The future, they say, isn’t magic. It’s artificial intelligence (AI). But with AI’s rapid advancement, a question looms: will Congress act to regulate this powerful technology before it spirals out of control? As lawmakers return to Washington after the election, there’s a push for legislation to establish guardrails for AI, but the path to consensus is far from certain.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has promised legislative action on AI, advocating for a timeline of “months” rather than years. Schumer has held numerous AI forums on Capitol Hill, bringing in tech titans like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman, founder of OpenAI, to educate senators on the potential and perils of this transformative technology. Altman himself has emphasized the need for government leadership in this “unprecedented moment.”
But the history of Congress regulating emerging technologies is mixed. While Samuel Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, showcased his invention to the federal government in the 1840s, Congress ultimately opted not to purchase it. This decision led to private control of telecommunications in the U.S., a path that diverges from many other nations.
Congress did intervene with the advent of radio in the 1920s and 1930s, imposing regulations to address the chaotic signal interference. However, their efforts to regulate the internet in the 1990s were met with concerns about inhibiting innovation and infringing on First Amendment rights. While the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, some lawmakers might now view its provisions with a different lens, considering the current state of the digital landscape.
The debate over AI regulation is shaping up to be a clash of ideologies. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., expresses caution about excessive government intervention, emphasizing the importance of innovation and promoting a “less government” approach. Johnson and other conservatives view the European Union’s comprehensive AI regulation bill as overly prescriptive and potentially stifling to innovation. This legislation categorizes AI uses into four risk levels, prohibiting “unacceptable risk” activities like exploiting vulnerabilities based on race, disability, or social status.
However, others argue that some level of regulation is necessary to prevent harmful activities. Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who is pursuing a master’s degree in AI, acknowledges the potential for “bad actors” and suggests that a light touch approach is needed to maintain American leadership in innovation. He advocates for a less prescriptive approach than the EU’s AI Act, recognizing the need for a balance between regulation and fostering creativity.
The House has established an AI task force, co-chaired by Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. Obernolte emphasizes that fears of AI turning into an “army of evil robots” are overblown, but he does express concern about the potential for AI to be used to spread misinformation, violate data privacy, and facilitate malicious financial transactions. Lieu, however, points to Congress’s struggles in effectively addressing issues like social media and privacy, highlighting the challenge of moving quickly on AI regulation.
As the AI task force prepares a report later this year, the question remains: can Congress act decisively before the potential downsides of AI become more pronounced? The outcome of the upcoming election could influence the political landscape and shape the future of AI regulation. Perhaps, in the spirit of the times, the answer lies in asking AI itself.
