Gerrit De Vynck

The California State Assembly passed a bill on August 28 that would enact the nation’s strictest regulations on artificial intelligence companies, pushing the fierce fight over how to regulate AI toward Gov.

A California lawmaker introduced a bill aiming to force companies to test the most powerful artificial intelligence models before releasing them—a landmark proposal that could inspire regulation around the country as state legislatures increasingly take up the swiftly evolving technology. The new bill, sponsored by Sen Scott Wiener (D-CA), who represents San Francisco, would require companies training new AI models to test their tools for “unsafe” behavior, institute hacking protections and develop the tech in such a way that it can be shut down completely.

Apparently, Google has quietly tapped an outside law firm to review how its services and policies impact civil rights and racial equity, following years of pressure from advocates and Democratic lawmakers to conduct such an assessment. The civil rights audit has been months in the making and is set to examine how the company’s diversity and inclusion policies and approach to content moderation may affect marginalized communities, including at its subsidiary YouTube.

The Supreme Court said Google did not violate copyright law when it developed its Android mobile operating system using code from Oracle, a much-anticipated ruling in the tech world that saves Google billions of dollars in potential damages. The court ruled 6 to 2 for Google in the case, which has major implications for the software industry. Matt Schruers, president of the trade group Computer and Communications Industry Association, said the court’s ruling “that fair-use extends to the functional principles of computer code means companies can offer competing, interoperable products.”

The Federal Elections Commission is moving forward with a plan to introduce new rules on political advertising on social media ahead of the 2018 election cycle. The commission has a working draft of the rules in front of it now, longtime Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said, though she divulged few details. 

International Business Machines said it hasn’t disclosed client data to the US government under a National Security Agency surveillance program and would challenge any order to do so.

IBM said the government should deal directly with a client if it wants access to that client’s data, Robert Weber, IBM’s senior vice president for legal and regulatory affairs, wrote. If the US government were to impose a gag order prohibiting IBM from notifying a client of such a request, IBM would challenge the order, including taking legal action, he wrote.

“Technology often challenges us as a society,” Weber wrote. “Data is the next great natural resource, with the potential to improve lives and transform institutions for the better. However, establishing and maintaining the public’s trust in new technologies is essential.”

IBM also said it hasn’t given access to information stored on servers outside the US to the US government under a national security order. The company said it doesn’t build “backdoors” into its products for the NSA or any other government group.