Chat-GPT CEO on the carpet at Congress US

Ah, it’s always a celebration when the CEO of a tech company has to appear before the most influential club of boomers in the world. Rapid technological developments threaten to disrupt society and the only people who can really do something about it don’t even know how a search engine works. Delicious!

Another CEO

Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai (of Google), and Jack Dorsey, besides all being Tech CEOs, have more in common. All three have been having a great time at the expense of politicians. Questions about products made by other companies, questions that show a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter, it’s all part of it. Instead of putting the heat on tech CEOs, they’re wasting everyone’s time asking stupid questions. Today’s victim is Sam Altman from chatbot developer Chat-GPT.

It will be clear to everyone by now that “artificial intelligence” technology entails risks and therefore requires regulation. Since companies will not, in the goodness of their hearts, consider the common people, it falls to politicians and legislators to curb the potential excesses. In principle, it is therefore very important that CEOs of large tech companies are held accountable when concerns arise.

Congress and Altman broadly agree

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal opened the hearing last Tuesday with a fake recording of his own voice. The speech was the product of Chat-GPT and used audio recordings of Blumenthal’s actual speeches given on the Senate floor. The message? “Artificial intelligence” cannot be allowed to continue to operate without relevant legislation. Full marks to Congress so far.

Much time was spent listing the now-known dangers associated with “AI”. The main emphasis was on the capacity to spread disinformation. Senator Blumenthal’s audio file clearly set the tone. “The message reflects my own opinion, but could just as easily have been a call for Ukraine to surrender to Putin.” said the senator.

Altman himself also admitted that better legislation is a necessity. After enumerating the fixed list of risks once again, Altman indicates that, in his opinion, the issue of licenses is of the utmost importance. The government together with the industry must draw up a list of requirements that both prospective and existing “AI” companies must meet. Not all developers of “AI” models must necessarily be held to this standard, according to Altman. But only developers of models with a certain capacity.

Doom thinking unnecessary

While Altman agreed with Congress that “AI” needs regulation, he also felt it necessary to emphasize that the technology, he believes, will not lead to the end of time. Yes, AI, for example, will strongly influence the job market. And yes, governments and companies must do their best to limit the worst consequences of this.

But according to Altman, it is not necessarily the case that “AI” will take over jobs in one piece. “AI can help complete tasks, not complete jobs.” He also stressed that “AI” should be seen as a tool, not a creature. The message seemed to resonate with members of Congress. Representative Ro Khanna (Silicon Valley falls under her constituency) indicated that Altman’s most important contribution to the debate was made by adjusting the “hype” surrounding “AI” models.

But has Congress learned from it?

The purpose of such sessions is twofold. On the one hand, it is an opportunity to hold tech CEOs accountable verbally. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for members of Congress to gain knowledge. The whole should result in better legislation. The fact that Altman has come up with concrete examples of regulation is good, provided you dare to let the butcher inspect his own meat.

Again sharp questions were not forthcoming. The reason for this is clear: to be able to ask sharp questions you need to know what it is about. Once again it became clear that only one of the two camps had the required knowledge. The impression that remained after the session was mainly that Altman had managed to convince Congress of his position. Furthermore, both parties mainly reiterated their previously stated positions.

Progressive insight thus again seems to be lacking in Congress. When the consequences of “AI” leave clear impressions on society, legislation will eventually catch up. With all the buzz currently surrounding “AI” models, one would almost hope that for once lawmakers would get ahead of the curve, but I’m not going to hold my breath.