Article doesn't say much, but links to an official "fact sheet", with few facts.[1] This references what's supposed to be the actual policy, "House Information Technology Policy 8", or "HITPOL 8". Trying to find that. The cao.house.gov site has search, but the only HITPOL document is that fact sheet. "HITPOL 8" has no hits in Google other than that "fact sheet".
"The new House AI Policy is just beginning." says the fact sheet.
Looks like there isn't a policy, just a plan to develop one.
[1] https://cao.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/cao.house.gov/files...
I thought I'd be clever, find HITPOL 7, and then increment the number in the URL I type into the browser (colloquially, this is sometimes referred to as "doing a cybercrime").
I found a page that contained a link to a "House Information Technology Policy for Official Domain Names," however that link is dead.
Some more searching hints at the existence of a "House IT Policy 007.0 – Bulk Email List Management," which is mentioned in the Members' Congressional Handbook[0]. Sadly, the elusive HITPOL 7 is not linked from the handbook and neither DDG nor Google seem to index said document.
a concept of a policy, I guess
There's also this press release: https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/cha-cao-announce-house-of-repre...
A request for bribes, if you will.
I could be wrong or ill informed, but it seems to me like its way too early to properly regulate AI. Our fears are likely to illicit an irrational response to anthropromorphized machines.
I see the harm of these laws most likely outweighing the good and I smell a government power grab. Willing to be wrong as always but would love to know more.
Well, this is specifically about how half of the Congress itself can use AI. Is that a good test case for elements of regulating the process of writing laws?