI in data-related plans and supplying the resources to make those plans a reality. Thankfully, this isn't just a question of throwing money at the problem -- it would have multiple government organizations shift more attention to the emerging technology. The General Services Administration would have additional powers to both research AI policy and provide relevant expertise to agencies.

My previous post on the House and Senate automated driving bills (HB 3388 and SB 1885) concluded by noting that, in addition to the federal government, states and the municipalities within them also play an important role in regulating road safety.These numerous functions involve, among others, designing and maintaining roads, setting and enforcing traffic laws, licensing and punishing drivers, registering and inspecting vehicles, requiring and regulating automotive insurance, and enabling victims to recover from the drivers or manufacturers responsible for their injuries. The House bill contains modest preemption language and a savings clause that admirably tries to clarify the line between federal and state roles. The Senate bill, in contrast, currently contains a breathtakingly broad preemption provision that was proposed in committee markup by, curiously, a Democratic senator. First, a single text of the bill is not available online; only the original text plus the marked-up texts for the Senate Commerce Committee's amendments to that original have been posted. Second, whereas HB 3388 has passed the full House, SB 1885 is still making its way through the Senate.)

From package delivery drones to bomb-sniffing dogs, a bill approved by the Senate on Tuesday makes extensive changes to aviation safety, security and consumer programs and policies. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.