Bill Text: CA AB594 | 2019-2020 | Regular Session | Amended


Bill Title: Artificial intelligence.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Engrossed) 2019-08-12 - In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. [AB594 Detail]

Download: California-2019-AB594-Amended.html

Amended  IN  Assembly  May 16, 2019
Amended  IN  Assembly  March 19, 2019

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2019–2020 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill No. 594


Introduced by Assembly Member Salas

February 14, 2019


An act to add Section 11546.11 to, and to add Chapter 5.9 (commencing with Section 8500) to, to the Government Code, relating to artificial intelligence.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 594, as amended, Salas. Artificial intelligence.
Existing law establishes within the Government Operations Agency the Department of Technology, which is supervised by the Director of Technology, who also serves as the State Chief Information Officer. Existing law authorizes the director and the department to exercise various powers in creating and managing the information technology policy of the state. Existing law requires the director, among other duties, to establish and enforce state information technology strategic plans, policies, standards, and enterprise architecture.

The California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act establishes the California Workforce Development Board as the body responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California’s workforce investment system and the alignment of the education and workforce investment systems to the needs of the 21st century economy and workforce. The act requires the board to assist the Governor in, among other things, the review of statewide policies, of statewide programs, and of recommendations on actions that should be taken by the state to align workforce, education, training, and employment funding programs in the state in a manner that supports a comprehensive and streamlined workforce development system in the state, as specified.

This bill would enact the California Artificial Intelligence Act of 2020. The bill, no later than January 1, 2021, would require the director to appoint a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer within the department to evaluate the uses of artificial intelligence in state government and to advise the Director of Technology on incorporating artificial intelligence into state information technology strategic plans, policies, standards, and enterprise architecture. The bill would require the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer to advise the California Workforce Development Board in its review of statewide policies and programs related to workforce, education, training, and employment for the purpose of preparing and retraining workers whose jobs may be displaced or transformed by artificial intelligence. The bill would establish an advisory commission on artificial intelligence comprised of 8 members, including the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer, the Secretary of Labor, and 6 appointed members, as specified. The bill would require the commission to study the potential uses of artificial intelligence and develop a policy framework to manage the use of artificial intelligence, as specified, and to submit to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2022, a report containing the findings, advice, and recommendations of the commission.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: NO  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

This act shall be known as the California Artificial Intelligence Act of 2020.

SEC. 2.Chapter 5.9 (commencing with Section 8500) is added to Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:
5.9.Commission on Artificial Intelligence
8500.

(a)There is in the state government the Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The commission shall serve in an advisory capacity. The commission shall consist of eight members, including the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer, the Secretary of Labor, and six members to be appointed as follows:

(1)Four members appointed by the Governor, including the following:

(A)A professional from private industry whose work is centered on artificial intelligence.

(B)A professor from a higher education institution located in California who is an expert in the field of artificial intelligence and whose primary focus is artificial intelligence.

(C)A representative from organized labor.

(2)One member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(3)One member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(b)The members of the commission shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for all necessary expenses actually incurred in the performance of their duties.

8500.1.

For purposes of this chapter, the following shall apply:

(a)“Commission” refers to the Commission on Artificial Intelligence.

(b)“Artificial intelligence” means a form or application of technology that does either of the following:

(1)Performs cognitive functions commonly associated with human intelligence, including learning, problem solving, and pattern recognition.

(2)Simulates or engages in human behavior.

(c)“AI” refers to “artificial intelligence.”

(d)“23 Asilomar AI Principles” refers to the following 23 principles of beneficial AI formulated at the conference organized by the Future of Life Institute from January 5, 2017, through January 8, 2017:

(1)The goal of AI research should be to create not undirected intelligence, but beneficial intelligence.

(2)Investments in AI should be accompanied by funding for research on ensuring its beneficial use, including thorny questions in computer science, economics, law, ethics, and social studies, such as:

(A)How can we make future AI systems highly robust, so that they do what we want without malfunctioning or getting hacked?

(B)How can we grow our prosperity through automation while maintaining people’s resources and purpose?

(C)How can we update our legal systems to be more fair and efficient, to keep pace with AI, and to manage the risks associated with AI?

(D)What set of values should AI be aligned with, and what legal and ethical status should it have?

(3)There should be constructive and healthy exchange between AI researchers and policymakers.

(4)A culture of cooperation, trust, and transparency should be fostered among researchers and developers of AI.

(5)Teams developing AI systems should actively cooperate to avoid corner-cutting on safety standards.

(6)AI systems should be safe and secure throughout their operational lifetime, and verifiably so where applicable and feasible.

(7)If an AI system causes harm, it should be possible to ascertain why.

(8)Any involvement by an autonomous system in judicial decision-making should provide a satisfactory explanation auditable by a competent human authority.

(9)Designers and builders of advanced AI systems are stakeholders in the moral implications of their use, misuse, and actions, with a responsibility and opportunity to shape those implications.

(10)Highly autonomous AI systems should be designed so that their goals and behaviors can be assured to align with human values throughout their operation.

(11)AI systems should be designed and operated so as to be compatible with ideals of human dignity, rights, freedoms, and cultural diversity.

(12)People should have the right to access, manage, and control the data they generate, given AI systems’ power to analyze and utilize that data.

(13)The application of AI to personal data must not unreasonably curtail people’s real or perceived liberty.

(14)AI technologies should benefit and empower as many people as possible.

(15)The economic prosperity created by AI should be shared broadly, to benefit all of humanity.

(16)Humans should choose how and whether to delegate decisions to AI systems, to accomplish human-chosen objectives.

(17)The power conferred by control of highly advanced AI systems should respect and improve, rather than subvert, the social and civic processes on which the health of society depends.

(18)An arms race in lethal autonomous weapons should be avoided.

(19)There being no consensus, we should avoid strong assumptions regarding upper limits on future AI capabilities.

(20)Advanced AI could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources.

(21)Risks posed by AI systems, especially catastrophic or existential risks, must be subject to planning and mitigation efforts commensurate with their expected impact.

(22)AI systems designed to recursively self-improve or self-replicate in a manner that could lead to rapidly increasing quality or quantity must be subject to strict safety and control measures.

(23)Superintelligence should only be developed in the service of widely shared ethical ideals, and for the benefit of all humanity rather than one state or organization.

8500.2.

(a)The commission shall study the potential uses of artificial intelligence and develop a policy framework to manage the use of artificial intelligence that includes advice and recommended strategies to do the following:

(1)Establish an ethical framework informed by the 23 Asilomar AI Principles and ensure the ethical use of artificial intelligence.

(2)Maximize the standard of living and minimize suffering for all humans through the use of artificial intelligence.

(3)Encourage state agencies to create and implement a strategic plan to utilize artificial intelligence in the execution of state functions.

(4)Educate and train students and workers in the application of artificial intelligence and to prepare them for the jobs of the future.

(5)Minimize any potential negative impact of artificial intelligence on the labor market.

(b)On or before January 1, 2022, the commission shall submit a report containing the findings, advice, and recommendations of the commission developed pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Legislature in conformance with Section 9795.

(c)The report of the commission submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be advisory only, and there shall be no authority or obligation on the part of the state, or the parties meeting and conferring, to implement the findings of the commission without the enactment of subsequent legislation to implement the report.

SEC. 3.SECTION 1.

 Section 11546.11 is added to the Government Code, to read:

11546.11.
 (a) For the purpose of this section, “artificial intelligence” has the same meaning as defined in Section 8500.1.
(b) On or before January 1, 2021, the Director of Technology shall appoint a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer within the Department of Technology to evaluate the uses of artificial intelligence in state government and to advise the Director of Technology on incorporating artificial intelligence into state information technology strategic plans, policies, standards, and enterprise architecture.
(c) The Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer shall advise the California Workforce Development Board in its review of statewide policies and programs related to workforce, education, training, and employment pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 14013 of the Unemployment Insurance Code for the purpose of preparing and retraining workers whose jobs may be displaced or transformed by artificial intelligence.

feedback