I’m smashblogging on a Saturday because I came across this story on FedScoop, which discusses the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy’s launch of a public request for comment on their upcoming AI policy work. I wanted to Say A Few Words.
The story does not contain a link to the actual request itself.
So unnamed senior government sources that I angrytexted (they also noted the complexity of finding this) found this link here.
Oh, says I. So intuitive. So clear to all Americans that obviously some place called Federal Register is where that request for public comment would be. So I check it out, and actually, there’s a link in that document that says I have to go to regulations.gov. I hit that link and guess what: it takes me to regulations.gov. No link to the actual thing I’m looking for. But there’s a search bar. Masochistically, I type in “ai” which, obviously, nets me literally-literally 51,704 results.
Tarah eventually tracks down the actual link by searching for the document number, but notes that trying to search for it almost any other way would fail.
But could I have found it another way? Normal humans might try searching “ai” or “artificial intelligence”; what would their experience be like?
Maybe after searching “ai” the “Only show documents open for comment” checkbox filter will get me somewhere?
Ooo, the top result looks promising; looks like the NTIA wants some AI accountability. Cool, but that’s not what I’m looking for.
This is… bad. It’s bad government. It’s bad technology. It’s bad as a way of asking for help. Yes, the government is often slow and not great in its adoption of new technology, but at this point there’s no excuse for not having a system like this just work.
Still, just for fun, I figured I’d ask an AI to help me find it. I started with Bing… and it did not point me to the right place (it also found that NTIA comment request, but not the OSTP one):
Google Bard was, well, worse, telling me it “can’t assist with that.” Thanks for nothing, bot.
So then I tried another AI powered answerbot, Perplexity, and got the following:
The beginning (and the Perkins Coie) link is again about the NTIA, but the second link (huzzah!) is actually a PDF at Whitehouse.gov talking about about the actual OSTP request. But it’s just a PDF version of the link that a fed person sent Tarah which… again… doesn’t have the link to where to actually provide the comment.
Here’s some amazingly good news amidst all of the nonsense of late. On Thursday, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) at the White House announced that they were updating policy guidance to mandate that all taxpayer-supported research should be immediately available to the public at no cost. According to the actual policy guidelines, US departments and agencies have until the end of 2025 to make this change (though, it’s not clear that there’s any remedy if they don’t). This is really huge — and it seems to have come out of nowhere.
Long term Techdirt readers know this is an issue that we’ve talked about for ages. All the way back in 2008, we wrote about how research journals were locking up publicly funded research. And, that’s kind of crazy, because if the public funded it, then the public should have access to it. There has been a back and forth in the government over the years, with a general movement towards making more government funded research open-access, but often after an embargo period (usually, private journals can publish it for a period of 12 months, and then it goes open).
Some in Congress (at the behest of the academic publishers) have tried to pass legislation that would go in the other direction and lock up more federally funded research.
But, with this move today, the government is going fully open. And — this part is incredibly refreshing — they talk up how this should actually lead to much greater innovation:
This policy will likely yield significant benefits on a number of key priorities for the American people, from environmental justice to cancer breakthroughs, and from game-changing clean energy technologies to protecting civil liberties in an automated world.
This is a nice rebuke for all the people who insist that locking up ideas and research is necessary for innovation. It’s great to see this White House recognize otherwise.
“When research is widely available to other researchers and the public, it can save lives, provide policymakers with the tools to make critical decisions, and drive more equitable outcomes across every sector of society,” said Dr. Alondra Nelson, head of OSTP. “The American people fund tens of billions of dollars of cutting-edge research annually. There should be no delay or barrier between the American public and the returns on their investments in research.”
This is really big. And really good. And should help innovation tremendously, and provide more access to useful ideas and data that the American public has been funding.
In the actual guidance document, OSTP notes that part of the reason for this is what was learned during the early part of the COVID pandemic, when open and free access to research proved tremendous helpful:
Americans were offered a window into the great benefits of immediate public access to federally funded research at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of the public health crisis, government, industry, and scientists voluntarily worked together to adopt an immediate public access policy, which yielded powerful results: research and data flowed effectively, new accessible insights super-charged the rate of discovery, and translation of science soared. The shift in practice during COVID-19 demonstrated how delivering immediate public access to federally funded research publications and data can provide near real-time returns on American taxpayer investments in science and technology. Immediate public access to COVID-19 research is a powerful case study on the benefits of delivering research results and data rapidly to the people. The insights of new and cutting-edge research stemming from the support of federal agencies should be immediately available—not
3 just in moments of crisis, but in every moment. Not only to fight a pandemic, but to advance all areas of study, including urgent issues such as cancer, clean energy, economic disparities, and climate change. American investment in such research is essential to the health, economic prosperity, and well-being of the Nation. There should be no delay between taxpayers and the returns on their investments in research.
Of course, it also wouldn’t surprise me if Congress comes back with bills to lock up such research again — or a future administration flip flops on this. But… for now… good news!
The Office of Science & Technology Policy remains one of the few White House operations that seems to actually have a good grasp on the internet and what it means for various other aspects of governance. That’s why it’s good to see them asking for input into what the administration should do in terms of requiring public access for federally funded research (thanks to Lee for sending this over). There’s been a big debate over this for years. Given that a significant portion of academic research is federally funded, it is immensely troubling that the results of much of that research is locked away in extremely expensive journals. There has been a good push over the years for requiring federally funded research to be accessible by the public, and OSTP is now looking for views into how to create policies that would achieve that goal. Who knows what will come out of it, but for those of you concerned about tax-payer-funded knowledge being locked up by private journals, now is your chance to comment in a way where (hopefully) the government will pay attention.
In a move that surprises no one, the Obama administration finally got around to officially nominating Victoria Espinel to be the IP Czar, a position that was created out of thin air a year ago in the ProIP Act, though the position went entirely unfilled until now. Hollywood lobbyists have been pushing the administration to appoint someone ever since the spring, and VP Joe Biden had to come out and calm Hollywood execs and lawyers by promising them the “right person” would be appointed (meaning: not someone who is interested in copyright reform).
And yet… there was no appointment for so long. Why? Well, a few weeks ago, it was explained that there was a fight over where to put the position and under what group Espinel’s office would exist. The most obvious group was the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The problem? Most of the folks in OSTP actually seem to understand the problems of copyright law. They’re fans of openness and understand things like Creative Commons. Entertainment industry lobbyists started to freak out again, that even if they got someone on “their side,” that placing them in OSTP would stifle them, as the rest of the group might (gasp!) actually push back on attempts to stretch copyright enforcement towards the maximalist position. Instead, they wanted the position to be either its own office (entirely unlikely) or, in the Office of Management & Budget. Why OMB? No good reason. The position doesn’t fit there at all… but putting it there keeps it away from those darn “copyleftists” in OSTP.
So where did the position end up? Yup… it’s a part of OMB, just like Hollywood wanted. Lobbyists on all sides of the equation — including consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, though, are saying that Espinel is a good appointee. I certainly hope so, though I disagree that the position should exist at all. Also, Espinel was formerly the IP boss for the US Trade Representative — a group that has been known to push for more draconian IP laws, and to do so cloaked in secrecy. So… I’m hoping to be surprised, but putting the office in OMB and having someone from USTR isn’t encouraging.
As you may remember, last year, thanks to lots of lobbying from the entertainment industry, Congress passed the totally unnecessary “ProIP” act, which made copyright even more draconian. Luckily, the most ridiculous parts of the bill — like getting the Justice Department involved in civil litigation over copyright — was dropped. But there was still plenty of bad stuff in there — including the establishment of an “IP Czar” or “Copyright Czar” who would basically be the entertainment industry’s personal representative in the White House, in charge of “coordinating” (i.e., “driving”) strategy on making sure that the entertainment industry’s obsolete business model is always protected directly from the White House.
Earlier this year, the Senators who pushed this through got antsy and pleaded with the White House to hurry up and appoint someone to the post. In response, the White House sent Joe Biden to an industry gathering, where he promised that the White House would pick “the right person” to represent the industry’s interests. And yet… since then, there’s been nothing.
It’s been a poorly kept secret that Victoria Espinel is likely to be the IP Czar — and, as former IP person at the USTR (who has always been strongly in support of stronger IP), it definitely seems like the industry will be happy with her. But why has it taken so long? Michael Scott points us to a report from last month that the “problem” is that the White House can’t figure out where to place this role:
A stand-alone office. While this is probably the most desirable in terms of making the position as prominent within the Administration as IP owners would like, it remains [an] uphill battle.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). OSTP is known for espousing views that are less then favorable to the IP community. Placing the IP Czar within OSTP would make no more sense than coupling Oscar and Felix (or for a more modern reference, coupling Harry Potter with Voldemort).
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If a stand-alone office is not in the cards than this may be the best alternative. While OMB does not usually establish policy, it does coordinate with numerous agencies on various projects, which is certainly within the purview of the IP czar.
Of course, OSTP is the department that makes the most sense — but as the writeup notes, the folks in OSTP are actually more technologically focused, and are believers in openness and collaboration — and are the sorts of folks who are skeptical of the need for greater IP protection (and, yes, some of them read Techdirt). But… given the role, it does seem like the most reasonable spot. In fact, it seems rather problematic that the White House would agree not to put it there, just because the entertainment industry is afraid that OSTP isn’t going to just bend over for the copyright industry’s interests. If Hollywood is basically getting their own representative in the White House, at the very least it seems fair to temper that position by putting it in a department that will at least debate how strong copyright protection needs to be.
The fact that the White House hasn’t simply placed the role in OSTP certainly feels like it agreeing not to do that because the industry lobbyists who pushed for the role in the first place won’t like it. That doesn’t seem like the way government should be run.
