Why California back away with AI regulation cladding

From Harry JohnsonCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

After three years of trying to give Californians to know when AI made a subsequent decision about their lives and to appeal when things go wrong, the meeting member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said that she and her supporters would have to wait again until next year.

Democrat from San Ramon announced on Friday that Assembly bill 1018Whoever clears the assembly and two Senate Committees has been set out a two -year bill, which means that it can be returned as part of the legislative session next year. This move will allow more time to talk to governor Gavin Nuance and More than 70 opponentsS The decision came in the last hours of the California legislative session, which ends today.

Its bill will require businesses and government agencies to warn people when using automated systems for making important decisions for them, including apartment leasing, school and workplace, hiring, dismissal, promotions and disciplinary action. The bill also covers decisions taken in education, healthcare, criminal justice, state benefits, financial services and insurance.

Automated systems that assign people’s results or make recommendations can prevent Californians from receiving Unemployment benefits have a rightjob candidates for less qualified for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with work, or deny people healthcare or Mortgage because of their raceS

“This pause reflects our commitment to fixing this critical legislation, not a retreat from our responsibility for the protection of Californians,” Bauer-Kahan said in a statement shared with Calmatters.

Bauer-Kahan accepted the principles enshrined in the legislation From BI for the rights of the administration of the administration of Biden. California has passed More regulating AI than any other countryBut has not yet passed a law such as Bauer-Kahan or as other laws requiring the disclosure of subsequent AI decisions such as the Colorado Ai Act or The European Union ActS

The break comes at a time when politicians in Washington continue to oppose the regulation of AI, which is said to be able to interfere with progress. Last week, the leaders of the largest technology companies in the country Join President Trump At the White House dinner for a further discussion of a recent executive order and other initiatives to prevent AI regulation. Earlier this year, Congress tested and failed To pass a moratorium on the regulation of AI by state governments.

When an automated system makes an error, AB 1018 gives people the right to remedy this error within 60 days. He also reiterates that algorithms should give “full and equal” accommodation to all and cannot discriminate against people based on characteristics such as age, race, gender, disability or immigration status. Developers must make impact assessments, among other things, test for bias embedded in their systems. If no impact assessment is conducted on the AI ​​system and this system is used to make subsequent decisions about the lives of people, the entrepreneur is facing fines up to $ 25,000 for violation or judicial action by the prosecutor, prosecutor’s office or the civil rights department.

Amendments made in the bill in recent weeks, released generative models of AI from coverage according to the bill that could prevent it from affecting large AI companies or Current generative pilot projects on AI carried out by state agencies. The bill was also amended to delay the audit requirement of developers by 2030 and to clarify that the bill intends to turn to a person’s evaluation and make forecasts or recommendations for them.

Intensive legislative struggle

Samantha Gordon, Chief Program Officer of Techequity, sponsor the bill, said she saw that more lobbyists were trying to kill the AB 1018 this week in the California Senate than any other AI bill ever. She said she thought the AB 1018 had a way to cross, but the decision was made to pause to work with the governor, who ends his second and last term in the next year.

“There is a major disagreement about whether these instruments should be confronted with a major control of testing and informing the public that they are being used,” Gordon said.

Gordon believes that technology companies may use their “unlimited amount of money” to fight the account next year.

“But it’s clear,” she added, “that Americans want these defenses – the survey after the poll shows that Americans want strong AI laws and that voluntary protection is insufficient.”

The AB 1018 faces opposition from industrial groups, major technology companies, the largest healthcare provider in the country, the risk -based California Companies, the California Judicial Council, the state court policy.

Coalition of Hospitals, Kaiser Permanence and Health Software and Epic Systems AI Company Company called the legislators to vote not at 1018 As they claim that the bill will adversely affect patient care, increase costs and require developers to contract with third -party auditors to evaluate compliance by 2030.

Coalition of business groups opposed the bill Due to the generalization of the language and concern that observance can be expensive for business and taxpayers. The TechNet group, which seeks to form policy across the country and whose members include companies such as Apple, Google, Nvidia and Openiai, claim that AB 1018 will suffocate job growth, raise costs and punish the fastest growing industries in the state in A Video advertising campaignS

The risk capital company Andresen Horowitz, whose founder Mark Andresen supported the re -election of President Trump, oppose the bill Due to the cost and the fact that the bill seeks to regulate AI in California and after.

The leader of the state judicial system said in a signal sent to the legislators, calling this week without a vote that the severity of compliance with the bill was so great that the court branch was at risk of losing the ability to use risk assessment instruments as the type of recurrence of sexual offenders. The State Judicial Council, which makes a policy for the California courts, estimates that the transition of AB 1018 will cost the state up to $ 300 million a year. Similar points were made in a Letter to the legislators last month.

Why do supporters continue to fight

Exactly how much AB 1018 can cost taxpayers, it is still a great unknown because of conflicting information from government agencies. An Analysis The legislative staff in California found that if the bill passed, it could cost local agencies, government agencies and the state court branch hundreds of millions of dollars. But the California Technology Division Report covered exclusively from Calmatters He concluded in May that no government agency uses high -risk automated systems, despite historical evidence otherwise. Bauer-Kahan said last month that she was surprised by the evaluations of financial impact because CalMatters reporting It is found that the use of the decision -making system is not widespread at the state level.

Support for the bill came from the unions who promised to discuss AI in negotiationIncluding the California Association of Nurses and the International Union of Services of the Service, as well as from groups such as citizens’ confidentiality coalition, Consumer Reports and the Consumer Federation in California.

The co-authors of AB 1018 include major democratic supporters of the regulation of AI in the legislation of California, including the leader of the majority of the Assembly Cecilla Aguilar-Curie of Davis, the author of the adopted bill and the governor’s desk, who seeks to Stop algorithms from raising consumer goods prices; Chula Vista Senator Steve Padila, whose bill to protect children from accompanying chatboos expects the governor’s decision; and the San Diego Assembly Assembly Chris Ward, who has previously helped to adopt a law that requires state agencies to disclose the use of high -risk automated systems and this year seeks to accept a bill to prevent it from preventing Pricing based on your personal informationS

The anti -discriminatory language in AB 1018 is important as technology companies and their clients are often perceived as exempt from the Discrimination Act if discrimination is carried out by automated systems, said Inoluva Deborah Raji, AI researcher in UC Berkeley AI in UC Berkeley who has a researcher Audit algorithms for discrimination And he advises civil servants in Sacramento and Washington about how AI can harm people. It calls into question whether government agencies have resources to impose AB 1018, but they also like the requirement to open the bill because “I think people deserve to know and there is no way to appeal or compete without it.”

“I need to know that the AI ​​system was the reason I couldn’t hire this house. Then I can compare and compete on an individual level. There is something very valuable about it.”

Raji said, report about how California can Balanced protection and innovation for generative development of AIAnd she sees similar forces when playing in the delay of AB 1018.

“It’s disappointing that this (AB 1018) is not a priority for AI policy people at the time,” she told Calmatters. “I really hope the fourth time is the charm.”

A number of other bills with the support of the Union have also been considered by the legislators of this session, who sought to protect workers from artificial intelligence. For For the third consecutive yearThe bill that requires a human driver in commercial trucks for delivery in autonomous vehicles failed to become a law. Assembly Bill 1331who sought to prevent the monitoring of tools powered by AI in private spaces such as cabinets or lactation premises and placed restrictions on interruptions in interruptions also failed to pass.

But another measure, Senate Bill 7 He adopted the legislature and headed for the governor. It requires employers to disclose plans for the use of an automated system 30 days before they do so and to make annual requests used by an employer for discipline or dismissal. In recent days, the author of the author Jerry McNenne has changed the law to eliminate the right to appeal the decisions taken by AI and to eliminate the ban against employers who make forecasts for the political beliefs of the worker, emotional or neuron data. The California Labor Federation supported similar accounts in Massachusetts., Vermont., Connecticutand WashingtonS

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.