Letter to Newman & Saunders re: New York City’s Automated Decision Systems Task Force
Acting Director Emily W. Newman Deputy Commissioner Brittny Saunders Mayor’s Office of Operations 235 Broadway – 10th Floor New York, NY 10007
Re: New York City’s Automated Decision Systems Task Force
Dear Task Force Chairs Newman and Saunders:
The undersigned organizations and individuals write to offer recommendations to the Automated Decision Systems Task Force, which is mandated by Local Law 49 of 2018. The Task Force is required to present the Mayor and ultimately the public with recommendations on identifying automated decision systems in New York City government, developing procedures for identifying and remedying harms, developing a process for public review, and assessing the feasibility of archiving automated decision systems and relevant data. This is an important opportunity to ensure that emerging technologies, like automated decisions systems, are adopted and implemented fairly and equitably to serve all New Yorkers.
Though we hope the Task Force will engage experts, advocates, and community members over the next year, we are offering the following recommendations in hopes that they can assist the Task Force in answering the varied and complicated questions mandated by Local Law 49 of 2018. We also anticipate that the Task Force’s prospective findings and recommendations can serve as a national or international model for other jurisdictions grappling with the opportunities and challenges presented by the use of automated decision systems, so we hope this letter can assist other advocates in their local efforts. This letter includes general recommendations for the Task Force as well as specific recommendations related to the provisions of Local Law 49 of 2018.
Coalition Urges Senate Not to Let Companies Waive Financial Regulations for AI
CDT joined AI Now Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, and several organizations dedicated to tech policy, consumer protection, and civil rights in a letter to Senate leadership and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee opposing the “AI Innovation Labs” language in Sec. 10509 of the CLARITY Act.
As concern about risks and harms related to AI systems continue to grow, a growing chorus of policymakers, industry leaders, and advocates have called for independent AI assessments. This explainer provides an overview of recent proposals for third-party assessment in the United States, including state and federal legislation, executive actions, and industry proposals.
Having third parties assess AI systems might seem like common sense, but crafting effective policies toward this goal can be devilishly tricky. A poorly-constructed ecosystem for third-party assessment could easily fail to consider the most consequential mechanisms of risk, neglect the AI harms that most impact people, or do more to protect AI companies than people.
Not All Guardrails Are Created Equal: Comparing Content Safety and Copyright Filtering
As courts and policymakers work through questions about chatbot liability, they should be wary of analogies that flatten meaningful technical differences. Copyright filtering and safety intervention share real challenges around ambiguity and evasion, but they diverge in what each control must assess, how each manifests over the course of a conversation, and how much can be verified from the outside.
