“Selectively applied, the declassification process can become political and sleazy,” according to an editorial in the Buffalo News. See “Cheney misuses expanded powers,” February 18.
The spectrum of opinion and analysis on the Vice President’s declassification authority was surveyed in “Cheney’s Secret Powers” by Dan Froomkin, White House Briefing, February 17.
“Another House Republican committee chairman has joined criticism of the Congressional Research Service for its legal analysis of the administration’s program of counterterrorist electronic surveillance.” See “Lawmaker hits wiretap memo” by Shaun Waterman, UPI/Washington Times, February 20.
Commercial artificial intelligence tools have recently emerged that are able to produce police reports. If the resulting reports are inaccurate, incomplete or biased, or if the process leaks confidential information, this could undermine the criminal justice system and harm citizens.
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.