AI Regulation Blog

Georgia CTSA is proud to launch this new blog on Regulatory Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence. The purpose of the blog is to stimulate opinion and insights from our readers on the ethical and political dimensions of regulating AI models.

The blog’s editors are Eunji Emily Kim, MS, MA, a doctoral student in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and John Banja, PhD, a long-time faculty member at Emory University’s Center for Ethics and a member of the Regulatory Knowledge and Support program of the Georgia CTSA. Artificial intelligence has been the focus of Emily’s and John’s research for some time, and they welcome future bloggers.

#1 Preliminary Thoughts on Regulating AI

— by John Banja, PhD — I prepared this inaugural blog by doing some internet searches on “regulating artificial intelligence” and came up with the materials and associated links below. What follows is an overview of some of the most interesting, provocative, and unsettling insights I found and which I thought makes for an interesting overview of what’s currently going on in the regulatory space of AI.

#2 How AI Regulations Can Differ by Disciplines

— by Eunji Emily Kim, MS, MA — Recent surveys indicate a growing concern among Americans about the unchecked development of AI, with many advocating for robust regulatory frameworks. However, when it comes to what these regulations should look like, opinions vary widely—often influenced by one’s field of study. As a doctoral student in science and technology policy at Georgia Tech, a STEM-intensive institution, I’ve observed firsthand the differences in how social sciences and STEM fields approach AI regulation. These observations come from my experiences TA-ing ethics courses for engineers and engaging in discussions with AI professionals.

#3 Exploring the Levels of IRB Review

— by John Banja, PhD — This blog post discusses IRB criteria for AI submissions and how they determine the level of review—exempt, expedited, or full board. It's important to note that any project involving human participants should always be submitted to the IRB, even if it seems unclear. While this post doesn't represent specific IRB policies, it emphasizes the importance of caution in submitting research involving human data. The blog post also explores how AI research can sometimes pose challenges for determining the appropriate review level. Here, I share insights from literature and discussions with colleagues.