3 ms·
There are immediate cybercrime etc activities happening around AI -- eg, content abuse is rampant rn -- so someone advising on active standards that explicitly
by lmeyerov 3y ago
There are immediate cybercrime etc activities happening around AI -- eg, content abuse is rampant rn -- so someone advising on active standards that explicitly doesn't (relatively) care about these, especially at the federal standards leadership level, is insane. That's the job!
Internally to gov, depts deploying AI are terrible at data security even before LLMs hoover & regurgitate everything. Most senior leaders don't understand this stuff, like why secure RAG indexing is hard. (Some are sharp, just too few.) That's even before other basics like ai vs human decision making for diff tasks. Getting a future-ethics person asleep at the wheel on the on-fire problems right as deployments & ATOs are getting figured out in every agency.. ouch.
- mcguire 3y agoIt is a great way to prevent those currently deploying and using AI from being impeded by any icky current concerns.
- lmeyerov 3y agoyeah that's beyond my paygrade :) At least for our work, it just takes 1 hat out of the ring for those that we would be otherwise paying attention to, but afaict doesn't really change much otherwise. There are parallel efforts across the DOD etc to set AI compliance standards for internal policies. Likewise, as usual, legal innovators at the state level are also doing legislation to govern commerce, like the recent California thing. Precedent will still get set... just not by NIST? Ex: Sounds like this person would not be focused on basic efforts to update practical aspects of NIST SP 800-53 for telling teams how it is safe to do AI in the cloud. So either teams will default to NO -- we've seen this as a common reaction in different govs + banks -- or need to point to something like the IC/DOD AI policies. Or it'll continue business as usual for the folks doing the work.