Senate study proposes 'at least' $32B yearly for AI programs | TechCrunch

Senate study proposes 'at least' $32B yearly for AI programs | TechCrunch

A long-running Senate working group has released its policy recommendation for federal funding for AI: $32 billion annually, ranging from infrastructure to grand challenges to national security risk assessments. Everything is included.

This “roadmap” isn't a bill or a detailed policy proposal, but it does give a sense of what lawmakers and “stakeholders” are looking at whenever they get to the real thing — though This is likely to happen during an election year. Absurdly small.

Sen. In a final report released by the office of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a bipartisan working group identifies the most important areas for investment to keep America competitive with its competitors abroad.

Some of the top line items on the roadmap are:

  • “A cross-government AI R&D effort, including related infrastructure,” meaning getting the DOE, NSF, NIST, NASA, Commerce and half a dozen other agencies and departments to format and share data in an AI-friendly way. In a way, this relatively simple sounding task is the most difficult and will take years to accomplish.
  • Fund American AI hardware and software at the semiconductor and architecture level, both through the CHIPS Act and elsewhere.
  • Further fund and expand the National AI Research Resource, which is still in its infancy.
  • To foster innovation through competition in “applications of AI that will fundamentally change the practice of science, engineering, or medicine, and in the fundamentals of safe and efficient software and hardware design.” “AI Grand Challenges”.
  • “Support AI manufacturing and cybersecurity” in the polls, specifically to “reduce AI-generated content that is objectively false, while protecting First Amendment rights.” Maybe it's harder than it sounds!
  • Modernize the federal government by “updating IT infrastructure to use modern data science and AI technologies and deploying new technologies to find loopholes in US code, federal laws, and procurement programs” and Improve the delivery of government services. I get what they're saying here, but that's a lot for an AI program.
  • Many vague but big defense-related things like “assessing and mitigating chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) AI-enhanced threats by DOD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOE, and other related agencies. “
  • Look at the “regulatory gap” in finance and housing, where AI-driven processes can be used to further marginalize vulnerable groups.
  • “Consider whether other potential uses of AI should be either severely limited or prohibited.” After a section on potentially harmful things like AI-powered social scores.
  • Legislation that bans AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and other non-consensual images and media.
  • Ensure that NIH, HHS, and FDA have the necessary tools to evaluate AI tools in healthcare and clinical applications.
  • “Establish an integrated approach to public-facing transparency requirements for AI systems,” Private and Public.
  • Improve the general availability of “content generation information” – that is, training data. What was used to create the model? Is your model being used for further training? and so on. AI makers will fight this tooth and nail until they can clean up the illegitimate trove of data used to create today's AIs.
  • Look at the risks and benefits of using private vs. open source AI (should the latter ever exist in a form that can scale).

You can read the full report. Here; There are many more bullet points where the above (longer list than I expected) came from. No budget numbers have been proposed.

Given that the next six months will be largely given over to election-related rigmarole, the document does more to raise the stakes in a number of general ideas than to encourage actual legislation. Much of what is proposed would require months if not years of research and iteration before a law or rule is enacted.

The AI ​​industry is moving faster than the rest of the technology sector, which means it outpaces the federal government by several orders of magnitude. While the above priorities are mostly smart, one wonders how many of them will remain relevant until Congress or the White House actually takes action.

About the Author

Leave a Reply