News Room

The U.S. government needs to master data governance to capitalize on rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI). But the government’s official plan to improve how it uses data—known as the Federal Data Strategy (FDS)—suffers from a lack of leadership and fails to incorporate government-wide or agency-level mission goals.

The California State Assembly has passed the California Journalism Preservation Act, which could hurt news publishers’ revenue and Californians’ access to news content.

The Biden administration should stand up to the unwarranted harassment of American companies by EU data protection agencies.

The White House budget proposal for fiscal year 2024 throttles back investments that would help achieve goals in clean energy manufacturing, according to a new report and interactive data visualization.

Despite demands from critics, the Supreme Court rightly decided to allow Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to remain in place.

It is time for democratic, rule-of-law-nations to formally agree to come to each other’s aid when any one of them faces unfair economic aggression—like a NATO for trade.

The United States does not need a new regulator for AI. Just as it would be ill-advised to have one government agency regulate all human decision-making, it would be equally ill-advised to have one agency regulate all AI.

The Senate is wise to reconsider the role of the Universal Service Fund (USF) since there has been dramatic progress toward closing the digital divide by other means.

The recent surge in artificial intelligence (AI) developments is already leading to more economic and social benefits, but inadequate data collection in the United States means that some Americans won’t be able to reap those benefits. To avoid exacerbating inequalities perpetuated by inadequate data collection, policymakers should promote more and better data collection, because data is increasingly essential to outcomes in health care, education, and financial services, among other domains.

The FTC has an important role to play as the lead enforcer of the nation’s consumer protection laws. But instead of enforcing the laws on the books, it is attempting to unilaterally expand its scope and power beyond its legal authority in ways that would limit the ability of businesses to offer services to children online.

Despite the fact that semiconductors are more important to the world than ever, the share of U.S. students graduating with electrical engineering degrees that are essential for many semiconductor jobs has declined significantly in the past two decades, Foreign Policy noted, citing an ITIF study.

This new platform is particularly noteworthy, according to Stephen Ezell, vice president of global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a Washington-based technology think tank.

The Hill quoted Ashley Johnson in story on how generative AI tools are testing Section 230. Johnson said the “most likely scenario” is if generative AI is challenged in court, it “probably won’t be considered covered by Section 230.”

December last year, ITIF confirmed that “a one-unit increase in an industry's data restrictiveness is associated with a 0.5 percent decrease in the following year's trade—including a 0.6 percent decrease in imports and a 0.9 percent increase in import prices.”

“If the United States wants to have a regulatory environment for AI that is flexible, responsive, and adaptable to emerging risks, it should lean into the sector-specific approach it has taken to regulation,” Hodan Omaar, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Data Innovation, told Mallory. “Federal regulators are the best placed to regulate issues in different domains because they have industry-specific knowledge.”

The Center for Data Innovation said after yesterday’s hearing that the US doesn’t need a new regulator for AI. “Just as it would be ill-advised to have one government agency regulate all human decision-making, it would be equally ill-advised to have one agency regulate all AI,” said Hodan Omaar. “I don’t think it’s pragmatic, and it’s not what they should be thinking about right now.”

Politico quoted Hodan Omaar in a story on the congressional hearings on AI. The most concrete idea to emerge on Tuesday, a new agency to license the most powerful AI platforms — supported yesterday by senators of both parties as well as Altman himself — was dismissed afterward as “baffling” by a key tech lobbyist, and “seriously flawed” by Hodan Omaar, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank.

Cities all over the country have taken strides to modernize with emerging technologies that make communities smarter, safer and more connected. But there are always concerns about personal privacy. A recent report from ITIF examines this tension, urging smart city leaders to balance any potential benefits to society against privacy concerns.

"A one-size-fits-all regulator makes no sense given AI touches so many complex industries," tweeted Daniel Castro, vice president of ITIF. "AI in healthcare is different than AI in transportation. A general purpose AI regulator is not going to understand intricacies of different industries."

“I think the emerging consensus in the Republican Party is going to be fighting it on one front, which is to restrain Chinese capabilities,” said ITIF President Rob Atkinson. “That's a lot cheaper [than simultaneously trying to boost U.S. capabilities domestically and restraining China’s capabilities internationally].”