109 | ☣️ ⚖️ Harmful and dangerous technology work

💰 🛂 SEC signals maturing AI = maturing AI regulation

US SEC Chair, Gary Gensler, warns of the need for regulatory changes in the face of the rapid adoption of AI in the financial sector, hinting at a potential revision of existing rules and the possible introduction of new ones.

Key Points:

• AI's proliferation could heighten financial instability due to herding behavior.

• Current risk management models need updating to adapt to the new wave of data analytics.

• The SEC is looking closely at how businesses use AI, potentially implicating securities rules.

• Misleading corporate statements about AI-related risks and opportunities could lead to an SEC crackdown.

• The SEC may leverage more AI tools for better surveillance, analysis, and enforcement.

• A potential new rule on conflicts of interest when using AI to steer clients towards products is being considered.

Why This Matters: Companies need to be mindful not only of how AI technology can advance their business and also of the new regulatory implications that might be in play, but also of what they are saying about their AI capabilities. This call for stronger oversight indicates a maturing perspective on AI's role in the economy, aligning AI growth with the broader goal of fair and efficient markets.

☣️ 🧭 Navigating the Complex Terrain of AI Development

The Emerging Legal Paradigm of "Harmful and Dangerous Technology Work"

The recent petition from Kenyan workers who engage in content moderation for OpenAI's ChatGPT, via the intermediary company Sama, has opened a new discussion in the global legal market. This dialogue surrounds the concept of "harmful and dangerous technology work" and its implications for laws and regulations within the expansive field of AI development and deployment.

The petition, asking for investigations into the working conditions and operations of big tech companies outsourcing services in Kenya, is notable not just for its immediate context but also for the broader legal issues it raises. Central among these is the notion of "harmful and dangerous technology work," a term that encapsulates the uniquely modern form of labor involved in developing and ensuring the safety of AI systems.

The term resonates with our historical understanding of hazardous work but places it within the digital age's context. The content moderation undertaken by these workers entails exposure to graphic and psychologically damaging material, akin to the emotional and mental toll experienced by workers in physically hazardous industries. While the dangers in this digital arena may not be physical, they are no less real.

The economic underpinnings of this "harmful and dangerous technology work" provide a stark view of the disparities within the global AI industry. Contracts reviewed by TIME between OpenAI and Sama, signed in late 2021, were valued at about $200,000 in total for content moderation work that exposed workers to distressing and harmful content. Despite the psychologically taxing nature of the job, the wages these workers received were disproportionately low. The most junior data labelers, or agents, earned a basic salary of 21,000 Kenyan shillings ($170) per month, with monthly bonuses and commissions for meeting performance targets that could elevate their hourly rate to just $1.44 - a far cry from the $12.50 hourly rate that OpenAI paid Sama for their work. This discrepancy raises crucial questions about the fair distribution of economic benefits in the AI value chain.

The legal challenges associated with this type of work are manifold. First, there's the question of defining the concept. What exactly constitutes "harmful and dangerous technology work?" Where do we draw the line in the continuum of discomfort, distress, and harm? Clarity on these questions is crucial for devising legal solutions and protective measures for workers.

Next comes the challenge of jurisdiction. With AI work being outsourced across borders, whose responsibility is it to ensure worker safety and welfare? Is it the outsourcing country, the country where the work is being done, or a cooperative global effort? The answer to this question will have far-reaching implications for legal accountability and the enactment of protective legislation.

Moreover, worker protection must extend beyond traditional mechanisms. Ensuring adequate remuneration, psychosocial support, and clear communication channels for airing grievances are just the starting points. The advent of "harmful and dangerous technology work" necessitates the development of new protective frameworks that recognize the unique stressors associated with this line of work.

With AI becoming increasingly integrated into our society, it is also pertinent to consider how this term can influence the development and use of generative AI. Algorithms that inadvertently generate harmful content, or those which demand a high level of human moderation, could potentially fall under the category of "harmful and dangerous technology," influencing how they are legally treated and controlled.

In related news, another Kenyan company has sued Facebook (Meta) for harmful work in moderating their content.

News you can Use: 

• Top AI image boss admits using images without consent

• AI regulation around the world (useful resource)

• More small firms testing AI to compete

• Indian legal profession and AI use hoops

• Recent AI regulation efforts across key nations

• Courts, not politicians, are shaping first AI regulations

• ChatGPT can match top 1% of creative thinkers

• Media titan, Barry Diller, preparing to sue AI companies

• Gene Simmons (KISS bassist) and other rockers on AI

• OpenAI swears ChatGPT and GPT-4 are not dumber

• Still no Google Bard for Canada, along with Russia and China