Responses to OMB's Request for Comment on Draft Policy Guidance on Agency Use of AI
Stanford scholars respond to a federal RFC on the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) draft policy guidance on advancing governance, innovation, and risk management for agency use of AI.
Response from Daniel Ho and Technology Governance Leaders on Behalf of Stanford RegLab
Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Daniel E. Ho, Jennifer Pahlka, Amy Perez, Kit Rodolfa, Gerald Ray
This response urges tailored solutions to AI regulation and offers suggestions for distinguishing between AI risk profiles to avoid further widening the gap between public and private sector capabilities. HAI Senior Fellow Daniel Ho and his co-authors also offer suggestions for adjusting the guidance to reduce the burden while maintaining AI safety, through measures such as securing data for equity assessments and building in public consultation mechanisms that do not lengthen rulemaking proceedings.
Read full response
Response from Daniel Ho, Percy Liang, and Technology Governance Leaders
Daniel E. Ho, Percy Liang, Timothy O'Reilly, Jennifer Pahlka, Todd Park, DJ Patil, Kit Rodolfa
This response highlights the importance of open approaches to innovation for government technology. Writing in their individual capacities, HAI Senior Fellows Daniel Ho and Percy Liang alongside their co-authors argue that the OMB Memo should draw an explicit connection to established federal policy around open source and acknowledge the long-recognized benefits to open source approaches and open research environments. They emphasize that the risks of a limited set of generative AI models should not detract from an overall commitment toward an open approach to AI innovation.
Read full response
Related Publications
This brief introduces a novel AI tool that performs statutory surveys to help governments—such as the San Francisco City Attorney Office—identify policy sludge and accelerate legal reform.
This brief introduces a novel AI tool that performs statutory surveys to help governments—such as the San Francisco City Attorney Office—identify policy sludge and accelerate legal reform.
Assessing the Implementation of Federal AI Leadership and Compliance Mandates
This white paper assesses federal efforts to advance leadership on AI innovation and governance through recent executive actions and emphasizes the need for senior-level leadership to achieve a whole-of-government approach.
This white paper assesses federal efforts to advance leadership on AI innovation and governance through recent executive actions and emphasizes the need for senior-level leadership to achieve a whole-of-government approach.
Expanding Academia’s Role in Public Sector AI
This brief analyzes the disparity between academia and industry in frontier AI research and presents policy recommendations for ensuring a stronger role for academia in public sector AI.
This brief analyzes the disparity between academia and industry in frontier AI research and presents policy recommendations for ensuring a stronger role for academia in public sector AI.
Daniel E. Ho's Testimony Before the California Senate Governmental Organization Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government
In this testimony presented in the California Senate Hearing “California at the Forefront: Steering AI Towards Ethical Horizons,” Daniel E. Ho offers three recommendations for how California should lead the nation in responsible AI innovation by nurturing and attracting technical talent into public service, democratizing access to computing and data resources, and addressing the information asymmetry about AI risks.
In this testimony presented in the California Senate Hearing “California at the Forefront: Steering AI Towards Ethical Horizons,” Daniel E. Ho offers three recommendations for how California should lead the nation in responsible AI innovation by nurturing and attracting technical talent into public service, democratizing access to computing and data resources, and addressing the information asymmetry about AI risks.