California has long been a center of global technological innovation. That means the California Legislature has a unique responsibility to ensure burgeoning technologies are regulated sensibly. Missteps will damage California and America in our competition with China over AI leadership and more.
Despite that, the Legislature is advancing two misguided bills rooted in state paternalism.
Assembly Bill 56 is by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda. The bill warns of the health hazards for young people from heavy internet use. It would “enact the Social Media Warning Law” that would mandate an “addictive internet-based service or application” must “display a certain black box warning to a user.” The warning would pop up at the beginning of use, then every three hours.
Such nanny state meddling in social media is something only a busybody in Sacramento could possibly think is a worthwhile exercise of legislative activity.
Senate Bill 243 is by state Sen. Steve Padilla, D-San Diego. It concerns chatboxes, computer programs that simulate conversation by answering questions, responding to prompts or carrying out simple tasks. Among other things, the bill would require a chatbot operator to “take reasonable steps” against “providing rewards to a user at unpredictable intervals,” which may encourage addiction.
Writing in opposition, the Computer & Communications Industry Association pointed out SB 1001 from 2018 already requires chatbots to identify themselves. But SB 243 is so broad it would impose “costly requirements” even on AI tools not designed to mimic people. And it would spark “private lawsuits for even minor or technical violations,” because, of course, lawyers want their money.
The most recent versions of these bills passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Aug. 29. Both are aimed mainly at protecting children, a responsibility best left to parents. But ironically, kids these days are not only more tech savvy usually than Mom and Pop, but more so than state legislators.
Both bills are fundamentally a paternalistic rerun of the infamous explicit-lyrics music labeling controversy of the 1980s. Pushed by Tipper Gore, it ended with no legislation, but yielded broadly used music labels reading, “Parental Advisory – Explicit Lyrics.” At a 1985 congressional hearing on the record-label law, California avant-garde California musician Frank Zappa branded it “an ill-conceived piece of nonsense … treating dandruff by decapitation.”
Such is the case with SB 56 and AB 243. Both should be rejected.
