On October 28, Texas State Representative Giovanni Capriglione (R-Tarrant County) released a draft of the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (“TRAIGA”), after nearly a year collecting input from industry stakeholders.  Representative Capriglione, who authored Texas’s Data Privacy and Security Act (discussed here) and currently co-chairs the state’s AI Advisory Council, appears likely to introduce TRAIGA in the upcoming legislative session scheduled to begin on January 14, 2025.  Modeled after the Colorado AI Act (SB 205) (discussed here) and the EU AI Act, TRAIGA would establish obligations for developers, deployers, and distributors of “high-risk AI systems.”  Additionally, TRAIGA would establish an “AI Regulatory Sandbox Program” for participating AI developers to test AI systems under a statutory exemption.

Although a number of states have expressed significant interest in AI regulation, if passed, Texas would become the second state to enact industry-agnostic, risk-based AI legislation, following the passage of the Colorado AI Act in May.  There is significant activity in other states as well, as the California Privacy Protection Agency considers rules that would apply to certain automated decision and AI systems, and other states are expected to introduce AI legislation in the new session.  In addition to its requirements for high-risk AI and its AI sandbox program, TRAIGA would amend Texas’s Data Privacy and Security Act to incorporate AI-specific provisions and would provide for an AI workforce grant program and a new “AI Council” to provide advisory opinions and guidance on AI.Continue Reading Texas Legislature to Consider Sweeping AI Legislation in 2025

On September 29, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the Safe & Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act (SB 1047), putting an end, for now, to a months-long effort to establish public safety standards for developers of large AI systems.  SB 1047’s sweeping AI safety and security regime, which included annual third-party safety audits, shutdown capabilities, detailed safety and security protocols, and incident reporting requirements, would likely have established a de facto national safety standard for large AI models if enacted.  The veto followed rare public calls from Members of California’s congressional delegation—including Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA), Anna Eschoo (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Jay Obernolte (R-CA)—for the governor to reject the bill.

In his veto message, Governor Newsom noted that “[AI] safety protocols must be adopted” with “[p]roactive guardrails” and “severe consequences for bad actors,” but he criticized SB 1047 for regulating based on the “cost and number of computations needed to develop an AI model.” SB 1047 would have defined “covered models” as AI models trained using more than 10²⁶ FLOPS of computational power valued at more than $100 million.  In relying on cost and computing thresholds rather than “the system’s actual risks,” Newsom argued that SB 1047 “applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions–so long as a large system deploys it.”  Newsom added that SB 1047 could “give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology” while “[s]maller, specialized models” could be “equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047.” Continue Reading California Governor Vetoes AI Safety Bill

On August 29, California lawmakers passed the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act (SB 1047), marking yet another major development in states’ efforts to regulate AI.  The legislation, which draws on concepts from the White House’s 2023 AI Executive Order (“AI EO”), follows months of high-profile debate and amendments and would establish an expansive AI safety and security regime for developers of “covered models.”  Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has until September 30 to sign or veto the bill. 

If signed into law, SB 1047 would join Colorado’s SB 205—the landmark AI anti-discrimination law passed in May and covered here—as another de facto standard for AI legislation in the United States in the absence of congressional action.  In contrast to Colorado SB 205’s focus on algorithmic discrimination risks for consumers, however, SB 1047 would address AI models that are technically capable of causing or materially enabling “critical harms” to public safety. Continue Reading California Legislature Passes Landmark AI Safety Legislation