The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Evaluating the 'Woke AI' Executive Order"
From Prof. Alan Rozenshtein at Lawfare:
Alongside last month's "AI Action Plan"—a broad strategy for promoting innovation while managing risks—last month the Trump administration also issued several executive orders. One of these, titled "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government," directs federal procurement of artificial intelligence (AI). It mandates that any large language model (LLM) purchased by the government adhere to two "Unbiased AI Principles": "truth-seeking" and "ideological neutrality."
The executive order raises three distinct questions that get to the heart of current debates over technology, law, and politics. First, is the order a constitutional exercise of the government's procurement power, or does it violate the First Amendment? Second, regardless of its legality, are the principles it champions good policy for government AI systems? And third, what does the order's strange blend of MAGA rhetoric and technocratic policy reveal about how this administration operates?
The short answer is that the order is likely constitutional, its principles are normatively reasonable (if imperfectly articulated), and its structure shows the compromises necessary when trying to make rational policy under an irrational regime.
Read the whole thing here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"truth-seeking" and "ideological neutrality." sound reasonable, but what if your "truth" is that
* foreign governments pay tariffs, not US consumers,
* climate change is a hoax,
* Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election,
* Trump won in 2020,
* covid vaccines killed more people than the virus,
* it's possible to reduce the cost of prescription drugs by 1500%,
* there is an "immigrant crime wave",
* Ukraine started the war with Russia,
* The jobs numbers released last week were faked
* The Big Beautiful Bill will not increase the deficit,
and all the other nonsense you have to pretend to believe to be a Republican these days. Seems to me that an AI that debunked any of the above would be labeled "woke" and "ideologically biased".
I grew up conservative Republican, because we were the ones grounded in facts, evidence. logic, and reason while the other side seemed to believe in fantasies. Somehow that has changed 180 degrees.
Automating the question whether university curricula are balanced enough to pass government muster? Not a good idea at all. Automated or otherwise, that kind of question cannot be a proper basis for government policy.
Speaking of AI I am gonna get on my high horse and scream it from the roof tops again. I have seen lots of posts about AI faults in general and in particular EV has posted about fake cites in AI generated legal documents. More than once I have posted Westlaw seems to have incorporated AI with claims about how good it is. As a poor retire who has been out of the game for some time I can't afford to pay for Westlaw and their venture into AI. I find it hard to believe there is not someone associated with VC that does not have at least a passing experience with how good or bad the Westlaw product is and is willing to report on it. I am looking at you EV.
I get that government has a proper power to choose the content of its own speech. I am at a loss to understand how government can properly condition any regulation or policy on expressive content generated by others.
"Woke," is a term without any agreed-upon definition. As used in MAGA policy making it acts as an arbitrary and capricious license to empower private prejudices of government officials.
There is a natural tendency for people who disagree with policies to see their terminology as unworkably vague. I think the term, like or agree with it or not, is sufficiently well-defined to pass muster. That said, I think it is has potential to be something of a stealth term. We may well find its meaning expanding so that all any opposition to white supremacy being characterized as woke.
"A developer might argue that it is infeasible to create and maintain two distinct foundation models—one for the public and a separate one for the government—and thus the executive order’s procurement standards coerce it to alter its public-facing commercial product. "
Why would it not be sufficient to point out that the developer always has the option of picking one or the other market? They're already making that choice, as the private sector market is hardly homogeneous; A large part of the private market also objects to 'woke' models!
Imagine a single-size clothing company arguing that prospective customers who turn them down because they want product tailored to their needs are infringing on their rights.
"truth-seeking" and "ideological neutrality."
This should be fun, given how these two goals are entirely in opposition.