Google's Eric Schmidt Helped Write AI Laws Without Disclosing Investments In AI Startups (cnbc.com) 25
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: About four years ago, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was appointed to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. It was a powerful perch. Congress tasked the new group with a broad mandate: to advise the U.S. government on how to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning and other technologies to enhance the national security of the United States. The mandate was simple: Congress directed the new body to advise on how to enhance American competitiveness on AI against its adversaries, build the AI workforce of the future, and develop data and ethical procedures.
In short, the commission, which Schmidt soon took charge of as chairman, was tasked with coming up with recommendations for almost every aspect of a vital and emerging industry. The panel did far more under his leadership. It wrote proposed legislation that later became law and steered billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to industry he helped build -- and that he was actively investing in while running the group. If you're going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn't also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments. His credentials, however, were impeccable given his deep experience in Silicon Valley, his experience advising the Defense Department, and a vast personal fortune estimated at about $20 billion.
Five months after his appointment, Schmidt made a little-noticed private investment in an initial seed round of financing for a startup company called Beacon, which uses AI in the company's supply chain products for shippers who manage freight logistics, according to CNBC's review of investment information in database Crunchbase. There is no indication that Schmidt broke any ethics rules or did anything unlawful while chairing the commission. The commission was, by design, an outside advisory group of industry participants, and its other members included well-known tech executives including Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy and Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Eric Horvitz, among others. Schmidt's investment was just the first of a handful of direct investments he would make in AI startup companies during his tenure as chairman of the AI commission. "Venture capital firms financed, in part, by Schmidt and his private family foundation also made dozens of additional investments in AI companies during Schmidt's tenure, giving Schmidt an economic stake in the industry even as he developed new regulations and encouraged taxpayer financing for it," adds CNBC. "Altogether, Schmidt and entities connected to him made more than 50 investments in AI companies while he was chairman of the federal commission on AI. Information on his investments isn't publicly available."
"All that activity meant that, at the same time Schmidt was wielding enormous influence over the future of federal AI policy, he was also potentially positioning himself to profit personally from the most promising young AI companies." Citing people close to Schmidt, the report says his investments were disclosed in a private filing to the U.S. government at the time and the public and news media had no access to that document.
A spokesperson for Schmidt told CNBC that he followed all rules and procedures in his tenure on the commission, "Eric has given full compliance on everything," the spokesperson said.
In short, the commission, which Schmidt soon took charge of as chairman, was tasked with coming up with recommendations for almost every aspect of a vital and emerging industry. The panel did far more under his leadership. It wrote proposed legislation that later became law and steered billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to industry he helped build -- and that he was actively investing in while running the group. If you're going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn't also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments. His credentials, however, were impeccable given his deep experience in Silicon Valley, his experience advising the Defense Department, and a vast personal fortune estimated at about $20 billion.
Five months after his appointment, Schmidt made a little-noticed private investment in an initial seed round of financing for a startup company called Beacon, which uses AI in the company's supply chain products for shippers who manage freight logistics, according to CNBC's review of investment information in database Crunchbase. There is no indication that Schmidt broke any ethics rules or did anything unlawful while chairing the commission. The commission was, by design, an outside advisory group of industry participants, and its other members included well-known tech executives including Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy and Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Eric Horvitz, among others. Schmidt's investment was just the first of a handful of direct investments he would make in AI startup companies during his tenure as chairman of the AI commission. "Venture capital firms financed, in part, by Schmidt and his private family foundation also made dozens of additional investments in AI companies during Schmidt's tenure, giving Schmidt an economic stake in the industry even as he developed new regulations and encouraged taxpayer financing for it," adds CNBC. "Altogether, Schmidt and entities connected to him made more than 50 investments in AI companies while he was chairman of the federal commission on AI. Information on his investments isn't publicly available."
"All that activity meant that, at the same time Schmidt was wielding enormous influence over the future of federal AI policy, he was also potentially positioning himself to profit personally from the most promising young AI companies." Citing people close to Schmidt, the report says his investments were disclosed in a private filing to the U.S. government at the time and the public and news media had no access to that document.
A spokesperson for Schmidt told CNBC that he followed all rules and procedures in his tenure on the commission, "Eric has given full compliance on everything," the spokesperson said.
Don't be evil (Score:1, Interesting)
Same guy that removed 'Don't be evil'.
Re:Don't be evil (Score:4, Funny)
Well, give him credit for 'internal consistency'...
It is an honest grift (Score:2)
Re: Don't be evil (Score:2)
Okay I guess it deserved to be modded funny, but I think the story had much more potential for humor. If only I could write to joke about the AI that told him not to admit it.
Or maybe a joke about the secret AIs that we should be worrying about, but that don't show up anywhere in the public information?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically not... (Score:1)
Since money is the toot of all evil, and Eric made sure to store away a bunch of the money out of the hands of others, did not Eric reduce the amount of Evil in the world? :-)
Re: Technically not... (Score:2)
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Re: (Score:2)
The love of money is the root of all evil.
So, could it be that Evil is the root of all profits we love?
Re: Don't be evil (Score:2)
Same guy that sat on apples board without disclosing google was building an iPhone copy
Four Laws of Robotics (Score:3)
First Law
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Fourth Law
You shall give half of everything to the robots. Or the first three are ignored.
So he did disclose? (Score:2)
> report says his investments were disclosed in a private filing to the U.S. government at the time and the public and news media had no access to that document.
Just proves the old adage... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Learning from the best.
(Flexible ethics baked in.)
To the surprise of no one (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's safe to assume that if you're working with a billionaire lobbyist industry insider, they have massive financial interest in whatever they're pushing. Not like the politicians would care.
Re: (Score:1)
paging Nancy Pelosi...
Re: (Score:2)
He was also working with 98 year old Henry Kissinger on that AI book. Schmidt learned a few tricks from the conniving Kissinger.
How could anybody possible be surprised? (Score:2, Troll)
While Obama was in office, Eric Schmidt visited the White House [archives.gov] more times than some of Obama's cabinet members. Look into it [wsj.com]. If you don't know it, when even left-wing websites [theatlantic.com] and not particularly right-wing sites [theintercept.com] talked about it, then you really ought to ask yourself some serious questions about where you get your news.
It wasn't just Eric either... there was a virtual revolving door for employees between that administration and Google - feel free to look that up too...I've posted enough links here to get
Re: (Score:2)
US service providers have gained significant influence over the world, much more so than simple US government cabinet members. Also they have better insight and different motivation than politicians do.
It makes sense for any US administration to tap into this resource and get their consulting.
Comes with lobbying, of course, but this should really not surprise anyone.
That's a reasonable argument, and... (Score:2)
is sort of the modern version of the reasons why our founders created and allowed for lobbying in our [for US readers anyway] government.
They presumed (as a group of thinkers who got together and engineered this then-new nation) that future leaders would also seek and get wise counsel from people in business and industry and from former distinguished colleagues. I think they'd be sadly disappointed, but we should always keep the views you have presented in mind whenever people issue blanket denunciations of
Abusing modpoints (Score:2)
There was nothing here that was not either objectively true and factual or a mild caution to consider your own biases, and it was only partisan to the extent that it mentioned the actual people involved who are themselves partisan. If somebody was triggered by this post, that was his/her own mental disorder.
Anybody who mods stuff like this as "TROLL" is abusing their modpoints.
Modpoints should be used to flag something "TROLL" when they are obviously deliberately provoking people with dishonest garbage, or
Re: meh (Score:2)
Or Pelosi to write laws on anything.
."A.I.". has a new meaning now'.... (Score:1)
This is why Big Government is a bad idea (Score:3)
In all of human history, has the centralization of power ever ended well? One of the more underappreciated facts about the founders of the US federal government is the degree to which they were intentionally trying to prevent government from becoming too centralized. They all had personal knowledge of living under a monarchical system, and they closely studied the rise and fall of other systems of government. Like game developers of today, they were intent on crafting the right balance of powers.
The Big Government the US has today is a product of back-to-back global warfare that has nearly completely unbalanced that original plan. For example, the US routinely borrows money today at the same per capita pace as it borrowed to fund WWII. The difference now is that there is no retrenchment, no draw-down. The government just gets larger and larger and larger.
Paradoxically, the larger it gets, the less functional it becomes. It "progresses" in the same sense as cancer progresses. It consumes, but does not produce useful work as a result. This loss of focus is what makes government a huge target for regulatory capture by Big Business. Of course those businesses that stand to benefit the most from AI legislature are those who wrote the laws.
The only way for this to not be the case is to make regulatory capture unprofitable. To do that, we would need to pretty radically alter the government from its present form. Which isn't very likely to happen anytime soon, regardless of party, sorry to say. It's not that we're stuck, exactly, but we are very, very deep in the hole. If we want to climb out, we need to get busy.
So what? (Score:2)
Y'all are just being way too cynical.