The future of AI shouldn’t be handed off to an unelected body

OPINION – State boards and commissions play an important role in state government, allowing appointed Californians to bring their expertise and personal experience to government. But those appointed positions were never designed to replace the role of state officials who are elected by their constituents to represent the unique needs of their communities.

The role of state boards and commissions comes into clear focus as the state begins to develop policies around artificial intelligence (AI), raising the critical question: who should make major policy decisions on AI, a technology that touches the lives of every Californian in multiple ways?

The answer is simple: the Governor and State Legislature, in consultation with AI experts, state agencies, and academics, should make major policy decisions. But that is not what is happening. The California Privacy Protection Agency, led by an appointed 5-member board, (Privacy Board) is extending its role in implementing privacy laws to proposing new regulations on automated decision-making technology and AI. One executive in the agency called the draft regulations “by far the most comprehensive and detailed set of rules in the ‘AI space’.”

There are three important reasons why the Governor and Legislature need to assert their authority and reclaim their role as the policy-making body for the state.

First, the Governor and Legislature are accountable to their constituents. It’s their job to weigh the need for new laws and regulations against the burden state laws create. The Privacy Board, on the other hand, is not an elected body and has not been delegated the authority to make major policy decisions on the future of AI. The agency was created to protect consumer privacy and therefore its reach should not extend beyond the mandate established through the electoral process. California businesses need our elected representatives to sort out what issues AI presents and whether government action is needed to resolve the issues.

Second, the Governor and Legislature have an abundance of resources to hold hearings on the many subject areas involved in AI, meet with state agencies and outside experts, and review federal laws and the work product of the European Union. The Privacy Board consists of high-quality citizens that are dedicating time to serve the state. But the Privacy Board does not have the broad scope of authority and resources to evaluate major policy decisions that impact the future of AI and California’s economy.

Third, the Privacy Board has a very limited process for engaging the public and securing the input of a wide variety of experts. Privacy Board members usually meet once a month but this year they are only scheduled to meet only five times. And, unlike the legislative process, which involves multiple levels of analysis and public committee hearings, Board meetings involve limited input from experts and state agencies officials.

The opportunities around AI are abundant and the concerns legitimate. By ensuring that state elected leaders are in charge of the policy-making process, we can carefully and responsibly advance AI and other exciting new technologies and remain the technology capitol of the world.

Peter Leroe-Muñoz is General Counsel and SVP of Tech Policy of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group