Well yesterday was the deadline for the public to comment on the FCC’s sweeping A.I. NPRM, seeking to build a record on the extent and direction of AI regulation.
Responsible Enterprises Against Consumer Harassment (R.E.A.C.H.)–which is in the midst of a separate slate of meetings with the Commission in connection with the new TCPA express consent one-to-one rule– weighed in last night with a well-craft and extraordinarily thoughtful comment urging the Commission to focus regulation of vexatious AI usage and not inadvertently kill Hercules in the crib.
Here is a taste of the comment:
After careful consideration of the issues raised in the AI NPRM, REACH submits a “rush to regulation” is not in the best interests of consumers or the economy. Speed is the enemy of good in this context. AI holds tremendous promise for consumers, businesses, and our national interest. The private sector will drive innovation to the good of all—but only if that innovation is not quashed at the threshold. REACH urges the Commission to be thoughtful and slow-moving in regulating this technology, taking the opportunity to ban malicious and vexatious conduct but permitting a safe space for AI companies to explore the full promise and potential of the technology unshackled by needless disclosures and burden.
Toward that end, REACH respectfully disagrees with the recent comments of Chairwoman Rosenworcel before the Berkeley Law AI Institute.2 REACH submits it is not the Commission’s role to dictate sweeping societal norms with respect to AI. Quite the opposite. As with all new technology, consumer expectations with respect to AI interactions must first be established before regulation can be crafted to protect and empower those expectations. REACH submits time will be the best guide to wise regulation and acting too quickly and transformatively in the regulation of AI is an act of hubris rather than wisdom.
The core principle R.E.A.C.H. outlines in its comment is that AI should be regulated akin and along with other forms of regulated communications technology but not singled out for additional burdensome requirements that will spread needless fear and concern about AI interactions:
As noted at the outset, REACH does not believe the Commission should attempt to dictate societal norms with respect to AI interaction. Perhaps, over time, it becomes clear that consumers will demand notification of AI. But imposing that requirement on businesses and consumers alike in the infancy of the technology instills a stifling element of AI-phobia that is unwarranted in common business use cases. It sends a clear message: the technology is unfit, and its resulting communications are untrustworthy.
The Commission is no Luddite. Its mission is to facilitate advancements in communications technology not to label and stifle them. Consistent with that incubational spirit, the Commission should not choose a path that demeans the value and quality of a critical emerging communications tool. The record will not support because it cannot—any determination that AI-generated interaction is damaging to consumers or less effective than human interactions in most contexts. To the contrary, AI interactions already exceed human performance in many instances and that trend will only continue with time..
The comment concludes urging the Commission to keep in mind the broader benefits of protecting the American private sector’s AI development capabilities. It may well serve us critically in a time of great need:
The Commission’s first step on AI—bringing generative AI voice technology within the purview of the TCPA—was wisely taken. It extended existing regulation to an emerging technology in a way that treated AI technology as equal to other forms of technology—no better, no worse. That was a mark well hit.
The sweeping changes portended by the NPRM, however, are too much too soon. REACH urges the Commission to take things slowly and deliberately. Respond to clear threats to consumers with a clear regulatory response. But do not treat all AI communication as a threat to consumers— it isn’t. And acting like it is will hurt everyone —and ultimately may damage America’s ability to compete in what will likely become the greatest arms race in human history
Full comment here: REACH Comments on AI NPRM NOI .pdf (fcc.gov)
I would like to thank Tori Guidry and John Barbret to taking the lead here. The great Brad Seiler helped guide these efforts as head of REACH’s vaunted technology committee, and the fantastic contributions of Jenniffer Cabrera and Gayla Huber also command mention.
Another incredible TEAM performance by the cohesive and powerful REACH leadership.
Much love all!