We live in an era of data dichotomy. On one hand, AI developers rely on large data sets to “train” their systems about the world and respond to user questions. These data troves have become increasingly valuable and visible. On the other hand, despite the import of data, U.S. policy makers don’t view data governance as a vehicle to regulate AI.
U.S. policy makers should reconsider that perspective. As an example, the European Union, and more than 30 other countries, provide their citizens with a right not to be subject to automated decision making without explicit consent. Data governance is clearly an effective way to regulate AI.
Many AI developers treat data as an afterthought, but how AI firms collect and use data can tell you a lot about the quality of the AI services they produce. Firms and researchers struggle to collect, classify, and label data sets that are large enough to reflect the real world, but then don’t adequately clean (remove anomalies or problematic data) and check their data. Also, few AI developers and deployers divulge information about the data they use to train AI systems. As a result, we don’t know if the data that underlies many prominent AI systems is complete, consistent, or accurate. We also don’t know where that data comes from (its provenance). Without such information, users don’t know if they should trust the results they obtain from AI.
Susan Aaronson's op-ed can be found in Barron's.