CT Senate votes for artificial intelligence safeguards while Gov. Lamont is still hesitant on bill
State senators voted overwhelmingly Wednesday night for a controversial bill seeking oversight of artificial intelligence, but Gov. Ned Lamont remains steadfast in avoiding slowing down one of the world's developing industries.
After a day-long marathon at the state Capitol, Democrats reached a compromise with Republicans by watering down the measure in a successful bid for bipartisan support as the chamber voted 32-4 for the bill. Republican senators Tony Hwang of Fairfield, Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, Rob Sampson of Wolcott, and Eric Berthel of Watertown voted against the bill after a debate lasting 75 minutes. Lawmakers voted shortly before midnight Wednesday and then adjourned for the night.
Democratic senators are seeking safeguards on AI for the first time in Connecticut history in a bill that generated both strong support and deep opposition. To show that the legislation is among the year's highest priorities, Senate Democrats named the measure as Senate Bill 2.
Even with various sections removed from the bill, Lamont was not convinced.
'We have reviewed these changes, and the governor's position remains unchanged,' said Rob Blanchard, Lamont's chief spokesman.
Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, said lawmakers want to provide safeguards that would curb the excesses of artificial intelligence, including criminalizing the use of non-consensual, intimate images that impose a person's face on another body that is known as 'deep fake' pornography.
'We all know that the internet was really under-regulated when it first exploded into the world 30 years ago,' Looney told reporters Wednesday. 'We'd rather not see history repeat itself.'
Artificial intelligence has the potential for 'both good and evil' in the same way as nuclear power, he said.
'The internet was severely underregulated in its earliest days, and we are paying the price to this day,' Looney said.
But Lamont, a Greenwich entrepreneur who started his own company decades ago, continued to express strong concerns Wednesday by saying he does not want to stifle an emerging industry that can create jobs and future economic opportunities in Connecticut. He is concerned that the next generation of highly educated computer coders and their companies might avoid the Nutmeg State if there is too much regulation.
'Look, I'm really cautious about the bill,' Lamont told reporters Wednesday at the state Capitol in Hartford. 'I just worry about every state going out and doing their own thing – a patchwork quilt of regulations with Connecticut being probably stricter and broader than most. What that means in terms of AI development here. They'll get noticed. Programmers get noticed. Maybe you're at risk here. So I want to be very cautious about that.'
Lamont added, 'I know about deep fakes. I also know that our consumer protection laws are really strong. So whatever you're trying to do, you do that with AI, it's just as illegal, and we're going to hold people accountable.'
The legislature has another, separate bill on 'deep fake' pornography that could be passed if Lamont vetoes Senate Bill 2. Lamont said he would sign a bill that would update the 'revenge pornography' statutes that are already on the books that would include artificial intelligence.
'Yes is the answer to that question,' Lamont said. 'It's already illegal, but let's make it illegal again. … If you want to double down on deep fakes, I can double down on deep fakes.'
Lamont also told business leaders in Hartford this week that he was concerned about any hindrances to the artificial intelligence business, saying that he wants to 'make sure that regulation doesn't strangle it.'
In a late-night compromise designed to attract Republican votes, the bill was watered down by removing two sections covering 188 lines that would have allowed lawsuits against A.I. developers if 'the use of a high-risk artificial intelligence system resulted in algorithmic discrimination against one or more consumers.'
But insiders said that the most important compromise for Democrats was not in attracting Republican votes but in trying to prevent Lamont from handing down a veto.
Unlike the original bill, the updated version on Wednesday night called for creating a new unit in the state attorney general's data privacy office that would be known as the 'Connecticut Digital Oversight Squad' that 'would be responsible for working on data privacy and other emerging technology issues,' officials said.
The changes were negotiated in a deal between Sen. James Maroney, a Milford Democrat who has become a nationally known leader on artificial intelligence, and the ranking Republican on the general law committee, Sen. Paul Cicarella of North Haven, and others.
The Senate bill covers multiple issues, including creating an AI task force, forming a Connecticut technology advisory board, and updating the Technology Talent and Innovation Fund Advisory Committee, among others. The measure would 'establish various requirements concerning artificial intelligence systems and require the Department of Economic and Community Development to establish an artificial intelligence regulatory sandbox program,' according to a nonpartisan bill analysis.
During the floor debate, Maroney said the three-level bill is designed to 'protect, promote, and empower.'
'How do we empower the state government to be more efficient in empowering A.I.?' Maroney asked.
When there are layoffs in Connecticut in the future, state officials will ask employers to reveal how many jobs were lost because of artificial intelligence.
Maroney said earlier that he is taking a 'pro-innovation approach' at a time when he said one out of three women are in jobs that are at risk of being automated by A.I.
'We're looking to promote the responsible use of A.I. – empowering state government to use A.I. responsibly,' Maroney told reporters. 'We want to promote the use of AI in small businesses through our Connecticut Online AI Academy. … We want to make sure that children have those skills they are going to need to succeed in the world. A LinkedIn AI survey said two-thirds of businesses won't hire someone without generative AI skills.'
Cicarella, the ranking member, said, 'The ability to create a graphic by just talking to your computer is absolutely mind-blowing. … It's quite amazing what it can do and help professions.'
But getting the right answer will not happen, Cicarella said, 'if you don't know how to tell ChatGPT what you're looking for.'
Concerning the deletion of sections 2 and 3 regarding lawsuits against businesses, he said, 'It does address the concerns of the business community.'
Police departments, he said, should use artificial intelligence to blur out the faces of minors in hundreds of hours of body-cam footage that is requested in various cases. Currently, Cicarella said it takes many hours to blur the faces, but artificial intelligence could do the same thing in minutes.
During the debate, Sen. Tony Hwang of Fairfield said he was voting against the measure because he is concerned that none of the surrounding states or any in New England had moved ahead with similar regulations.
'What could happen if we are wrong in this legislation?' Hwang asked on the Senate floor. 'Do you think companies that are in Greenwich, Danbury … Groton and New London may not just cross over that border and do their business there? … We don't need to be the first. We need to be the best. … I'm not willing to risk Connecticut businesses on a desire to be first in New England.'
Maroney responded, 'This is not about being first. … What if we are right? What if we could go back to 2010 and put regulations on social media? We live in a world where the suicide rates have increased since 2010. What if we had put some broad guardrails back then? … We hear these arguments again and again when we want to protect consumers.'
Senate majority leader Bob Duff, a Norwalk Democrat, said the country 'made a very big mistake when the internet became the internet' because there are currently not enough protections for privacy, suicide, and addictions.
'Businesses should not be scared of what we're trying to do,' Duff told his colleagues. 'We are protecting the residents of the state. … We need to take control of our own destiny here in the state of Connecticut. … That's why we need to put our arms around this. … We're going to let a few large companies take everybody's data. That's not what we want in the state.'
Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield supported the measure as an improvement that is 'much more reasonable' than the original version, saying he still understands why some fellow Republican senators voted no.
Concerns about artificial intelligence have a long history.
In 2007, famed actor Paul Newman of Westport traveled to the state Capitol complex in Hartford and testified to the judiciary committee for a bill that would have prevented the unauthorized digital distortion of anyone's image and create 'a right of publicity' in the digital age. Newman was ahead of his time 18 years ago, and he told lawmakers that technology had improved so quickly that he feared that film clips from his performances could be digitally extracted for use in other films or commercials. Newman, a Hollywood giant, died in 2008 at the age of 83.
The unauthorized use of images was not difficult to accomplish and could be done by 'the average guy in the basement,' Newman told The Courant in an interview after his testimony.
The 2007 bill, which did not pass, would have prevented any distortion that would 'cause the individual to speak or appear to speak words that the person did not speak or place the individual or appear to place the individual in a place or circumstance in which the individual did not agree to be placed.'
The current technology has gone far beyond the 1994 classic film 'Forrest Gump,' in which lead actor Tom Hanks' character appeared in scenes shot decades earlier, meeting with President Lyndon Johnson and appearing with former Beatle John Lennon on The Dick Cavett Show. But both Cavett and Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, gave permission for the latter scene, officials said.
Last year, the state Senate passed an AI bill, but the measure never received a vote in the House before time ran out on the final day of the legislative session. After Lamont signaled publicly that he opposed the bill, the House never debated the issue last year because leaders said the debate would be a waste of time if the measure was facing a guaranteed veto.
After more than four hours of debate in April 2024, the Senate voted 24-12 for the bill on strict partly lines as all Democrats were in favor and all Republicans were against. Some Republicans argued that the measure would be adding more regulations on small businesses.
The 53-page bill last year would have expanded criminal laws to include 'deep fakes' as the measure established 'a new crime of unlawful dissemination of a synthetic intimate image' and prohibited anyone 'from distributing any deceptive media before an election or primary.'
The measure last year would have required developers of artificial intelligence 'to use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination' based on factors like age, religion or ethnicity, according to a nonpartisan bill summary.
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Democrats want new leaders, focus on pocketbook issues, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
By James Oliphant and Jason Lange WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrats want new leaders for their party, which many feel isn't focusing enough on economic issues and is over-emphasizing issues like transgender rights and electric vehicles, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The poll identified a deep disconnect between what Democrats say their priorities are and the issues they believe party leaders care about most ahead of next year's midterm elections, when they hope to crack Republican control of Congress. They see their elected officials as not focused on helping families make ends meet and reducing corporate influence. Democrat Kamala Harris' November loss to Republican Donald Trump has left the party rudderless and sparked a round of soul-searching about the path forward. The poll shows that party leaders have work to do in recruiting candidates for Congress in 2026 -- and for the White House in 2028. Some 62% of self-identified Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that "the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people." Only 24% disagreed and the rest said they weren't sure or didn't answer. Just 30% of Republicans polled said they thought their party leadership should be replaced. Democrats' dissatisfaction is also playing out in leadership changes, including this week's resignation of Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, from the Democratic National Committee -- which followed the ouster of progressive activist David Hogg. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,258 people nationwide and online June 11 through 16, including 1,293 Democrats. It had a margin of error of about 3 percentage points for Democrats. It found that Democrats want the party to focus on their day-to-day needs and want wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, agrees. "People don't trust us, they don't think we have their backs on issues that are core to them, which are these kitchen table issues," Newsom said on his podcast in April. DEMOCRATS 'IMPATIENT' Democratic strategists who reviewed the poll's findings said they send a clear message. "Voters are very impatient right now," said Mark Riddle, who heads Future Majority, a Democratic research firm. "They want elected officials at all levels to address the cost of living, kitchen-table issues and affordability." The poll found a gap between what voters say they care about and what they think the party's leaders prioritize. It was particularly wide on the issue of reducing corporate spending in political campaigns, where 73% of Democrats said they viewed putting limits on contributions to political groups like Super PACs a priority, but only 58% believed party leaders prioritize that. That issue matters to Sam Boland, 29, a Democrat in Minneapolis, who views Super PAC money as a way to 'legally bribe' candidates. 'Politicians want to keep their jobs and are afraid of the impact that publicly funded elections might have,' Boland said. Along that line, 86% of Democrats said changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority, more than the 72% of those surveyed think party leaders make it a top concern. The Republican-controlled Congress is currently pushing forward with Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill that would provide greater benefits to the wealthy than working-class Americans. Anthony Rentsch, 29, of Baltimore, said he believes Democratic leaders are afraid to embrace more progressive policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy. 'A lot of Trump's success has been with populist messages, and I think there's similar populist message Democrats can have,' Rentsch said. Democrats' own priorities appeared more in line with party leaders on abortion rights - which 77% cited as a priority. NEW BLOOD Dissatisfaction over the party's priorities on several economic policies was stronger among younger Democrats like Boland and Rentsch. For example, only 55% of Democrats aged 18-39 thought the party prioritized paid family leave that would allow workers to care for sick family members and bond with a new baby, but 73% said it was a priority for them. Among older Democrats, the same share - 68% - that said the issue was a priority for them said it was a priority for party leaders. Rentsch said that criticizing Trump over his conduct won't be enough to win over skeptical voters. 'That can't be it,' Rentsch said. 'It has to be owning those issues that have an impact on their economic well-being and their physical and mental well-being.' Democratic respondents said the party should be doing more to promote affordable childcare, reduce the price of prescription drugs, make health insurance more readily available and support mass transit. They view party leaders as less passionate about those issues than they are, the poll found. Even so, some Democrats argue the party also needs to stand toe-to-toe with Trump. 'They gotta get mean,' said Dave Silvester, 37, of Phoenix. Other Democrats said the party sometimes over-emphasizes issues that they view as less critical such as transgender rights. Just 17% of Democrats said allowing transgender people to compete in women and girls' sports should be a priority, but 28% of Democrats think party leaders see it as such. Benjamin Villagomez, 33, of Austin, Texas said that while trans rights are important, the issue too easily lends itself to Republican attacks. 'There are more important things to be moving the needle on,' said Villagomez, who is trans. 'There are more pressing issues, things that actually matter to people's livelihoods.' Democratic strategists say that if Trump's trade and tax policies lead to higher prices and an increased budget deficit, the party needs to be ready to take full advantage in next year's elections, which will decide control of Congress. 'This recent polling data indicates Democrats have room for improvement on criticizing Trump on the economy and making it clear to voters that Democrats are the ones standing up for working people,' said Ben Tulchin, who served as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' pollster for his two presidential campaigns. The party needs to get beyond portraying itself 'as the lesser of two evils," Boland, the Minneapolis Democrat, said. 'It needs to transform itself into a party that everyday people can get excited about,' he said. 'That requires a changing of the guard.'
26 minutes ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
