“Air Force intelligence components do not engage in experimentation involving human subjects for intelligence purposes,” a new Air Force Instruction (pdf) states categorically.
Except for the exceptions.
“Any exception would require approval by the Secretary or Under Secretary of the Air Force and would be undertaken only with the informed consent of the subject and in accordance with procedures established by AF/SG to safeguard the welfare of subjects.”
The new Instruction presents a generally scrupulous account of the regulatory framework within which Air Force intelligence operates. It addresses domestic search and surveillance, imagery collection and dissemination, mail covers, and other intelligence activities.
See Air Force Instruction 14-104, “Oversight of Intelligence Activities,” 16 April 2007.
Some other noteworthy new Air Force Instructions include these (both pdf):
AFI 10-2604, “Disease Containment Planning Guidance,” 6 April 2007.
AFI 40-201, “Managing Radioactive Materials in the U.S. Air Force,” 13 April 2007.
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.