All Items
Legislation Only
Regulations and Documents
Legislation
About these categories

Social Impact: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the impact of AI on society and individuals, including but not limited to; reducing the carbon footprint of AI systems, holding system developers accountable for the outputs of these systems, the establishment of new fairness and bias metrics to guard against AI-driven discrimination, the use of AI by minors, consumer protections for AI products, regulations that address psychological, physical, or material harm caused by interactions with AI systems, and the role of AI in misinformation, public discourse, and the erosion of trust in public institutions.

Data Governance: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the secure and accurate collection and management of data within AI systems, including but not limited to; mandates for rectifying inaccuracies in AI data sets, mandates for ensuring AI data sets are free from biases, regulations that address intellectual property concerns with the unauthorized use of protected material in AI data sets, and requirements for data encryption, data anonymization, controlled access, and compliance with consumer privacy laws.

System Integrity: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the inherent security, transparency, and control of AI systems, including but not limited to; mandates for human intervention and oversight in AI processes, standards for the interoperability of AI systems in essential services, and the implementation of security measures such as threat modeling, penetration testing, and incident response.

Robustness: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the development and adoption of new benchmarks for AI performance, including but not limited to; the certification of AI systems against new benchmarks, ensuring compliance with international standards, requirements for auditing and transparent reporting to verify continuous regulatory compliance, and the creation of specialized oversight bodies.

About these sectors

Politics and Elections: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI in political campaigns, electoral processes, and related legislative activities.

Government Agencies and Public Services: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI by state and federal government agencies, as well as AI applications in the delivery of public services and enhancing government operations.

Judicial System: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI by judicial and legal systems, including but not limited to the use of AI in case management and legal decision making.

Healthcare: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI in healthcare settings, including but not limited to AI applications within hospitals and clinics, the development of AI-enabled diagnostic tools and related medical technologies, and the management of medical data.

Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI in business environments, ensuring fair competition, and the effects of AI on labor markets, employment practices, and corporate governance.

Academic and Research Institutions: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI in educational and research contexts.

International Cooperation and Standards: encompasses laws and agreements that address international cooperation on AI development, use, and regulation, including but not limited to multinational standards, cross-border data practices, and global ethical guidelines for AI.

Nonprofits and NGOs: encompasses legislation that specifically addresses the use and regulation of AI by nonprofits and non-governmental organizations and institutions.

Hybrid, Emerging, and Unclassified: encompasses legislation that doesn't neatly fit into other categories, as well as the application of AI in hybrid or emerging sectors.

Clear All

5035 results:


United States SB4769: VET Artificial Intelligence Act Validation and Evaluation for Trustworthy (VET) Artificial Intelligence Act

Description: A bill to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop voluntary guidelines and specifications for internal and external assurances of artificial intelligence systems, and for other purposes.
Summary: The VET Artificial Intelligence Act mandates the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create voluntary guidelines for ensuring the trustworthiness of AI systems, enhancing accountability and public confidence.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: July 24, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: John Hickenlooper (2 total sponsors)
Last action: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably. (July 31, 2024)

Category:
System Integrity (see reasoning)

The bill explicitly references 'artificial intelligence systems,' indicating its focus on guidelines and specifications for these systems. This strongly relates to system integrity, as the legislation aims to establish assurances, which are typically associated with security, transparency, and control. Since it lacks aspects directly addressing social impact, data governance, or robustness, the strongest relevance is to System Integrity. Thus, System Integrity is rated highly, while the other categories are scored low or not at all.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services (see reasoning)

The text does not provide enough substance to directly address any specific sector comprehensively. However, the reference to the National Institute of Standards and Technology can imply relevance to the Government Agencies and Public Services sector since they are likely to implement these guidelines. The absence of direct language about politics, healthcare, or other sectors leads to lower scores for those. Government Agencies and Public Services will receive a moderate score due to its implicit connection through regulatory responsibility.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (42) show keywords in context

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS UNDER RULE XLIV OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Summary: The bill mandates disclosure of congressionally directed spending items and outlines appropriations for various departments including defense, agriculture, and health for the fiscal year 2024.
Collection: Congressional Record
Status date: March 5, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: Congress

Category: None (see reasoning)

The text primarily pertains to congressional procedures and the appropriation of funds for various government divisions and does not explicitly mention AI-related keywords or concepts. There is no discussion of the social impacts of AI, data governance in AI, system integrity concerns regarding AI systems, or robustness standards for AI performance. Therefore, all four categories score low in relevance. Since the legislation is focused on funding appropriations rather than AI legislation, all categories that encompass AI are inherently not applicable here.


Sector: None (see reasoning)

The text mentions appropriations related to various government departments, but it does not address the use of AI in politics, the judicial system, healthcare, or any private sector implications. There is no indication of the application of AI by any sectors, nor is there any regulation discussed that relates to sectors relevant to AI. Consequently, all sectors score 1 for lack of relevance.


Keywords (occurrence): automated (5) show keywords in context

Kentucky SB52: AN ACT relating to technology in education and declaring an emergency.

Description: Create a new section of KRS Chapter 156 to make legislative findings and declarations and establish the Artificial Intelligence in Kentucky's Schools project, establish requirements for the Kentucky Department of Education to implement the project, require the department to design professional development trainings related to artificial intelligence, establish professional development requirement for teachers, administrators, school council members, and school board members, require the train...
Summary: The bill establishes a framework for integrating artificial intelligence in Kentucky's public education, setting guidelines for its use in administration, instruction, and teacher training to enhance technological competency statewide.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Jan. 2, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Reginald Thomas (3 total sponsors)
Last action: to Education (S) (Jan. 3, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
System Integrity
Data Robustness (see reasoning)

The legislative text explicitly covers the development and implementation of artificial intelligence applications in educational contexts, which relates directly to the category of 'Social Impact' as it discusses the importance of AI in preparing students and educators for future technological landscapes. It also mandates training and professional development for educators, addressing potential impacts of AI on teaching methods and student learning. The text does not delve deeply into data governance aspects like data privacy or security, nor does it focus on system integrity regarding transparency and control of AI systems, leading to lower scores in those areas. However, the emphasis on guidelines and ongoing updates for AI usage in educational settings speaks to a moderate level of attention to robustness, as it implies a commitment to ensuring quality and compliance with evolving AI standards in education.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Academic and Research Institutions (see reasoning)

The act is highly relevant to the 'Academic and Research Institutions' sector as it establishes formal structures, guidelines, and training related to AI in the context of public education. The focus on the professional development of educators and the integration of AI into school curricula indicates a strong engagement with the academic sector, along with the specific mention of higher education institutions and their guidelines. Additionally, there is less emphasis on political implications or healthcare-specific applications, and while there are mentions of administrative use of AI, they do not extend deeply into government agency functions, making the scores for those sectors lower.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (43) show keywords in context

Pennsylvania HR170: Directing the Joint State Government Commission to establish an advisory committee to conduct a study on the field of artificial intelligence and its impact and potential future impact in Pennsylvania.

Description: A Resolution directing the Joint State Government Commission to establish an advisory committee to conduct a study on the field of artificial intelligence and its impact and potential future impact in Pennsylvania.
Summary: The bill directs Pennsylvania's Joint State Government Commission to form an advisory committee to study artificial intelligence's impacts, benefits, and risks, and recommend responsible regulation and practices for its use in the state.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: July 3, 2024
Status: Passed
Primary sponsor: Robert Merski (24 total sponsors)
Last action: Adopted (125-77) (July 3, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance (see reasoning)

This text explicitly discusses various aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) and its societal implications. The resolution aims to study AI's effects on industries, labor, disinformation, and academic integrity. It seeks to establish transparency in the utilization of algorithms, addresses the potential job displacement caused by automation, and emphasizes the need for responsible and ethical development of AI in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Social Impact category is very relevant due to the focus on societal implications, while Data Governance is moderately relevant as it implies the need for secure data management in relation to AI usage. System Integrity is less relevant, focusing on security measures, and Robustness is not significantly covered as it does not discuss AI performance benchmarks or certification directly.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Healthcare
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment
Academic and Research Institutions (see reasoning)

The text addresses the use of AI in various sectors including healthcare, labor and industry, and education. It discusses how AI impacts jobs, particularly in organized labor, as well as its implications for academic integrity. The resolution also signifies an exploration of AI's application within the government, although it does not delve deeply into specifics of any single sector. Therefore, its relevance is high for Government Agencies and Public Services, moderate for Healthcare and Private Enterprises, and lower for sectors like Politics and Elections, which do not feature prominently in the text's discourse.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (6) automated (1) show keywords in context

United States HB7123: QUIET Act Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act

Description: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require disclosures with respect to robocalls using artificial intelligence and to provide for enhanced penalties for certain violations involving artificial intelligence voice or text message impersonation, and for other purposes.
Summary: The QUIET Act aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 by requiring disclosure of artificial intelligence usage in robocalls and imposing heightened penalties for AI-related impersonation violations.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Jan. 29, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Eric Sorensen (9 total sponsors)
Last action: Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. (Feb. 2, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance (see reasoning)

The text of the QUIET Act discusses the use of artificial intelligence in the context of robocalls and stipulates the requirements for disclosures when AI is used to emulate a human in voice or text messaging. It also enhances penalties for impersonation using AI. Therefore, it is highly relevant to Social Impact as it concerns consumer protection against AI-driven impersonation, addressing the psychological and material harm caused by deceptive AI communications. It is also relevant to Data Governance as it mandates disclosures, thus governing the information sent to consumers. However, there are limited aspects regarding System Integrity and Robustness present in this text, as it does not focus on security measures, oversight, performance benchmarks, or auditing processes for AI. Hence, those two categories receive lower scores.


Sector:
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment (see reasoning)

The text mainly addresses the application of AI in telecommunications, specifically in the context of robocalls. It does not specifically mention use by government agencies, the judicial system, healthcare, or the private sector beyond telecommunications. However, it does touch upon the consumer aspect which could be categorized under Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment if viewed broadly, as it impacts businesses that utilize AI in customer communications. Still, since its primary focus is on telecommunications and consumer protection, the relevance to Government Agencies and Public Services, Judicial System, and Healthcare is low. The implications for politics and elections are also weak, given that the act does not address political campaigns or electoral processes specifically.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (6) show keywords in context

Iowa HSB704: A bill for an act relating to the procurement and operation of drones, and providing penalties.

Description: A bill for an act relating to the procurement and operation of drones, and providing penalties.
Summary: The bill regulates drone procurement and operation by government agencies in Iowa, ensuring compliance with security standards and restricting usage based on tier classifications. Penalties are established for violations, particularly concerning drones from "countries of concern" and use over sensitive locations.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Feb. 13, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Public Safety (sole sponsor)
Last action: Subcommittee recommends passage. Vote Total: 3-0. (Feb. 14, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
System Integrity (see reasoning)

The text primarily discusses the use, procurement, and regulations surrounding drones, with specific focus on their operational tiers and associated security requirements. While drones may utilize elements of AI for autonomous operation (as mentioned in the definition of a drone), there is limited explicit mention of AI-related concerns such as algorithmic decision-making, automated decision processes, or data privacy related to AI systems. Therefore, while drone operation could tangentially relate to AI, the text is more focused on regulations and safety protocols for drones rather than a direct exploration of AI's impact or governance. The relevance of AI to the categories varies considerably; 'Social Impact' and 'System Integrity' seem moderately relevant due to implications of drone use in society and operational security. 'Data Governance' is slightly relevant due to mentions of data management, but lacks a strong AI-specific connection. 'Robustness' is also slightly relevant, given the mention of operational tiers suggesting some standardization needs, but again lacks a clear tie to AI performance metrics or benchmarks.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services (see reasoning)

The text primarily addresses the operation of drones within government agencies, given the repeated references to government agency usage and requirements for securing data and drone operations. Consequently, the most relevant sector is 'Government Agencies and Public Services', where the legislation focuses on the interactions and usage protocols for drones. While other sectors such as 'Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment' might be considered in terms of commercial drone operations, the text does not specifically address these issues. The text does not engage with other sectors such as 'Politics and Elections' or 'Healthcare', which further narrows its relevance to sectors involved in direct governance and public service deliverables. Hence, 'Government Agencies and Public Services' rates highest, with marginal scores for the others.


Keywords (occurrence): algorithm (2) show keywords in context

New York S08214: Requires the registration of certain companies whose primary business purpose is related to artificial intelligence as evidenced by their NAIC code.

Description: Requires the registration of certain companies whose primary business purpose is related to artificial intelligence as evidenced by their NAIC code.
Summary: The bill mandates the biennial registration of artificial intelligence-related companies in New York, imposing penalties for non-compliance to enhance regulatory oversight in the AI sector.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Jan. 12, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Kevin Thomas (sole sponsor)
Last action: PRINT NUMBER 8214A (May 7, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance
System Integrity (see reasoning)

This text explicitly focuses on the regulation and governance of companies operating in the field of artificial intelligence, primarily through registration requirements. While the mention of 'artificial intelligence' suggests a tie to the technology's broader implications, the specific focus on registration addresses the governance aspects related to accountability, compliance, and potential penalties associated with operational standards for AI-related companies. The precise regulation indicates systemic oversight which aligns with the categories of Social Impact, Data Governance, and System Integrity, but does not directly connect to Robustness as it doesn't involve benchmarks or auditing.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Judicial system
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment (see reasoning)

The text primarily pertains to the registration of businesses involved with AI, which inherently connects to the governance and regulation within the Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment sector. However, the mention of the Secretary of State's authority suggests oversight which could relate to Government Agencies and Public Services, along with implications for compliance in a legal context that touches on the Judicial System as well. The primary focus remains in the private sector, leading to stronger relevance to Private Enterprises compared to other sectors.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (3) show keywords in context

United States HB8862: Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act of 2024

Description: To reauthorize and amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and for other purposes.
Summary: The "Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act of 2024" reauthorizes and amends the Magnuson-Stevens Act to enhance fishery conservation, foster climate resilience, and support fishing communities through improved management and transparency.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: June 27, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Jared Huffman (5 total sponsors)
Last action: Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. (June 27, 2024)

Category: None (see reasoning)

This text does not contain any explicit references to AI or related technologies. The focus is on fisheries management, climate resilience, and legislative amendment without any mention of algorithms, machine learning, or AI-related systems. Therefore, it lacks relevance across all predefined categories related to AI legislation.


Sector: None (see reasoning)

There are no references in this text that address the use or regulation of AI within the sectors provided. The content is entirely focused on fisheries rather than political, governmental, or commercial sectors that would involve AI systems. Thus, the relevance to the specified sectors is non-existent.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (2)

Missouri SB1221: Modifies provisions relating to estate planning, including notice for transfers of the principal place of administration of a trust, electronic wills, and estate planning during the COVID-19 state of emergency

Description: Modifies provisions relating to estate planning, including notice for transfers of the principal place of administration of a trust, electronic wills, and estate planning during the COVID-19 state of emergency
Summary: This bill updates Missouri's estate planning laws, introducing provisions for electronic wills, notification requirements for trustee administrative transfers, and establishing qualifications for spousal trusts to enhance estate management, especially post-COVID-19.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Jan. 3, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Curtis Trent (sole sponsor)
Last action: SCS Voted Do Pass (w/SCS SBs 1221 & 988) Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee (3910S.02C) (Feb. 26, 2024)

Category: None (see reasoning)

This text primarily deals with estate planning and does not explicitly address the impact of AI on society, the management of data within AI systems, the security and integrity of AI systems, or the establishment of performance benchmarks for AI systems. Although it touches on electronic processes and security procedures (which could involve algorithmic considerations), these are not directly related to AI in a significant way as defined by the relevant keywords. Therefore, the relevance of the categories is minimal.


Sector: None (see reasoning)

The text is predominantly focused on the legislative modifications regarding estate planning and electronic wills, without explicit mention of AI applications within sectors such as politics, healthcare, or employment. The closest connection could be a mention of security procedures, which may imply some formalized structure which could relate to data governance in a broad sense. However, the absence of directly applicable AI-related applications in sectors indicates a low relevance overall.


Keywords (occurrence): algorithm (1) show keywords in context

Vermont H0863: An act relating to recommendations on the education and potential harms of deepfake technology

Description: An act relating to recommendations on the education and potential harms of deepfake technology
Summary: This bill mandates the Agency of Digital Services to report on deepfake technology, focusing on public education, security measures, regulatory needs, and impacts from recent federal AI initiatives by October 2024.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Feb. 27, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Brian Cina (4 total sponsors)
Last action: Read first time and referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs (Feb. 27, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
System Integrity (see reasoning)

The text explicitly addresses the potential harms of deepfake technology and recommends measures for education, public protection, and state regulation regarding its use. This directly relates to social implications, including consumer protection and misinformation, making it highly relevant for the Social Impact category. The discussion of security resources and the need for regulation also touches on elements of System Integrity, particularly concerning the security and functionality of the state's operations. However, the emphasis on educational measures and public risk suggests a stronger alignment with the Social Impact category. Data Governance and Robustness are less applicable as the text does not delve into data management or performance benchmarks. Therefore, Social Impact receives a high score for its detailed focus on societal effects, while Data Governance and Robustness are not significantly addressed.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services (see reasoning)

The text pertains to the implications of deepfake technology and its regulation, particularly in terms of consumer protection and state governance. The mention of potential risks to the functionality of state government highlights relevance to Government Agencies and Public Services. The focus on education and regulation hints at considerations for public services, as well as general awareness among the electorate. However, other sectors such as Healthcare, Judicial System, Academic and Research Institutions, and Nonprofits and NGOs are not involved, nor does it fall under International Cooperation and Standards or Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment. Politics and Elections is also not directly relevant as this is not specifically addressing electoral processes. The primary emphasis is thus on Government Agencies and Public Services.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (1) deepfake (6) show keywords in context

New Jersey A1902: "New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA)"; establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information; establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.

Description: "New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA)"; establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information; establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
Summary: The New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA) mandates requirements for handling personally identifiable information and creates the Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use to enforce these rules.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Jan. 9, 2024
Status: Introduced
Primary sponsor: Ellen Park (sole sponsor)
Last action: Introduced, Referred to Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee (Jan. 9, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance
System Integrity (see reasoning)

The NJ DaTA specifically addresses numerous aspects related to the implications of automated decision-making, consumer protections around personally identifiable information, and transparency in data processing. It establishes requirements on how organizations must disclose information regarding their data processing practices, including the existence of automated systems, profiling, and the consequential impact on consumers. This strongly relates to the Social Impact category as it focuses on protecting consumers from potential harms stemming from AI, misinformation, and automated processes. Regarding Data Governance, the act outlines strict mandates for the collection and management of personal data, ensuring accountability from data controllers and processors. It fundamentally concerns the secure use and handling of personal information, reflecting good data governance practices. System Integrity receives relevance due to the emphasis on responsible data processing and consumer protection measures, but it is less directly tied to the legislation than the first two categories. Finally, robustness is not significantly addressed, as there are no direct mentions of performance benchmarks or compliance with international standards for AI systems. Thus, Social Impact and Data Governance stand out as the most relevant categories.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment (see reasoning)

This legislation directly impacts the Government Agencies and Public Services sector by establishing accountability measures for data processing within state agencies. It also touches upon consumer privacy rights, which resonates with Public Services. However, the legislation does not directly mention specific applications in the healthcare sector, nor does it focus on any political aspects concerning AI in elections, hence the scores for Politics and Elections and Healthcare are lower. The concerns present in Private Enterprises, Labor and Employment are relevant, as the processing of personal data heavily impacts consumer protections in business contexts, though it is not as prominently featured as government concerns. Academic and Research Institutions are not explicitly addressed, situating that score at one. International Cooperation, Standards, Nonprofits, and Hybrid or Emerging sectors show marginal relevance. In summary, the strongest relevance lies in the Government Agencies and Public Services sector due to its foundational implications for data governance in public entities.


Keywords (occurrence): machine learning (1) automated (8) show keywords in context

California SB398: Department of Technology: advanced technology: research.

Description: An act to add and repeal Section 11546.8 of the Government Code, relating to technology.
Summary: Senate Bill 398 mandates the California Department of Technology to research the feasibility and risks of using advanced technologies, particularly AI, to enhance government services and improve citizen assistance.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: Feb. 1, 2024
Status: Other
Primary sponsor: Aisha Wahab (2 total sponsors)
Last action: Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (Feb. 1, 2024)

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance
System Integrity
Data Robustness (see reasoning)

This text directly pertains to multiple aspects of artificial intelligence, explicitly mentioning 'artificial intelligence' in the context of using advanced technology to enhance government services. The text discusses the potential benefits and risks of AI technologies, which is central to the concerns of the Social Impact category, as it addresses how AI could affect equity and public welfare. Additionally, the call for data analysis and recommendations also aligns with the Data Governance category, particularly concerning the management and ethical implications of AI systems. The need for best practices and evaluations emphasizes concerns about System Integrity, which focuses on security, transparency, and control within AI systems. Finally, the research and development aspects regarding performance benchmarks indicate relevance to Robustness, primarily through discussions of cost-benefit analyses and implementation guidelines. Thus, there is substantial relevance across all categories due to the comprehensive approach to understanding AI's impact and integration into governmental processes.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment
Academic and Research Institutions (see reasoning)

The text is highly relevant to the Government Agencies and Public Services sector as it explicitly discusses the application of AI technologies in state and local government services, focusing on enhancing public benefits through advanced technology. It also has implications for the Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment sector, particularly regarding the impact on labor markets through automation in government services. Additionally, aspects of the legislation may resonate with the Academic and Research Institutions sector due to the research component that seeks to study the feasibility of AI technologies. However, its primary focus on government services positions it more firmly within the Government Agencies and Public Services sector, while still holding moderate relevance for the other sectors due to potential indirect impacts.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (11) chatbot (2) show keywords in context

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Summary: The bill establishes a computerized schedule for Senate committee meetings and requires timely notification of meeting details, aiming to enhance transparency and accessibility of legislative proceedings.
Collection: Congressional Record
Status date: Feb. 5, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: Congress

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance
System Integrity
Data Robustness (see reasoning)

The text primarily serves as a record of upcoming Senate committee meetings, with a significant portion dedicated to a specific meeting that examines 'Artificial Intelligence and Health Care.' This suggests a discussion about socio-economic implications, data management within healthcare, system integrity in tracking AI health applications, and possibly robustness through established health benchmarks and compliance with relevant standards. Each of these elements ties into the defined categories, particularly Social Impact due to the focus on healthcare implications, Data Governance due to the information management aspects involved in AI's application in health care, System Integrity due to the potential need for oversight in AI health tech, and Robustness in the context of performance and compliance standards. Overall, the text indicates a clear relevance to all four categories, particularly focusing on the impact AI has on health care.


Sector:
Healthcare (see reasoning)

The text includes a scheduled meeting focused on Artificial Intelligence within the context of healthcare, indicating a direct relevance to the Healthcare sector. This points to regulatory considerations and policy discussions around the use of AI in medical settings and its implications on patient care, data handling, privacy, and ethical standards. While there are mentions of other committees related to various government functions, the clear focus on AI in healthcare makes this the most pertinent sector. Therefore, a high score is assigned to Healthcare for its direct mention, while other sectors, though interesting, do not receive similarly high relevance scores because they are not directly addressed in relation to AI.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (1)

Louisiana SB355: Provides for regulation of litigation funding by a third party that is a foreign person, state, or wealth fund. (8/1/24) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)

Description: Provides for regulation of litigation funding by a third party that is a foreign person, state, or wealth fund. (8/1/24) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
Summary: The bill regulates foreign third-party litigation funding in Louisiana, mandating disclosure of funding sources, prohibiting foreign funders from influencing legal cases, and establishing enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: June 19, 2024
Status: Passed
Primary sponsor: Jeremy Stine (2 total sponsors)
Last action: Effective date 8/1/2024. (June 19, 2024)

Category: None (see reasoning)

The text primarily addresses the regulation of foreign third-party litigation funding and does not explicitly mention or focus on concepts directly related to AI. Therefore, it does not invoke significant considerations for the social impact of AI, data governance involving AI datasets, system integrity concerns related to AI processes, or robustness in AI performance metrics. The terms 'algorithm' and 'proprietary information' are mentioned, but they relate to the context of litigation funding rather than artificial intelligence applications. Thus, all categories will receive a low relevance score.


Sector: None (see reasoning)

This legislation primarily focuses on litigation funding and regulation without involving direct applications or regulations of AI in any specific sector such as politics, government processes, judicial systems, healthcare, etc. Although there are mentions of algorithms and proprietary information, these do not pertain to AI usage in the relevant sectors. Thus, the legislation does not have a notable relevance to any specific sector.


Keywords (occurrence): algorithm (1) show keywords in context

Text of Senate Amendment 3071

Summary: The Future of Artificial Intelligence Innovation Act of 2024 establishes an Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute to create standards, promote international cooperation, and enhance AI safety through testing and evaluation methodologies.
Collection: Congressional Record
Status date: July 24, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: Congress

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance
System Integrity
Data Robustness (see reasoning)

The text predominantly focuses on various aspects of artificial intelligence through the proposed Senate Amendment 3071, which aims to establish protocols, standards, and institutions surrounding AI development, safety, and evaluation. Given this framework, the categories directly related to AI implications must be scored accordingly. The Social Impact category is relevant because it refers to the benefits AI should provide to stakeholders and the risk assessment associated with AI applications, impacting society at large. Data Governance is applicable as there are mandates outlined regarding data sharing and standards that ensure accuracy, security, and accountability in AI-related data. System Integrity is also relevant due to the emphasis on security models, testing protocols, and guidelines that ensure operational reliability in AI systems as discussed throughout the amendment. Robustness scores high because the text explicitly mentions the establishment of testing and evaluation benchmarks that pertain to AI systems, as well as compliance with defined standards. Overall, the text is heavily focused on the role of AI and provides comprehensive guidelines that will influence the selected categories.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Academic and Research Institutions
International Cooperation and Standards
Hybrid, Emerging, and Unclassified (see reasoning)

The text outlines a wide array of applications and implications for AI across different sectors, emphasizing the importance of establishing standards and practices while promoting international cooperation and federal guidelines. Aspects such as the intent to enhance AI safety and improve government service quality reflect relevance to Government Agencies and Public Services. The attention on developing AI models and frameworks falls into the realm of Academic and Research Institutions as it highlights collaboration for innovation and knowledge advancement. Given that the legislation addresses potential risks and aims for ethical AI applications, it also merits relevance under International Cooperation and Standards, underscoring cross-border efforts in AI regulation. However, sectors like Politics and Elections, Judicial, Healthcare, Private Enterprises, Nonprofits do not find direct mention in this text. Emerging references to testbeds for innovations suggest a hybrid nature where it may influence Hybrid, Emerging, and Unclassified. In summary, the categories that receive scores reflect the broad relevance of AI in enhancing various sectors delineated in the amendment.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (132) machine learning (2) automated (1) foundation model (2) algorithm (1) show keywords in context

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MRS. MURRAY, CHAIR OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, REGARDING H.R. 4366, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

Summary: The bill is the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, which allocates funds across multiple sectors including military, agriculture, and energy, aiming to support federal priorities and infrastructure improvements.
Collection: Congressional Record
Status date: March 5, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: Congress

Category: None (see reasoning)

The text focuses extensively on setting forth appropriations across various sectors, predominantly related to military construction and infrastructure. There is no explicit mention of AI, machine learning, automated decision-making, or other related terminology that would connect it significantly to AI issues. While military construction could potentially involve AI in future implementations (like smart infrastructure), it is not discussed within this text. Therefore, the relevance of this text to the categories concerning AI applications is very low.


Sector: None (see reasoning)

The text revolves around appropriations but does not specifically pertain to AI usages or regulations within any of the described sectors. While military aspects do play a role, any AI relevance is not evident, thus leading to very low relevance scores across all sectors listed. There is no discussion on how AI might affect political campaigns, governmental services, judicial decisions, healthcare, employment, educational institutions, international cooperation, or nonprofit activities. The issues it covers are entirely procedural and focused solely on financial allocations.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (7) machine learning (3) automated (15) show keywords in context

Oklahoma SB468: Estate planning; creating the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act; electronic will; affidavit; electronic record and signature. Effective date.

Description: Estate planning; creating the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act; electronic will; affidavit; electronic record and signature. Effective date.
Summary: The bill establishes the Oklahoma Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act, allowing for the creation and validity of electronic wills and estate planning documents while outlining execution, acknowledgment, revocation, and notarization requirements.
Collection: Legislation
Status date: May 28, 2024
Status: Passed
Primary sponsor: Brent Howard (3 total sponsors)
Last action: Approved by Governor 05/28/2024 (May 28, 2024)

Category: None (see reasoning)

The text revolves around the proposals for creating a framework for electronic estate planning documents. While it mentions electronic processes, records, and signatures, it lacks explicit references to AI technologies or their implications on estate planning. It primarily focuses on legal and procedural aspects of managing electronic wills rather than addressing any broader social impacts, data governance issues, integrity of systems, or robustness considerations specifically related to AI. Thus, all categories rate low regarding relevance to AI-related aspects.


Sector: None (see reasoning)

The text primarily addresses the establishment and regulation of electronic estate planning documents within the legal framework. While it introduces some elements of electronic records, signatures, and process requirements, it does not engage with any particular sector concerns above general legal considerations. There is no reference to how AI impacts the legal profession or the estate planning process in terms of improving efficiency or decision-making adaptation, which limits its relevance to any of the nine sectors outlined. Hence, it scores low across the sector categorizations.


Keywords (occurrence): algorithm (1) show keywords in context

Text of Senate Amendment 3125

Summary: The amendment aims to enhance U.S. strategic competition with China across various domains, strengthen alliances, improve military readiness, and invest in diplomatic initiatives to uphold democratic values.
Collection: Congressional Record
Status date: July 24, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: Congress

Category:
Societal Impact (see reasoning)

The text explicitly references artificial intelligence (AI) in Point 9 of the Statement of Policy. This inclusion signifies a strategic intent regarding the innovation and development of AI technologies, linking them to broader themes of technological leadership and security. The legislation positions AI as a critical technology that plays a role in the United States' global strategy, particularly in enhancing competitive capabilities against the PRC, showing a direct connection to the wider implications of AI on society, security, and international relations. The mention of AI also ties into various societal concerns, such as privacy, bias, and ethics, aligning well with the Social Impact category. However, while it touches on aspects related to governance and integrity, it does not directly address specific regulatory frameworks for data, integrities of systems, or performance benchmarks, reducing its relevance to those categories. Hence, the relevance to each category varies.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment
International Cooperation and Standards (see reasoning)

The text outlines policies and strategies that pertain to international relations and competition, especially concerning AI developments within the United States' foreign policy framework. Its relevance to sectors such as Government Agencies and Public Services is moderate, given the focus on governmental strategies and public diplomacy related to AI. The focus on competitiveness also indirectly touches on aspects of Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment as it highlights the importance of private sector innovation in emerging technologies, including AI. However, it does not provide direct regulations or frameworks specifically aimed at AI applications in sectors like Healthcare or Judicial Systems. There is a clear emphasis on government engagement and strategic posturing towards PRC, which makes it relevant for multiple sectors, but mainly within the confines of international policy rather than specific operational uses of AI within other identified sectors.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (1) show keywords in context

SHOULD WE HOLD PEOPLE TO WHAT THEY SAY

Summary: The bill discusses the need to hold lawmakers accountable for inaccurate promises about financial impacts and tax collections from policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, emphasizing transparency and effective governance.
Collection: Congressional Record
Status date: Sept. 10, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: Congress

Category: None (see reasoning)

The text discusses various political and economic topics without explicitly addressing AI technology or its implications. There are mentions of technology in relation to customer service at the IRS, including a reference to ChatGPT. However, these mentions are not in-depth explorations of AI issues; rather, they are anecdotes related to broader fiscal and administrative frustrations. Other AI-specific terms do not appear, and therefore, the relevance of the categories is limited. The text primarily focuses on economic policies and political accountability rather than the social impact, data governance, system integrity, or robustness of any AI systems.


Sector:
Government Agencies and Public Services (see reasoning)

The text does not directly address the use of AI in any specific sector such as elections, healthcare, government services, or others. The mention of using ChatGPT for IRS services is tangential and does not develop into a broader discourse on how AI is utilized in political campaigns, government efficiency, or other sectors. The overall content remains focused on criticism of fiscal policy and legislative behavior, rather than on sector-specific AI applications.


Keywords (occurrence): algorithm (1) show keywords in context

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part III-- IP Protection for Ai Assisted Inventions and Creative Works

Summary: This bill addresses the need for intellectual property protections for inventions and creative works involving artificial intelligence. It explores how much human involvement is necessary for AI-assisted creations to qualify for legal protections, aiming to safeguard innovation while adapting existing laws.
Collection: Congressional Hearings
Status date: April 10, 2024
Status: Issued
Source: House of Representatives

Category:
Societal Impact
Data Governance
System Integrity (see reasoning)

The text focuses extensively on the intersection between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) rights. Given that it discusses the role of AI in creating inventions and works, it is inherently relevant to the category of Social Impact, as it raises issues related to fairness, accountability, and the impact of AI on creators and innovation. Regarding Data Governance, the text argues for clear IP protections concerning AI-generated works, suggesting there is a need to consider issues of data ownership and contribution to AI training processes, which is relevant but not central. System Integrity is somewhat relevant as it concerns the transparency of the process for determining authorship and copyright protection in AI-assisted creations. Robustness is less relevant since the focus is on IP rather than performance benchmarks for AI systems, though some discussions about compliance with IP law do touch on related matters. Overall, the text emphasizes the societal implications of AI in the creative fields, making Social Impact the most relevant category.


Sector:
Judicial system
Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment
Academic and Research Institutions (see reasoning)

Throughout the document, the primary focus is on the implications of AI in the realm of intellectual property within creative works. Since it discusses how AI affects creative industries and the essential questions of IP related to these AI-assisted inventions, it primarily aligns with Academic and Research Institutions as it can be seen as a topic of study and law regarding creative and innovative processes. It can also relate to Private Enterprises, Labor, and Employment, as the legislation addresses the effects of AI on creators, which includes artistic professions and industries leveraging AI for innovation. The usage of AI by government entities is less prevalent, suggesting lower relevance to Government Agencies and Public Services. Consequently, the emphasis on legal and creative contributions makes it most relevant to Academic Institutions, with Private Enterprises also bearing relevance due to the economic implications.


Keywords (occurrence): artificial intelligence (10) machine learning (1) algorithm (1) show keywords in context
Feedback form