AI Regulation: An FAA for Artificial Intelligence?

We’ve focused quite a bit on identifying and managing the risks of AI, and although states continue to adopt laws and regulations intended to address some of the dangers of AI, the Trump administration hasn’t shown any interest in a federal regulatory scheme. This lack of interest reflects the administration’s desire to promote AI, as well as fears that federal regulation would deter innovation.

But is there another federal regulatory model that could promote both oversight and innovation?  A recent Bloomberg opinion piece by the Yale School of Management’s Gautam Mukunda says that there is:

How do you gain the public’s confidence in a new and potentially dangerous technology? Look to the Federal Aviation Administration, which was established in 1958 in response to a mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon. The FAA was tasked with a “dual mandate” to both protect airline safety and promote the young industry of commercial aviation. Although the agency has recently received well-deserved criticism for its overly cozy relationship with Boeing Co., under its stewardship air travel has become a trusted part of most Americans’ lives. It’s so safe that the National Safety Council recently said that an American’s lifetime risk of dying in an airplane crash was “too small to calculate” — while the chance of dying in a car crash was 1 in 95.

A similarly designed dual-mandate agency tasked with regulating and promoting AI could both ensure safety and foster the technology. Like the FAA and housed under the National Institute of Standards and Technology, this agency could certify AI systems (particularly those in high-risk applications), set safety standards, conduct safety audits and investigate accidents. It could create independent cybersecurity teams to stress-test AI models for safety concerns and provide mechanisms for developers and users to confidentially report concerning issues.

Whether an “FAA for AI” regulatory model gets any traction in Washington remains to be seen, but it certainly seems like a better alternative than the absence of a federal regulatory scheme for technology with some pretty scary downsides.