Overview
Title
To direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to update the national vulnerability database to reflect vulnerabilities to artificial intelligence systems, study the need for voluntary reporting related to artificial intelligence security and safety incidents, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that computers, especially smart ones that use artificial intelligence, are safe by telling people in charge to keep track of any problems they might have. It also says these people should think about if it's important to have a way for everyone to share big problems with these smart computers, but it doesn't make anyone do it if they don't want to.
Summary AI
H. R. 9720 aims to enhance the reporting and management of vulnerabilities in artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The bill directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to update the national vulnerability database to include AI security vulnerabilities. It also proposes studying the need for voluntary reporting and tracking of significant AI security and safety incidents, involving various stakeholders like industry, academia, and government entities. Notably, the bill specifies that NIST will not gain any new enforcement powers from this act.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "AI Incident Reporting and Security Enhancement Act," aims to enhance the management of security vulnerabilities associated with artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with updating the National Vulnerability Database to better address AI-related vulnerabilities and supports the development of standards for managing these issues. Additionally, the bill calls for a study on the voluntary reporting and tracking of significant AI security and safety incidents. The Act does not grant any new enforcement powers to NIST and relies heavily on cooperation with various stakeholders, including industry, academia, and government agencies.
Summary of Significant Issues
A key concern with the bill is the lack of clear definitions for crucial terms, notably what constitutes a "substantial" AI security or safety incident. This ambiguity may create inconsistencies in reporting, affecting the initiative's effectiveness. Additionally, the activities proposed are dependent on appropriations, meaning that inadequate funding could lead to delays or the complete stalling of processes.
The voluntary nature of the reporting and tracking system poses another issue, as it might reduce comprehensive participation, undermining the intended oversight and information-sharing objectives. Moreover, coordination challenges could arise given the requirement to involve a diverse group of stakeholders. Lastly, the absence of specified timelines or deadlines for implementation might cause indefinite delays.
Impact on the Public
The bill has the potential to enhance public safety by improving the understanding and management of AI vulnerabilities, thereby mitigating risks associated with AI systems. If successfully implemented, it could lead to more secure AI technologies that the public relies upon in various aspects of everyday life. However, the effectiveness of these improvements hinges on resolving the outlined issues, such as ensuring adequate participation and clearly defining key terms.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Industry and Technology Developers:
The bill could impose additional responsibilities on companies to track and report AI-related incidents voluntarily. While this may initially be viewed as burdensome, it could foster a culture of transparency and accountability that benefits the industry in the long term by enhancing trust in AI systems.
Academia and Research Institutions:
These stakeholders may play a pivotal role in establishing the methodologies and standards referenced in the bill. Engagement with the initiative could drive research funding and opportunities, although it may require an investment of time and resources.
Government Agencies:
Federal entities, particularly those involved with cybersecurity, might benefit from improved data sharing and insights into AI vulnerabilities, strengthening national security. However, they will need to manage potential coordination complexities.
Civil Society and Nonprofit Organizations:
These groups could influence the formulation of best practices and norms, ensuring that diverse perspectives, including ethical and community concerns, are integrated into the development of AI safety standards. Their involvement will be crucial in addressing societal impacts of AI technologies.
Overall, while the bill sets ambitious goals to enhance the management and reporting of AI vulnerabilities, its success will rely on clarifying definitions, securing adequate funding, and fostering widespread voluntary participation.
Issues
The lack of clear definitions for key terms, such as 'substantial' in the context of artificial intelligence security and safety incidents, may lead to ambiguity and inconsistencies in reporting and tracking, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the initiative (See Section 2).
The contingent nature of the activities on the availability of appropriations may result in significant delays or inability to carry out the necessary updates and reports, impacting the initiative's success (See Section 2(a) and 2(b)).
The absence of enforcement mechanisms could limit the initiative's impact, as it relies solely on voluntary participation, which may not be sufficient to ensure comprehensive data collection and sharing of vulnerabilities and incidents (See Section 2(c)).
Coordination challenges may arise from the requirement to engage numerous stakeholders across industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies, potentially leading to inefficiencies and delays (See Section 2(b)(2)).
The lack of specified timelines or deadlines for the activities beyond the submission of the final report could lead to indefinite delays in the implementation and realization of the initiative's goals (See Section 2).
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 provides its short title, allowing it to be referred to as the “AI Incident Reporting and Security Enhancement Act.”
2. Activities to support voluntary vulnerability and incident tracking associated with artificial intelligence Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with various stakeholders to update the National Vulnerability Database for managing AI security issues, support the creation of standards for AI vulnerability management, and consider setting up a voluntary system for tracking significant AI security and safety incidents. It also outlines that the process should involve representatives from industry, academia, and other relevant organizations and requires a report to Congress within three years. The bill doesn’t grant new enforcement powers to the Institute.