Last week, the Wisconsin Legislative Council’s Study Committee on the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence issued a report outlining seven recommendations for legislation regarding the use and development of AI.
Overall, I think the committee’s recommendations reflect a measured approach to AI regulation, but I also have some concerns.
Recommendation: Instead of Regulating AI, Focus on Data
“The study committee recommends that instead of focusing on regulating the emerging technology that is AI, the Legislature should focus on ensuring that data, the raw material that powers AI, remains private and the consumer protected.”
I have concerns about this recommendation. While protecting data privacy is essential, focusing only on data inputs misses half the equation. What about the outputs – how AI systems use that data, the decisions they make, and their impacts? By not addressing these issues, potential harms from biased algorithms or opaque decision-making could easily slip through the cracks. I think a more balanced approach that considers both inputs and outputs would be more effective.
Recommendation: Avoid Comprehensive AI Legislation and Prioritize High-Risk Areas
“The study committee recommends that the Legislature should learn from the experiences of other states and avoid the potential overreach of comprehensive AI legislation, and should instead prioritize high-risk areas susceptible to exploitation or abuse.”
I appreciate the measured approach here. However, what exactly constitutes “high-risk areas”? Without a clearer definition, this could mean almost anything in practice. I’d like to see more specificity about which areas deserve priority attention.
Recommendation: Ensure That Existing Laws Apply to AI Models
“The study committee recommends that the Legislature should ensure that existing laws apply to AI models in the same way that those laws apply to individuals, but should avoid creating duplicative statutes that unnecessarily single out AI.”
I appreciate the practical attempt to fit AI within the existing laws, but the comparison between AI systems and human actors only goes so far. Some AI applications will create novel challenges that existing laws weren’t designed to address.
Recommendation: Ensure That Existing Programs Include AI and Work to Address Any Rural-Urban Disparity
“The study committee recommends that the Legislature should ensure that programs related to education and workforce development, such as Fast Forward, have a scope that is broad enough to include AI upskilling, training, and education; are funded accordingly; and work to address any disparity in access between rural and urban communities.”
I strongly support this recommendation. It recognizes both the need for GenAI training and addresses geographic disparities in access to technology.
Recommendation: Consider Permanent Body to Review Emerging Technologies
“The study committee recommends that the Legislature should consider establishing a permanent study committee, new legislative standing committee, or inter-branch commission to review emerging technologies, including AI, and make legislative recommendations regarding the same.”
I also like this recommendation. GenAI technology is changing so fast. Creating a permanent body for ongoing assessment of emerging technologies shows an understanding that AI governance isn’t a one-time policy decision but requires continuous adaptation.
Recommendation: Examine and Invest in Technology That Will Assist With Public Safety
“The study committee recommends that the Legislature should, as AI technology advances, examine and invest in technology powered by AI that will assist with public safety, such as gun detection software.”
This one gives me serious pause. While I absolutely support exploring new technologies, this recommendation seems one-sided, focusing exclusively on potential benefits without addressing potential drawbacks such as privacy, bias, and misinformation. I would like to see more specificity on what standards will be used to examine new technologies.
Recommendation: Direct Executive Branch to Promulgate Rules and Provide Legislature With Oversight
“The study committee recommends that the Legislature should direct the Executive Branch to promulgate administrative rules to establish clear, consistent guiding principles for state-level AI governance and to provide the Legislature with oversight regarding the state’s procurement, development, and use of AI.”
I think this approach makes practical sense. However, the Legislature would need to provide specific guidance about what principles should guide AI governance – such as what constitutes “high-risk areas.”
The success of this approach will ultimately depend on how these somewhat broad recommendations are implemented and how quickly the state adapts as GenAI technologies continue to evolve and new challenges emerge.