RSAC: Can we turn to govt, academic models instead?
Corporate AI models are already skewed to serve their makers' interests, and unless governments and academia step up to build transparent alternatives, the tech risks becoming just another tool for commercial manipulation.

That's according to cryptography and privacy guru Bruce Schneier, who spoke to The Register last week following a keynote speech at the RSA Conference in San Francisco.

"I worry that it'll be like search engines, which you use as if they are neutral third parties but are actually trying to manipulate you. They try to kind of get you to visit the websites of the advertisers," he told us. "It's integrity that we really need to think about, integrity as a security property and how it works with AI."

During his RSA keynote, Schneier asked: "Did your chatbot recommend a particular airline or hotel because it's the best deal for you, or because the AI company got a kickback from those companies?"

To deal with this quandary, Schneier proposes that governments should start taking a more hands-on stance in regulating AI, forcing model developers to be more open about the information they receive, and how the decisions models make are conceived.

He praised the EU AI Act, noting that it provides a mechanism to adapt the law as technology evolves, though he acknowledged there are teething problems. The legislation, which entered into force in August 2024, introduces phased requirements based on the risk level of AI systems. Companies deploying high-risk AI must maintain technical documentation, conduct risk assessments, and ensure transparency around how their models are built and how decisions are made.

Because the EU is the world's largest trading bloc, the law is expected to have a significant impact on any company wanting to do business there, he opined. This could push other regions toward similar regulation, though he added that in the US, meaningful legislative movement remains unlikely under the current administration.