So the government should step in to dictate what neutrality means?

Seriously. Is _that_ what it means to have a conservative government? Because I thought it meant they would keep their hands off the market. This is straight from the PDF though:

"Led by the Department of Commerce (DOC) through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change."

▲

AdamN 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't that why we have government? We have judges to make the final say on right and wrong and what the punishments are for transgressions, legislatures to make laws and allocate money based on the needs of the constituents, and an executive function to carry out the will of the stakeholders.

Clearly there are terrible governments but if it's not government tackling these issues then there will be limited control by the people and it will simply be those with the most money define the landscape.

	▲	palmfacehn 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Does the individual consumer have any agency in which AI services he chooses to consume? As I understood the original premises of the US gov, it was to be constitutionally limited in scope. Now I know that ship has sailed a long time ago, but I don't think it follows that we have a gov. to centrally plan AI content as right or wrong.