With the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence, policy makers in California and other states are rushing to address the technology’s potential downsides by reaching into their usual toolbox of regulation. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed one relatively modest law last year, but vetoed a far-reaching measure with nebulous language that could have hobbled an industry that’s become a leading source of state revenue.
The Trump administration is taking the right tack by pushing a federal approach that doesn’t stifle innovation. This is a nationwide technology, so it’s unreasonable to expect the industry to adhere to 50 differing standards. California’s Legislature is back in session, so expect more AI bills to move forward — and our state’s laws have an outsized influence on all matters tech-related.
This being California, it was only a matter of time before someone tried their hand at the ballot box. As CalMatters reported, Common Sense Media had introduced an initiative similar to the bill Newsom vetoed. The creator of ChatGPT, OpenAI, had proposed a narrower measure. They’ve agreed to gather signatures for one compromise initiative, the publication noted.
The Parents & Kids Safe AI Act includes age-verification requirements and restrictions to mitigate harmful effects on children, but it is fraught with vague language that would give the California attorney general too much authority. For instance, it bars AI creators from including “[o]utputs designed to promote isolation from family or friends, exclusive reliance on the Artificial Intelligence System for emotional support, or similar forms of inappropriate emotional dependence.”
Imagine designing a system that conforms to that gibberish, or the ensuing court battles. AI is so complex that even its designers don’t fully understand how it works. One lawmaker quoted by the CalMatters rightly argues it’s problematic to lock regulations into the state Constitution, which require a vote of the people to update. That’s the best rebuttal to this measure because AI systems are advancing rapidly.
We’re fans of lawmaking that’s closer to the people, but in this case it may be better to have a national standard that can more easily change with the times.
