California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB833

Introduced
2/21/25  
Refer
3/12/25  
Refer
3/26/25  
Refer
4/2/25  
Report Pass
4/22/25  
Refer
4/22/25  
Report Pass
4/22/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
4/22/25  
Engrossed
6/3/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
6/9/25  
Engrossed
6/3/25  
Refer
6/9/25  

Caption

Critical infrastructure: automated decision systems: human oversight: adverse event reporting.

Impact

The legislation builds upon existing frameworks established in the California Emergency Services Act, specifically enhancing regulations regarding cybersecurity practices and the safe deployment of AI within critical sectors such as energy, transportation, and communications. By formalizing adverse event reporting procedures, the bill not only promotes accountability among operators but also reinforces California's commitment to evaluating risks associated with AI systems. Failure to report significant adverse events can result in civil penalties, thus incentivizing compliance.

Summary

Senate Bill 833, introduced by Senator McNerney, seeks to implement critical oversight mechanisms for artificial intelligence (AI) systems deployed within California's critical infrastructure. The bill outlines requirements for state agencies that utilize AI, mandating the establishment of human oversight that includes real-time monitoring and approval of any plans or actions proposed by AI systems. The emphasis is on ensuring that operations supported by AI do not endanger public safety while maintaining a structured approach to human verification in the event of AI-related malfunctions or failures.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB 833 is favorable among lawmakers concerned with safety and effective governance of emerging technologies. Advocates argue that the requirements for human oversight and careful assessment of AI systems are prudent steps towards enhancing public trust in AI applications. Nonetheless, there are points of contention from industry stakeholders who express concerns regarding the potential bureaucratic bottlenecks that could arise from the stringent reporting and oversight processes mandated by the bill.

Contention

The bill could spark debates about balancing innovation with regulation. Critics argue that overly burdensome compliance requirements might hinder technological advancements or deter investment in AI applications for public infrastructure. Nonetheless, proponents believe that establishing a framework for oversight and accountability is paramount, especially in high-stakes domains where AI can significantly impact safety and operational integrity.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA SB892

Public contracts: automated decision systems: procurement standards.

CA AB2930

Automated decision systems.

CA SB896

Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act.

CA AB302

Department of Technology: high-risk automated decision systems: inventory.

CA AB331

Automated decision tools.

CA SB265

Cybersecurity preparedness: critical infrastructure sectors.

CA AB3211

California Digital Content Provenance Standards.

CA SB1047

Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act.

CA AB2885

Artificial intelligence.

CA AB691

Inefficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems at schools: report.

Similar Bills

CA SB896

Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act.

CA SB1047

Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act.

HI HB2152

Relating To Artificial Intelligence.

CA SB53

Artificial intelligence models: large developers.

NC S735

AI Innovation Trust Fund

VA HB2046

High-risk artificial intelligence; development, deployment, and use by public bodies, report.

VA SB1214

High-risk artificial intelligence; development, deployment, and use by public bodies, report.