The headlines highlight the accepted conventional wisdom. “The Race to Regulate Artificial Intelligence: Why Europe Has an Edge Over America and China.” “Europe is Leading the Race to Regulate AI.” “The EU is leading the charge on AI regulation.”
Though the European Union is moving fast to pass its ambitious AI Act, the United States has also been advancing its own AI-related laws and broad governance efforts – in many ways at a much quicker pace than the EU. It’s critical to underscore this point for three main reasons.
Ultimately, the US approach serves as a solid foundation for enacting future legislation focused on the private sector AI actors as is currently being discussed in Congress.
- First, the US government’s AI legislative and regulatory efforts enhance its power to comment, critique, and push back on potentially counterproductive provisions in the AI Act and other artificial intelligence-related laws outside the US. A perception that the US government has done little undermines its authority — moral, technical, and otherwise — to opine effectively on other countries’ AI laws and lead in multilateral efforts such as the G7 Hiroshima Process.
- Second, the US approach, once clearly articulated, can be a model for countries to consider as an alternative or a complement to the EU’s AI Act. The AI Act – still in negotiation – has many virtues, but fundamentally, it is focused first on rules and second on how those rules will be defined, implemented, enforced, and evolved. By contrast, the US has emphasized building a regulatory infrastructure before moving to comprehensive regulation of AI products. Both models should be on the table.
- Third, the US government’s approach demonstrates a long-term and serious commitment to AI governance. Despite the challenging political environment in the US in recent years, both Democratic and Republican administrations and Democratic and Republican-led Congresses have championed AI governance efforts. The US government’s sustained focus on artificial intelligence shows allies and adversaries alike a clear commitment to act in the national interest.
Read the full article from CEPA.
More from CNAS
Comments on the Advanced Computing/Supercomputing IFR: Export Control Strategy & Enforcement for AI Chips
This comment represents the views of the authors alone and not those of their employers.1 The authors commend the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for the Advanced Comput...
By Erich Grunewald & Tim Fist
Operation Warp Speed showed the power of the U.S. government to direct national biotech capabilities around a shared goal—in this case, a novel vaccine. But there are many oth...
By Hannah Kelley
The rising tide of sovereign AI
Governments embarking on the strategy are thinking about AI as infrastructure rather than just a problem to solve with laws....
By Pablo Chavez
Foreword By Richard Fontaine Rapid technological change touches virtually every aspect of life today. This includes defense and national security, and for good reason: To main...
By Douglas A. Beck