Overview
Title
To require a strategy to defend against the economic and national security risks posed by the use of artificial intelligence in the commission of financial crimes, including fraud and the dissemination of misinformation, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 2152 is a plan that asks some important people in the government to work together to keep us safe from bad guys who might use smart computers to trick people and spread lies to steal money or cause trouble. They will check every year to make sure they have good ways to stop these tricks and report back on what they find.
Summary AI
H. R. 2152, known as the "Artificial Intelligence Practices, Logistics, Actions, and Necessities Act" or the "AI PLAN Act," aims to create a strategy to address the risks of financial crimes committed using artificial intelligence (AI). The bill requires a collaboration among the Secretaries of Treasury, Homeland Security, and Commerce to submit annual reports to Congress on how to protect U.S. financial markets, citizens, and businesses from threats like fraud and misinformation spread via AI. It also suggests gathering resources and technologies to tackle AI-related financial crimes and provides legislative and practical recommendations for dealing with these issues.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the “Artificial Intelligence Practices, Logistics, Actions, and Necessities Act” or the "AI PLAN Act," is a legislative proposal introduced to the United States Congress. Its primary aim is to formulate a strategy to combat economic and national security threats posed by the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in financial crimes such as fraud and the spreading of misinformation. It mandates that certain government bodies regularly report and propose methods to mitigate these emerging risks.
Significant Issues
The bill addresses a pressing concern: the misuse of AI in committing financial crimes and disseminating false information. However, there are several notable issues with the legislation as currently drafted:
Administrative Overhead: The requirement for annual reports and recommendations might result in repetitive spending without necessarily guaranteeing effective outcomes. The legislation lacks clear criteria for assessing the success of these reports and recommendations, which could lead to inefficiencies.
Ambiguity in Resources: There is a lack of specific guidelines on what constitutes "readily available resources" versus "resources needed." This lack of specificity could result in inconsistent implementation and enforcement.
Role Clarity: The bill does not clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of different officials and departments, potentially causing overlap or duplication of efforts.
Broad Definitions: Terms like deepfakes, voice cloning, and synthetic identities are used broadly and might require more precise definitions to facilitate effective legal and regulatory enforcement.
Financial Considerations: The bill does not address the potential financial costs or include a cost-benefit analysis of implementing the proposed strategies, which could impact government budgets and taxpayers.
Comprehensive Strategizing: While the bill highlights risks like foreign election interference and market disruptions, it lacks a detailed legislative strategy to counter these threats effectively.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill represents an attempt to safeguard financial systems and national security against increasingly sophisticated AI-driven threats. If successful, the legislation could lead to greater confidence in digital transactions and information integrity, benefiting consumers and businesses alike. However, the ambiguity and potential inefficiencies within the bill could undermine these goals, possibly leading to confusion and unaddressed vulnerabilities.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government Agencies: These entities could face increased administrative burdens without a clear path to efficient or effective output due to the lack of specificity and clarity in the bill.
Technology and Financial Sectors: Companies within these sectors may experience pressures to comply with new regulations and standards that arise from this legislation. While this could increase operational costs, it could also enhance cybersecurity and market stability.
Taxpayers: The financial implications of implementing the bill's provisions without a clear cost-benefit analysis could potentially result in increased taxpayer burdens if the strategies are not cost-effective.
Legal and Regulatory Bodies: The broad terms used in defining risks may present challenges for legal enforcement and regulation, requiring these bodies to navigate undefined areas and potentially set precedents through interpretation.
In summary, while the AI PLAN Act seeks to address vital security concerns linked to AI, its effectiveness might be hindered by vague language, potential inefficiencies, and financial uncertainties.
Issues
The requirement for the submission of annual reports and recommendations (Section 2) could lead to repetitive administrative costs without guaranteeing effectiveness in combating the identified risks. The process lacks mechanisms or clear criteria for evaluating success, which could result in inefficient use of resources.
The lack of specificity in Section 2 regarding what constitutes 'readily available resources' and 'resources needed' may lead to ambiguity and inconsistent application, potentially creating confusion in enforcement and compliance efforts.
There is a potential lack of clarity in Section 2 about the roles and responsibilities of each official and department involved, which might result in overlapping duties or duplication of efforts, leading to inefficiencies in implementing the strategy.
The broad language used in Section 2 for risks like deepfakes, voice cloning, and synthetic identities might require more precise definitions to avoid misinterpretation, resulting in legal and enforcement challenges.
Section 2 does not address the potential financial burden or include a cost-benefit analysis for implementing the proposed strategies and recommendations, raising concerns about the financial implications for taxpayers and government budget allocations.
There is an absence in Section 2 of a detailed legislative strategy to effectively counter foreign election interference and disruptions to market operations, which are significant national security risks that may require more comprehensive planning beyond current proposals.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states the official title, which is the "Artificial Intelligence Practices, Logistics, Actions, and Necessities Act" or simply the "AI PLAN Act".
2. Strategy to defend against risks posed by the use of artificial intelligence Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress recognizes that using artificial intelligence for financial crimes, like fraud and spreading false information, is a major threat to US security. They mandate that relevant government officials regularly report on and suggest ways to safeguard against these risks, considering issues like deepfakes and digital fraud.