Overview
Title
To provide for citizen engagement on the development and adoption of Federal civilian agency use of artificial intelligence, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 9044 is a plan that wants to make sure people get to share their thoughts about how the government uses smart robots (called artificial intelligence). It asks a special leader to talk to people and listen to what they think, both online and in-person, and then tell the grown-ups in charge what everyone said.
Summary AI
H. R. 9044 is a bill that aims to increase public involvement in the development and use of artificial intelligence by Federal civilian agencies. It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to hold both virtual and in-person listening sessions across the United States, inviting feedback from various community groups and organizations, such as civil rights and environmental groups. The bill also encourages these entities to conduct their own listening sessions and report the findings. Additionally, the Secretary must provide Congress with annual reports on the public's views about Federal use of artificial intelligence.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The bill titled "To provide for citizen engagement on the development and adoption of Federal civilian agency use of artificial intelligence, and for other purposes" aims to spearhead efforts in involving the American public and a wide array of community organizations in discussions regarding federal use of artificial intelligence (AI). Initiated by Ms. Jackson Lee and under review by relevant House committees, this legislation focuses on enabling citizen interaction through both virtual and in-person platforms. The objective is to ensure diverse groups—from civil rights organizations to agricultural businesses—have a voice in shaping how AI is integrated into federal civilian agencies. The bill mandates reports to Congress about public sentiment on this issue, which the Secretary of Homeland Security will compile and submit annually following an initial 240-day period post-enactment.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns raised by the bill is the potentially significant financial burden it could impose. This stems from its requirement to conduct both virtual and in-person listening sessions, which could lead to unnecessary spending if similar outcomes might be achieved through online engagement alone. Another issue is the absence of a specified budget, making it difficult to control spending and resource allocation effectively.
Furthermore, the criteria for selecting “appropriate representatives” for these sessions are not clearly defined, which could lead to biased or uneven representation. An added complication is the bill's language around encouraging organizations to hold independent sessions, which remains vague and does not clarify expectations for participation.
Regarding the reporting requirements, the timeline and lack of a framework in gathering and analyzing public opinions present execution challenges. This may result in inconsistencies in the reports submitted to Congress, affecting the reliability of the findings.
Impact on the Public
If implemented thoughtfully, the bill could strengthen democratic engagement, making federal policymaking more inclusive and representative of diverse perspectives on AI's use. Engaging the public and specific interest groups effectively could lead to more balanced and informed AI deployment across federal agencies, potentially enhancing public trust and accountability in government actions.
However, without the proper execution and clear guidelines, there is a risk of exacerbating financial strains on federal resources without providing substantial or actionable insights. There's also a concern that if not all voices are adequately or fairly represented in these sessions, the outcomes may not truly reflect or address the broader population's needs and concerns.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders such as civil and human rights organizations, the bill represents an opportunity to have their concerns heard and shape technological advancements that could impact privacy, surveillance, and discrimination issues. These groups might leverage the listening sessions to advocate for ethical AI applications that protect civil liberties and promote social good.
For organizations encouraged to conduct their sessions, the vagueness regarding their role could either empower them to influence AI policy significantly or result in minimal participation if they perceive the initiative as non-mandatory.
Government agencies, particularly the Secretary of Homeland Security, bear the burden of implementing this initiative. They might face challenges in meeting report deadlines and ensuring the robustness of public feedback processes, impacting their ability to provide Congress with reliable insights.
Overall, while well-intentioned, the bill requires more precise guidelines and frameworks to truly enhance public participation and yield tangible benefits in AI policy formation.
Issues
The mandate for conducting both virtual and in-person listening sessions in Section 1(a) could lead to unnecessary spending, especially if the same information can be gathered through virtual sessions alone. This could be significant from a financial perspective as it might result in wasteful expenditure.
There is no specific mention of a budget or cost estimate for organizing the listening sessions outlined in Section 1(a), which could lead to unchecked spending or resource allocation concerns.
The lack of specified criteria for selecting 'appropriate representatives' in Section 1(a) may result in favoritism or biased representation. This is a significant issue as it could affect the fairness and balance of citizen engagement, raising ethical concerns.
The term 'encourage' in Section 1(b) is vague, potentially leading to inconsistent participation. Without clear compliance expectations, entities described in subsection (a) may not engage equally, impacting the effectiveness of this initiative.
Section 1(c) imposes a deadline of 'not later than 240 days' and 'annually thereafter' for submitting reports, but lacks a clear methodological framework for gathering and analyzing public opinions. This might pose practical challenges in execution and raise questions about the reliability of the conclusions drawn in the reports.
There is no specific guidance on how the Secretary of Homeland Security should engage with the entities or what methods should be used to measure public attitudes and opinions in Section 1(c), which could lead to inconsistent reporting and affect the quality and reliability of findings. This is significant for ensuring the robustness of citizen feedback on AI use.
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. Citizen engagement on development and adoption of Federal civilian agency use of artificial intelligence Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to hold both virtual and in-person listening sessions across the U.S. to discuss and gather feedback from various community and organizational representatives about the use of artificial intelligence by federal civilian agencies. Additionally, these entities are encouraged to hold their own sessions and report back, and the Secretary must submit an annual report to Congress on public opinion regarding this topic.