{"id":25222,"date":"2021-04-27T01:21:00","date_gmt":"2021-04-27T01:21:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=25222"},"modified":"2021-04-28T12:44:12","modified_gmt":"2021-04-28T12:44:12","slug":"ftc-warns-the-ai-industry-dont-discriminate-or-else","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/ftc-warns-the-ai-industry-dont-discriminate-or-else\/","title":{"rendered":"FTC warns the AI industry: Don’t discriminate, or else"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Ryan Calo<\/a>, University of Washington<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just fired a shot across the bow of the artificial intelligence industry. On April 19, 2021, a staff attorney at the agency, which serves as the nation\u2019s leading consumer protection authority, wrote a blog post about biased AI algorithms that included a blunt warning: \u201cKeep in mind that if you don\u2019t hold yourself accountable, the FTC may do it for you.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The post, titled \u201cAiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company\u2019s use of AI<\/a>,\u201d was notable for its tough and specific rhetoric about discriminatory AI. The author observed that the commission\u2019s authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices \u201cwould include the sale or use of \u2013 for example \u2013 racially biased algorithms\u201d and that industry exaggerations regarding the capability of AI to make fair or unbiased hiring decisions could result in \u201cdeception, discrimination \u2013 and an FTC law enforcement action.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bias seems to pervade the AI industry. Companies large and small are selling demonstrably biased systems<\/a>, and their customers are in turn applying them in ways that disproportionately affect the vulnerable and marginalized. Examples of areas where they are being abused include health care, criminal justice and hiring<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever they say or do, companies seem unable or unwilling to rid their data sets and models of the racial, gender and other biases<\/a> that suffuse society. Industry efforts to address fairness and equity have come under fire as inadequate or poorly supported by leadership, sometimes collapsing entirely<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a researcher who studies law and technology<\/a> and a longtime observer of the FTC, I took particular note of the not-so-veiled threat of agency action. Agencies routinely use formal and informal policy statements to put regulated entities on notice that they are paying attention to a particular industry or issue. But such a direct threat of agency action \u2013 get your act together, or else \u2013 is relatively rare for the commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the FTC can do \u2013 but hasn\u2019t done<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The FTC\u2019s approach on discriminatory AI stands in stark contrast to, for instance, the early days of internet privacy. In the 1990s, the agency embraced a more hands-off, self-regulatory paradigm<\/a>, becoming more assertive only after years of privacy and security lapses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/a>
Tech industry critic Lina Khan\u2019s nomination to be a commissioner on the FTC is further evidence of the Biden administration\u2019s intention to use the agency to regulate the industry. Graeme Jennings\/Pool via AP<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How much should industry or the public read into a blog post by one government attorney? In my experience, FTC staff generally don\u2019t go rogue. If anything, that a staff attorney apparently felt empowered to use such strong rhetoric on behalf of the commission confirms a broader basis of support within the agency for policing AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can a federal agency, or anyone, define what makes AI fair or equitable? Not easily. But that\u2019s not the FTC\u2019s charge<\/a>. The agency only has to determine whether the AI industry\u2019s business practices are unfair or deceptive \u2013 a standard the agency has almost a century of experience enforcing<\/a> \u2013 or otherwise in violation of laws that Congress has asked the agency to enforce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shifting winds on regulating AI<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There are reasons to be skeptical of a sea change. The FTC is chronically understaffed<\/a>, especially with respect to technologists. The Supreme Court recently dealt the agency a setback<\/a> by requiring additional hurdles before the FTC can seek monetary restitution from violators of the FTC Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the winds are also in the commission\u2019s sails. Public concern over AI<\/a> is growing. Current and incoming commissioners \u2013 there are five, with three Democratic appointees \u2013 have been vocally skeptical<\/a> of the technology industry, as is President Biden<\/a>. The same week as this Supreme Court decision, the commissioners found themselves before the U.S. Senate<\/a> answering the Commerce Committee\u2019s questions about how the agency could do more for American consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t expect the AI industry to change overnight in response to a blog post. But I would be equally surprised if this blog post were the agency\u2019s last word on discriminatory AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Understand key political developments, each week.<\/em> Subscribe to The Conversation\u2019s election newsletter<\/a>.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ryan Calo<\/a>, Professor of Law, University of Washington<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ryan Calo, University of Washington The U.S. Federal Trade Commission just fired a shot across the bow of the artificial intelligence industry. On April 19, 2021, a staff attorney at the agency, which serves as the nation\u2019s leading consumer protection authority, wrote a blog post about biased AI algorithms that included a blunt warning: \u201cKeep […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":25223,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,277],"tags":[2341,9844,401,9842,2103,9843,1026,1763,9152],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25222"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25222"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25222\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25230,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25222\/revisions\/25230"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25223"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}