LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Artificial Intelligence (AI) as an emerging technology is so powerful, some fear it could wipe out entire economies.
Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel believes AI should be regulated on a state-by-state basis, not by the federal government. In contrast, some in the technology field criticized Neseel’s stance.
Legal action.
Nessel joined 36 attorneys general on Nov. 26 in a letter to Congress opposing efforts to ban state laws that deal with AI.
Those states believe the federal government isn’t doing enough and, therefore, state should be allowed to step in.
“The approach of the U.S. federal government as a whole appears to be cautious in regard to regulating AI in the private sector and more focused on oversight of federal government uses of AI,” the Congressional Research Service reported this June. “In the absence of federal AI regulations, states have been enacting their own laws. Critics assert that such a patchwork of AI laws creates challenges for companies and that a nationwide regulatory structure may incentivize product development.”
Nessel said she is trying to protect Michigan residents.
“As AI continues to grow and evolve, states must have the ability to act and protect their residents,” Nessel said in a press release. “While AI has its benefits, every possible avenue should remain open to shield people from its harms, and restricting states from enacting such protections only weakens their responsibility to safeguard the public.”
Fifty different rulebooks?
However, one technology expert said Nessel was mistaken.
MORE NEWS: DEI Out, ‘Fairness’ In: Michigan Supreme Court Tries a Softer Sell
“When it comes to general-purpose technologies, there shouldn’t be 50 different state rulebooks. AI is exactly one of those cases,” wrote Daniel Castro, the director of the Center for Data Innovation and vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “You don’t want your plane regulated differently depending on which state it happens to fly over, and you don’t want AI rules swinging wildly at every state border either. That’s not federal overreach—it’s common sense.”
Castro argued that existing laws cover much of the concerns over AI regulation.
“Much of what’s being pitched as ‘AI harm’ is already covered under existing discrimination, consumer protection, and employment laws,” Castro said Nov. 24. “If a company discriminates, that’s illegal whether it makes those decisions using AI, Excel, or a dartboard. We don’t need a separate law for every tool in the tool chest.”
