James Madison was keenly interested in books, particularly in using them as a resource to improve policymaking. In 1783, he was instrumental in developing a congressional committee report on a list of books to be used by Congress as reference materials. He said, “Congress [should] have at all times at command such authors on the law of Nations, treaties Negociations &c. . . . and it was observed that the want of this information was manifest in several important acts of Congress.” Madison noticed that the lack of knowledge on certain subjects impacted Congress’s ability to make sound laws. The books included on his list were about subjects like the Law of Nature and Nations, General History, History of Nations and Colonies, Geography, Politics, Law, Money and Trade, War, and Maritime Issues. Many of the Founders were required to legislate in areas that were completely foreign to them and did not have teams of staff or regulators to bring them up to speed. They had to independently seek out the information they needed.

These concerns still plague Congress and policymakers today. The issue is twofold: not only does Congress have to write the laws, but regulators have to draft more “laws” to implement Congress’s directives. This phenomenon has been prominent as Congress tries to grapple with how to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, recently held a hearing entitled Oversight of AI: Insiders’ Perspectives. Witnesses included Helen Toner, Director of Strategy and Foundational Research Grants at the Georgetown University Center for Security and Emerging Technology; Margaret Mitchell, former Staff Research Scientist at Google AI; William Saunders, former technical staff member at OpenAI; and David Evan Harris, Senior Policy Advisor at UC Berkeley. They expressed concern about the need to ensure safety and accountability in AI development and the real harm that AI can cause to the general public and public figures.

During the hearing, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), expressed some of the same sentiments that James Madison did in 1783.  He asked whether the government has the internal capacity to adequately regulate AI.  He said, “It seems to me it’s tough to regulate an entity if you don’t understand it and the decisions that they have to make.” His comments seemed to apply not just to members of Congress, but also the government staff who work in agencies that would regulate AI. Mr. Harris responded that some efforts by Congress—particularly a joint legislative framework by Subcommittee Chair Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Ranking Member Josh Hawley (R-MO) intended to create some accountability measures for AI developers—are on the right track. With respect to staffing agencies that would be tasked with implementing laws related to AI, he called on Congress to increase salaries to attract individuals from the private sector who can make much more money working for companies than they currently can in the government.

Senator Blumenthal closed the hearing by noting he had learned a lot and hoped that his colleagues had too.