Ground Troops Vs. the Islamic State, and More from CRS
In response to calls for increased deployment of ground forces against the Islamic State, the Congressional Research Service stated this week that “There are no clear-cut answers to determining the suitability, size, and mission profile of the ground elements of any military campaign; determining the disposition of military forces is in many ways as much an art as it is a science.”
“As it evaluates proposals to introduce more ground forces [to combat the Islamic State], Congress may therefore ponder five questions.” See Additional U.S. Ground Troops to Counter the Islamic State? Five Questions, CRS Insight, February 17, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service issued this week include the following.
IAEA Budget and U.S. Contributions: In Brief, February 17, 2016
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy, updated February 17, 2016
Border Security Metrics Between Ports of Entry, February 16, 2016
Deficits and Debt: Economic Effects and Other Issues, February 17, 2016
Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs, updated February 17, 2016
U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2016, February 16, 2016
The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, February 16, 2016
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated February 17, 2016
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.