The debate around artificial intelligence (AI) is heating up, with a bipartisan group of state attorneys general, including Arizona AG Kris Mayes, pushing back against a Congressional edict. This group sent a letter to Congress expressing stern disapproval of an amendment that would halt state efforts in regulating AI technology. The amendment, tied to the budget reconciliation bill and under consideration by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, proposes a 10-year prohibition on state-enforced AI laws and regulations.
Attorney General Mayes, vocal about the need for oversight, highlighted the potential perils of AI. "As AI technology rapidly advances, the threats it poses are coming into view," Mayes said in a statement obtained by the Arizona Attorney General's office. Concerns range from AI's impact on jobs to its capacity for driving fraudulent activities and even increasing water scarcity, an issue of particular importance in Arizona. The overarching message from Mayes is clear: it's critical to establish "guardrails" now to safeguard against the misuse of this evolving technology.
The call for action stems from fear of consumer harm due to unregulated AI development, which can manifest in numerous questionable ways, including exposure to explicit content, election interference, and more. The attorneys general assert that states have pioneered the task of protecting consumers, a mandate derived from years of thoughtful policy crafting, benefiting from extensive input from all parties affected by AI's advances. Without federal guidance, states have led with their own laws and regulations, but the new legislative move would snatch away this local control and leave AI unregulated at every level, as the coalition of attorneys general stated.
If passed, this federal intervention could signal a stark departure from existing structures of governance, where states act nimbly in the face of emerging tech challenges. The coalition, which includes AGs from states such as Colorado, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Vermont alongside 35 others, staunchly opposes the moratorium. They argue that the amendment would strip away essential state protections without substitution by a comparable federal regulation, as per the Arizona AG's office. The group, representing a wide-ranging legal standpoint, collectively urges Congress to scrap the moratorium from the pending budget reconciliation bill.
Making headlines is not only the substance of the debate but also its bipartisan nature. The group of attorneys general from states, including both traditionally "blue" and "red" ones, indicates a shared priority across political divides. States like California, New York, Connecticut, and Texas, along with territories such as the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa, have joined forces in a rare show of across-the-aisle agreement.
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}