As introduced it mirrored Colorado's high-risk/algorithmic-discrimination framework; the enacted version was pared back to intent-based prohibitions (AI developed/deployed to incite self-harm or crime, unlawfully discriminate with intent, produce CSAM, social scoring and biometric identification by government), disclosure duties for government agencies using AI, an AG-enforced regime with a 60-day cure period, and an AI regulatory sandbox plus an AI advisory council.
Vehicles carry asks; asks outlive them
Sorted by what filers wanted done to the rules
“Finally, it would contributing to a growing state-by-state patchwork of AI laws that would stall innovation while the Trump administration is still working on fleshing out an America First approach to federal AI policy.”
Document is testimony in opposition to TX HB 149 as introduced; stance coded relative to the ask (narrowing comprehensive state AI acts), which the testimony supports. Source's 'it would contributing' typo preserved.
“We appreciate the Legislature’s willingness to provide more time to work on the legislation passed last year that would have placed an immense burden on all businesses in Colorado. We welcome the opportunity to continue discussions with policymakers and stakeholders to find workable solutions for the businesses while also providing robust consumer protections.”
Supports special-session delay bill SB25B-004, not the underlying SB 24-205.