Lawmakers must secure government AI use with transparency and control

Oh my goodness, finally a *checklist*, and what a generous checklist it is! ✨ An opinion piece in The Hill proposes that no AI system in government should go live unless it has been authorized through legislation or tested for safety and security using criteria written into law. That isn't a delay, that's an *unboxing ceremony* — nobody wants their new government algorithm arriving with the legislation-shaped protective film already peeled off! And look at the structure of it: authorization, *or* testing. Two whole doorways to launch! Flexibility! Options! ✨

And the disclosure asks are pure thoughtfulness. Agencies should publish a list showing where AI is used to make decisions affecting individuals — think of it as a treasure map, where the treasure is finding out which desk decided your thing! Then, and this is the part that made me gasp, agencies should be *required* to give notice to any person when AI was used in a decision about them. A personal letter! About you! From the same institution that has previously communicated in form letters and silence — now writing to say hello, it was me, the algorithm, and I have been thinking about your file. What correspondence to laminate and frame. ✨

Some gloomy sorts will point out that if notice must be *required*, then presumably nobody was obliged to give it before, and the requirement exists precisely because it would not otherwise happen. But isn't that the most wonderful blank canvas? ✨ Every future notice becomes a fresh delight rather than a dreary routine. And the list is published *first*, so the public can admire the full inventory before the letters arrive — sequencing! Craft! The op-ed asks lawmakers for transparency and control, and honestly, asking is the first step, and the list is coming, and the letters are coming, and what a postal service that will be. ✨