An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-making And Personal Data Privacy.
The proposed legislation will compel state agencies to conduct detailed impact assessments before the implementation of any AI systems. This will not only ensure that the systems in place are fair and equitable but also require agencies to continually assess the AI systems to mitigate any potential bias or discrimination. Beginning February 1, 2024, state agencies will not be allowed to deploy AI systems without meeting these stringent criteria. The bill also mandates transparency by requiring agencies to publicly share inventory details of their AI systems.
SB01103, titled 'An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-making and Personal Data Privacy,' aims to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems by state agencies in Connecticut. It establishes a framework for the development, procurement, utilization, and ongoing assessment of AI systems to ensure that these technologies do not result in unlawful discrimination or disparate impact on individuals based on various characteristics including age, ethnicity, and gender. The intention of the bill is to safeguard personal data while fostering innovation in AI technology in state governance.
The overall sentiment surrounding SB01103 seems to be cautiously optimistic. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial step towards ethical AI usage and safeguarding citizens' rights. They believe it sets a precedent for accountability in AI decision-making processes by public entities. However, there are concerns about the administrative burden this may place on state agencies and whether such regulations could stifle innovation and efficiently harness the potential of AI technologies.
Notable points of contention include the balance between regulation and innovation. Critics of the bill claim that the mandatory assessments could slow down the adoption of beneficial AI technologies in state operations. Additionally, some worry that the extensive requirements for transparency and ongoing evaluations may become impractical and resource-intensive. Nonetheless, proponents assert that the overarching need for protections against systemic discrimination inherent in AI systems justifies these measures.