A comparison of the approaches taken by the Biden and Trump administrations towards the growth and regulation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the U.S., highlighting convergence in policies and potential implications of differing climate policies.
Development and Regulation of Generative AI Under Biden and Trump
The expansion of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has become a focal concern for the U.S. government over the past year and a half. Utilizing models like ChatGPT, federal agencies have increasingly employed GenAI to generate text, images, audio, and video content. While there are perceived differences in political outlooks between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, their policies surrounding AI have notably converged.
During Joe Biden’s administration, significant growth in GenAI has been observed. His administration announced voluntary commitments from leading AI companies, including Amazon, Google, Meta, and OpenAI, aimed ostensibly at promoting safety, security, and trust in AI technologies. These initiatives primarily addressed future, more powerful AI models, allowing current models to operate with less stringent oversight. Furthermore, Biden’s executive order on AI discouraged broad bans on federal use of GenAI, endorsing its development and application in federal agencies.
Trump’s tenure also emphasized AI growth through deregulation and federal support. In February 2019, Trump initiated the American AI Initiative to maintain U.S. leadership in AI technology. His efforts also included doubling nondefense R&D investments in AI and promoting the use of AI across federal agencies. Despite the similarities in their approach, a key difference between Biden and Trump lies in their climate policies, which could significantly impact the GenAI industry.
Biden rejoined the Paris climate accord, signaling stringent environmental commitments that might constrain the energy-intensive growth of GenAI. Conversely, Trump, if reelected, may withdraw from the accord again, thereby reducing regulatory pressures related to climate commitments, potentially benefiting GenAI developers.
Moreover, the military use of GenAI, as evidenced during the Israel-Hamas conflict, remains a significant point of interest. The stance of the next administration will influence the regulatory landscape governing the military use of AI, affecting GenAI developers’ global operations.
Both administrations have shown considerable support for AI development, though their differing climate policies present variable implications for the future growth and regulation of the GenAI sector.
