Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
States are building on the lessons learned from establishing privacy protections to forge ahead on artificial intelligence regulation.
Why it matters: Tech legislation tends to move faster at the state level, and AI is an example. State efforts can inform how Congress puts pen to paper.
Three states lead the country, starting with California.
1. California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan in January introduced AB 331, a bill for developers of automated systems making "consequential" decisions.
- Developers, including local government agencies, would be required to conduct annual impact assessments, notify people that AI is being used and prohibit algorithmic discrimination.
- Consequential decisions are defined as those related to employment, education, housing, the criminal justice system, voting and others.
- California Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed an executive order requiring the state government to examine its own AI use.
2. In Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont this summer signed a law to regulate the state's use of AI, including creating an inventory of where it's being used and requiring impact assessments.
- State Sen. James Maroney is helping lead an effort through the Future of Privacy Forum to help states align AI legislation.
- About 90 legislators and their staff, representing roughly 30 states, are having biweekly meetings to come up with a bill template that includes aligned definitions and broad guardrails on AI that all states could use as a starting point.
- "Alone you can go fast, but together you can go far," Maroney told Axios.
- "By working together in a bipartisan way, with all different types of states — small states, big states — all across the country, we get a broad perspective, and we'll hopefully be able to develop some good model legislation that people will take and they may have some specific areas of interest that are more pertinent for their state to regulate."
3. And in Washington, state Rep. Clyde Shavers is looking to sponsor a bill similar to California's AB 331.
- Many other states used Washington's privacy legislation as a starting point for their own privacy bills. Because of that history, stakeholders expect Washington's moves around AI to again inform other state efforts.
The intrigue: Ensuring alignment even within a state is tricky.
- The California Privacy Protection Agency and Bauer-Kahan's AB 331 seem to propose different standards, specifically between an automated system controlling a consequential decision versus facilitating such a decision.
Meanwhile, some groups are urging states not to move too fast on regulation.
- The Computer & Communications Industry Association says AB 331's definitions are overly broad and could inadvertently capture low-risk technology, such as spreadsheets and cameras, leading to the collection of too much data from consumers.
- "The states that have focused more on 'Let's study what's going on, let's understand what's going on so that we can legislate effectively' — those states are going down a much more productive path," CCIA innovation policy senior counsel Joshua Landau said.
Zoom in: As Congress and the White House try to prevent algorithmic discrimination through bills and voluntary guidance, New York City's law 144 is already in effect and could inform country-wide moves.
- This local law requires employers using automated decision tools to undergo a bias audit.
What they're saying: "Obviously, having 50 different standards makes it very difficult. I think legislators understand that, and they do want to make sure things are as consistent as they can be while also applying the uniqueness of their states," BSA state advocacy senior director Matt Lenz said.
- "A generally applicable privacy law, especially one at the federal level, would address many, though not all, of the concerns that we hear raised about new developments and use of complex AI systems," said Keir Lamont, Future of Privacy Forum's U.S. legislation director.
Yes, but: As states establish their own AI regimes, it will be difficult for Congress to avoid the thorny preemption issue that has plagued efforts to pass a federal privacy law.
