President Bush this week said that a newspaper — the Los Angeles Times — had published details of a new technology used to defend against improvised explosive devices, and that jihadists used details from that newspaper story to develop techniques for defeating the new technology. Noah Shachtman of DefenseTech.org argues that there is reason to doubt the President’s account. See “The Enemy is Me,” March 14. (There’s more here.)
“In another sign of increasing government secrecy, the Federal Aviation Administration has removed from its Web site the transcript of a heated public hearing during which pilots ridiculed no-fly zones that have surrounded Washington since 9/11,” writes Lance Gay of Scripps Howard News Service. See “FAA yanks potentially ‘sensitive’ information from Web site,” March 15.
If the New York Times could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for having disclosed the warrantless NSA surveillance activity, as some enthusiasts have proposed, then who else might be guilty of a similar offense? That question was asked and answered by Jack Shafer in “A Gitmo for Journos: Who besides the New York Times could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act?”, Slate, March 14.
Too often, affected patients, clinicians, and regulators cannot see how the system works, why a decision was made, or whether meaningful human oversight occurred.
Existing tools from other domains, such as existing robust public engagement processes in drug development, when applied to AI deployment can help strengthen public trust in these systems and enhance perceptions of their legitimacy and the decisions they produce.
With thoughtful policy action, it is still possible to build systems that are fair, transparent, and accountable, and to earn the public trust that will ultimately determine AI’s future. We hope policymakers are ready to act.
Procurement is not merely an administrative function—it is how AI enters government and the first line of defense for responsible AI in the public sector.