On March 9, 2023, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released both an Executive Summary and Full Report detailing the work done by the Chamber’s Commission on Artificial Intelligence Competitiveness, Inclusion, and Innovation (“AI Commission”) over the course of 2022-2023, calling for a “risk-based regulatory framework that will allow for [AI’s] responsible and ethical deployment.” The AI Commission traveled across the United States and to London to hear from expert witnesses, including industry experts, government leaders, company executives, academics, and researchers; gain a better understanding of technological change and the status of AI implementation; and gauge public opinion on AI regulation.

The Summary and Report both related six key takeaways aligned with major themes:

  1. The development of AI and the introduction of AI-based systems are growing exponentially. Over the next 10 to 20 years, virtually every business and government agency will use AI. This will have a profound impact on society, the economy, and national security.
  2. Policy leaders must undertake initiatives to develop thoughtful laws and rules for the development of responsible AI and its ethical deployment.
  3. A failure to regulate AI will harm the economy, potentially diminish individual rights, and constrain the development and introduction of beneficial technologies.
  4. The United States, through its technological advantages, well-developed system of individual rights, advanced legal system, and interlocking alliances with democracies, is uniquely situated to lead this effort.
  5. The United States needs to act to ensure future economic growth, provide for a competitive workforce, maintain a competitive position in a global economy, and provide for our future national security needs.
  6. Policies to promote responsible AI must be a top priority for this and future administrations and Congresses.

The Report then suggested five “Pillars for AI Regulation,” which seek to provide a substrate for lawmakers and other policymakers considering how best to address quickly developing AI technologies and the rapid embrace by the market of such tools in a variety of circumstances.  The Commission’s determinations outlined the following:

  • Efficiency. Generally, policymakers should consider existing laws and regulations and focus on filling any current gaps to accommodate new challenges created by AI usage.
  • Neutrality. New laws should be technology neutral and focus on applications and outcomes of AI, not on the technologies themselves.
  • Proportionality. When policymakers determine that laws are necessary to fill gaps in existing law, they should attempt to adopt a risk-based approach to AI regulation to ensure a balanced and proportionate approach.
  • Collegiality. Federal interagency collaboration is vital to developing cohesive regulation of AI across the government.
  • Flexibility. Laws and regulations should encourage private sector approaches to risk assessment and innovation to provide the flexibility of keeping up with rapidly changing technology.

Finally, the Report suggested several recommendations according to the following areas:

  • Preparing the Workforce – such preparation would use an evidence-based approach; would focus on educating the future workforce; would include training and reskilling within the private and public sectors; and would include programs directed toward attracting high-skilled talent.
  • Bolstering Global Competitiveness – this goal would include shoring global partnerships between the U.S. and key partners and allies; advancing IP protections; providing necessary related resources to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (among others); and protecting ingenuity through provisional approvals of patent submissions.
  • Protecting National Security – this aim would develop associated laws and codes of conduct promoting human rights and innovation; establish international rules of conduct; invest in systems validation; streamline procurement; and support work with allies to identify investment opportunities for AI-enabled systems among like-minded countries and allies.

Among the materials cited by the Commission were two articles authored by BakerHostetler attorneys: AI-Human Interaction—Soft Law Considerations and Application, 1 JARWA 4, 360–370 (Feb. 18, 2022), which the Commission considered regarding the difference between AI conceptually and simple algorithms, and Archimedes’ Lever and Audience Participation – or – Multifactor Soft-Law Transparency for AI System Process Development, 5 RAIL 1 (2022), which was cited for the Commission’s considerations of challenges in transparency and issues regarding “a one-size-fits-all Transparency mechanism.”