Kennedy: “This Is Your Chance” — Christina Montgomery (IBM) On How To Get AI Regulation Right

Senator John Kennedy pressed IBM Chief Privacy and Trust Officer Christina Montgomery during a May 2023 Senate Judiciary AI hearing to provide specific regulatory recommendations: “This is your chance, folks, to tell us how to get this right. Please use it.” Montgomery offered three concrete proposals: (1) regulate AI by use case, citing the EU AI Act’s banned uses framework — “certain uses of AI that it says are just simply too dangerous and will be outlawed in the EU”; (2) require impact assessments; (3) require transparency on training data. Kennedy summarized: “We ought to first pass a law that says you can use AI for these uses but not others.” Montgomery confirmed: “We need to define the highest risk use.”

The Kennedy Open Invitation

Kennedy framing: “This is your chance, folks, to tell us how to get this right.”
Editorial reach: The framing solicited industry input.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing remained central to AI debates.
Long arc: The framing fed broader regulatory debates.

The Use Case Regulation

Montgomery framing: “Rules should be focused on the use of AI in certain contexts.”
Editorial choice: The framing positions use cases as central to regulation.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing remained central to AI regulatory debates.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.

The EU AI Act Reference

Montgomery reference: Montgomery referenced the EU AI Act framework.
Editorial reach: The reference invoked global regulatory alignment.
Hearing record: The reference is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The EU AI Act continued to shape global regulation.
Long arc: The reference fed broader regulatory debates.

The Banned Uses Framing

Montgomery framing: “Certain uses of AI that…are just simply too dangerous and will be outlawed.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned banned uses as priority.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing remained central to AI regulatory debates.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.

The Impact Assessments Framing

Montgomery framing: “Requiring things like impact assessments.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned assessments as routine.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Impact assessments continued to be central.
Long arc: Impact assessments shaped subsequent regulation.

The Transparency Framing

Montgomery framing: “Transparency. Requiring companies to show their work.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned transparency as central.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Transparency continued to be central.
Long arc: Transparency shaped subsequent regulation.

The Training Data Framing

Montgomery framing: “Requiring data that’s used to train AI in the first place.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned training data as central.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Training data continued to be central.
Long arc: Training data shaped subsequent regulation.

The Highest Risk Use

Montgomery framing: “We need to define the highest risk use.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned risk-based regulation.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Risk-based regulation continued through 2024.
Long arc: Risk-based regulation shaped subsequent debates.

The Kennedy Summary

Kennedy framing: “Pass a law that says you can use AI for these uses but not others.”
Editorial reach: The framing summarized the framework.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing remained central to messaging.
Long arc: The framing fed broader regulatory debates.

The Christina Montgomery Identification

IBM Chief Privacy and Trust Officer: Montgomery’s role at IBM.
Editorial reach: Montgomery’s testimony shaped IBM positioning.
Hearing record: Montgomery’s testimony is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Montgomery continued to shape AI debates.
Long arc: Montgomery shaped subsequent regulatory debates.

The Senate Judiciary AI Hearing

May 2023 hearing: The hearing was a watershed moment for AI policy.
Editorial reach: The hearing shaped subsequent AI regulation.
Hearing record: The hearing context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The hearing continued to be referenced through 2024.
Long arc: The hearing shaped subsequent debates.

The IBM Public Posture

Editorial reach: IBM publicly supported AI regulation.
Hearing record: The IBM posture is now in the formal record.
Long arc: IBM continued to be central through 2024.
Long arc: IBM shaped AI debates.
Long arc: IBM fed broader regulatory debates.

The EU AI Act Layer

Editorial reach: The EU AI Act shaped global AI regulation.
Hearing record: The EU AI Act context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: EU regulation shaped global debates.
Long arc: EU regulation continued through 2024.
Long arc: EU regulation fed broader debates.

The Risk Based Regulation

Editorial reach: Risk-based regulation became central to AI policy.
Hearing record: The framework context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Risk-based regulation continued through 2024.
Long arc: Risk-based regulation shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: Risk-based regulation fed broader regulatory debates.

The Banned Uses Approach

EU AI Act: The Act outlawed certain AI uses outright.
Editorial reach: The banned uses approach shaped global discussion.
Hearing record: The approach context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The approach continued to be debated.
Long arc: The approach shaped subsequent debates.

The Republican AI Strategy

Editorial reach: Republicans emphasized regulatory restraint.
Hearing record: The Republican strategy is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The strategy continued through 2024.
Long arc: The strategy shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: The strategy fed broader Republican messaging.

The Democratic Response

Editorial reach: Democrats emphasized regulatory urgency.
Hearing record: The Democratic response is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The response continued through 2024.
Long arc: The response shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: The response fed broader debates.

The Public Communication Layer

Soundbite design: The exchange was structured for clip distribution.
Documentary value: The hearing record now contains a clean Republican framing.
Media uptake: The clip moved on conservative media as a Republican response argument.
Audience targeting: Kennedy’s style is built for retail political distribution.
Long arc: The framing remained central to Republican messaging through 2024.

The AI Industry Layer

Editorial reach: The AI industry shaped regulatory debates.
Hearing record: The industry context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The industry continued through 2024.
Long arc: The industry shaped technology policy.
Long arc: The industry fed broader debates.

The 2024 Implications

Election positioning: Both parties used AI for 2024 positioning.
Technology politics: Technology politics shape Senate races.
Long arc: The episode will shape AI regulation through 2024 and beyond.
Hearing legacy: The hearing record will be cited in future AI debates.
Long arc: The framing remains in circulation.

Key Takeaways

Kennedy invited IBM’s Christina Montgomery to provide specific regulation proposals.
Montgomery proposed use-case regulation, impact assessments, and transparency.
Montgomery referenced the EU AI Act’s banned uses framework.
Montgomery proposed defining “the highest risk use.”
Kennedy summarized: “Pass a law that says you can use AI for these uses but not others.”
The exchange shaped subsequent AI regulatory debates.

Transcript Highlights

The following quotations are drawn from an AI-generated Whisper transcript of the hearing and should be considered unverified pending official transcript release.

“This is your chance, folks, to tell us how to get this right. Please use it” — Sen. Kennedy
“I think…the rules should be focused on the use of AI in certain contexts” — Christina Montgomery
“If you look at the EU AI Act, it has certain uses of AI that it says are just simply too dangerous and will be outlawed in the EU” — Montgomery
“We ought to first pass a law that says you can use AI for these uses but not others. Is that what you’re saying?” — Sen. Kennedy
“We need to define the highest risk use” — Montgomery
“Requiring things like impact assessments and transparency. Requiring companies to show their work” — Montgomery

Full transcript: 162 words transcribed via Whisper AI.