Starting from the canonicals of any standard suitable for optimizing innovation (and incorporation by reference into public law) — Title, Scope, Purpose and Definitions — we will turn our attention to the Call for Public Comment by NIST which is open until July 28th.
Artificial intelligence is built upon language, but the meaning of “standard language” becomes complicated when machines learn from billions of human expressions. Unlike electrical, building or safety standards, language standards are rarely governed by a single authority. Dictionaries, style manuals, universities, publishers, governments and professional societies establish conventions, while ordinary speakers continuously modify them. AI systems operate in the middle of this tension between prescription and usage.
Training data. Large language models learn statistical patterns from books, websites, journalism, academic literature, software and other sources. The composition of that material influences what the model recognizes as normal, authoritative or acceptable language. Decisions about inclusion, exclusion and weighting can therefore function as de facto standards, even when no formal standards organization is involved.
Grammar and intelligibility. AI can reinforce conventional spelling, syntax and technical terminology, making communication across institutions and borders easier. This is particularly valuable in engineering, medicine, law and education, where small differences in terminology can have substantial consequences. Yet excessive normalization may flatten dialect, regional vocabulary and inherited forms of expression.
Meaning. Words change over time and contested words often carry political, cultural or institutional assumptions. When an AI system chooses one definition over another, it may unintentionally appear to settle a dispute that society itself has not settled. Transparency about ambiguity is therefore an important characteristic of trustworthy AI.
Tchnical standardization. AI increasingly depends upon formal vocabularies, ontologies, metadata, machine-readable definitions and interoperability protocols. Standards organizations such as International Organization for Standardization, IEEE and National Institute of Standards and Technology have roles in developing frameworks through which AI systems can be evaluated and governed.
Above all we still face the question: Who gets to set the language standard? Should AI reflect contemporary majority usage, established literary traditions, professional terminology, institutional style or the language of particular communities? Probably some combination is unavoidable.
For Standards Michigan, the deeper question may be this: AI does not merely follow language standards; through widespread daily use, it may increasingly help create them. If millions of students, teachers, engineers and institutions rely upon AI to write and interpret language, the model’s linguistic choices can become conventions themselves. Understanding how those choices are made may therefore become as important as understanding the standards written by traditional standards-setting bodies.
