Expert Flags Three Key Changes For AI Accountability Bill

These 7 Commissioners would have IMMENSE power.

[2] The 7-member commission is prohibited from having more than four from the same party, but it doesn't define what a party affiliation is, and it doesn't limit the options. In theory, this could allow for 4 Republicans + 3 Libertarians or for 4 Democrats + 3 Dem. Socialists...

The point in concentration of power is kind of what the very last tweets in the thread were about. I think that the bill as written risks concentrating immense gov power based on what party controls the commission. But if the bill were fixed to guarantee party parity in board appointment, now we’re talking.

...at least half of its appointees (rounded down) must have been placed there with a positive vote from each of the two designated party representatives.

[3] Finally, here is what I think is by far the biggest problem with the Act. While it requires that the Commission have no more than 4 members from the same party, it puts no requirements on the party balance of the AI company board members selected by the Commission! 😱

[1] I would get rid of the sharp threshold. If a company spends 199M on AI in a year --> 0 tax. If they spend 200M --> 50% tax. This is begging for companies to game/bunch. Maybe the amount could transition linearly from 0% to 50% over a certain window, e.g., 100M-500M.

But I think this could easily be fixed in many ways. For example, the Act could be modified to require that the Commission has, among its members, a person nominated by and designated to represent each of the two parties in Congress, and that, for any company inside the Fund...

I think that this bill is intriguing. If something like it were passed, I think it could greatly reduce economic inequality and improve the health of the AI industry by making companies 50% democratically accountable.

In other words, the party that controls 4 Commission seats would be able to control 50% of the board positions on essentially all big American tech companies.

This is pretty terrifying.

Instead, I would simplify things and, for example, make it composed of 3 members nominated from a list by the Senate Majority Leader, 3 members nominated from a list by the Senate Minority Leader, and one member nominated by unrestricted choice of the POTUS.

There are some additional details about (1) how, if your company qualifies, it may need to reorganize to structurally separate its AI business from its non-AI business, and (2) closing some loopholes involving companies organized outside of the US.

The second major power of the Commission is to appoint board members for companies that are part of the sovereign wealth fund. Since the fund owns 50% of equity/capital, this basically means up to 50% membership control over all AI company boards.

The Commission is given the power to make payments from this fund every year up to 5% its average value of the prior year. The Act says that it will be used to make direct payments to Americans and, more vaguely, to ensure that every American has a decent standard of living.

Commission-appointed board members would not have any overriding duties to the company's financial interests -- only to Americans.

Overall, this would have the effect of making the US government, by far, the world's greatest stakeholder in shaping the future of AI in the world.

BUT there are three things I would change. The last of which, I think, is critical.

The first major role of the Commission is to manage payments from the new sovereign wealth fund. This Act taxes 50% of the stock and capital of qualifying AI companies.

The result of this tax would be the Treasury Department possessing a massive multi-trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund, including half the stock and capital of all the biggest tech companies.

How do you know if your company qualifies? The basic idea is that you qualify if you spend $200 million or more within any calendar year on AI datacenters, computing infra, services, or advanced robotics. (Each has a specific def. not shown in screenshot.)

However, an industry bailout is expressly prohibited.