Experts Say Federal Agency or Global Organization Should Govern AI, New Survey Co-sponsored by Two University Institutes Finds

A new survey co-sponsored by two Syracuse University institutes finds that a majority of computer science experts at top U.S research universities want to see the creation of a new federal agency or global organization to govern artificial intelligence (AI).

[OCS: This is the type of progressive communist democrat bullpucky you might expect from academic researchers. As for being “experts,” we have seen instances where well-educated, well-credentialed, and well-experienced researchers were profoundly wrong and were subsequently found to have been influenced by the politics of funding rather than performing independent research.]

Generation Lab conducted the survey for Axios in partnership with Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship (IDJC) and the Autonomous Systems Policy Institute (ASPI).

[OCS: Axios is a demonstrably progressive publication with a significant left-leaning bias. According to their website, “The Syracuse University Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship (IDJC) in Washington, D.C., engages in nonpartisan research, teaching, and public dialogue aimed at strengthening trust in news media, governance, and society.”

We have seen that the media has little or no credibility for their bald-faced lies, censorship, and cancellation of equally well-educated, well-credentialed, and well-experienced  dissenting voices.]

The Axios-Generation Lab-Syracuse University AI Experts Survey of computer science professors found that 37% favored a new “Department of AI” to regulate AI, while 22% thought a global organization or treaty was the best option. These findings compared with 16% of respondents who said Congress was the best entity to regulate AI, while 4% said the responsibility falls on the White House and 3% mentioned the private sector. About 14% of respondents said AI cannot be regulated, while 3% said AI should not be regulated.

[OCS: As proven over the past decade, governments, non-governmental organizations, foundations, and institutes cannot be trusted to regulate anything that can be corrupted and weaponized by political action, especially by progressive communist democrats.]

Margaret Talev, Kramer Director of the IDJC, says the survey offered a different and important perspective on the expanding conversation about the uses and proliferation of AI.

[OCS: There is nothing different or important about progressives suggesting that the government regulate a critical new technology to “protect the people” from the fear deliberately created by progressive media propagandists promoting a communist democrat agenda.]

“While larger general-population surveys can provide broad insights into most Americans’ hopes, fears and understanding of AI, this new survey offers an in-depth look at how computer science professors with significant subject-matter expertise are thinking about the same issues,” says Talev, who is also an Axios senior contributor.

[OCS: Most Americans are ignorant about AI, its limitations, its dangers, and the real danger of allowing the government to regulate a technology that can create propaganda – including fake news, photos, and sound bites. What they know comes from a mainly progressive media that lies with impunity.]

“This survey provides valuable information about the current state of AI because it is based on the views of those who are closely involved in the development of AI techniques and systems. We are glad to be part of this effort, which also informs our own initiatives, including our plan to launch the Academic Alliance on AI Policy next month in Washington, D.C.,” adds Hamid Ekbia, director of the ASPI.

Some other key survey findings:

• About 62% predict AI will increase racial, gender and economic disparities.

  [OCS: Classic Marxist/Communist rhetoric.]

• Respondents also predict that customer service; art, design or content creation; and administrative and support services are most likely to experience job losses due to AI over the next five years. [

  OCS: AI produces realistic results based on its training – it cannot produce creative solutions, cannot generate consensus, and can generate detectible work. It can “hallucinate” and produce profoundly wrong results.]

• No single person is highly trusted to deal with AI issues; President Biden ranked higher than individual tech CEOs.

  [OCS: Tell me a funny story about a cognitively impaired individual who lies frequently and cannot speak coherently, even with a teleprompter. How President Biden could even be considered as being trusted speaks to the progressive communist democrat bias of this survey.]

The Axios-Generation Lab-Syracuse University AI Experts Survey was conducted July 15 – Aug. 6. Results are based on interviews with 213 computer science professors from 65 of the top 100 computer science programs in America, as defined by SCImago Institutions Rankings. Experts from Syracuse University were among those surveyed.

[OCS: Look closely at how the institutions are chosen based on published work – much of it banal and originating from professors funded by government and foundation grants and featuring the work of doctoral candidates or post-doc researchers.  <Source> Most professors teaching advanced courses are far from subject matter experts.]

A listing of the participating institutions and additional details about the methodology may be found on the Generation Lab website. <Source>

Generation Lab Expert Opinion Methodology

Generation Lab conducts studies to capture expert perspectives from scholars on a variety of critical issues. Our proprietary non-opt-in scholars frame, the largest commercially available one yet, is built from a database of every college and university in the United States in order to conduct high-volume, customizable studies on various expert populations.

To build our frame, we first ordered the list of every college and university in the United States based on their admission rate from most selective to least selective. The admissions rate was used as a proxy to prioritize universities with more dedicated resources to research. We obtain this compilation of universities and the relevant appended data from the Department of Education College Scorecard, which includes all active Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) institutions. We eliminate schools that are dedicated to arts, trades, and specialized programs.

Then we go through the list and obtain contact and details on every scholar within each school, including but not limited to: their title, their department, their area of focus within the department. We utilize a variety of proprietary methods to find the contacts and details about the scholars.

[OCS: Teaching a subject does not qualify you as an expert. Many academic research experts have no teaching responsibilities.]

Because we are obtaining a scholar’s information from their institution directly, all the information contained in our frame is fully validated, including the contact information of each scholar. We further confirm this information through screening in our questionnaires.

Depending on the study design, we may employ a stratified random method of sampling by leveraging a wealth of data available on published scholarship. Studies are deployed and sent out to the scholars who satisfy the qualifications of our intended study. Scholars are provided with details about the study, its sponsors, and information about the Generation Lab. An honorarium is given to the sampled respondents who complete each study.  <Source>

[OCS: Most AI “experts practice in non-academic entities, rarely publish proprietary data, and whose informed opinion may be quite different from an academician with a more theoretical and political viewpoint.]