Public Comments for: HB2094 - High-risk artificial intelligence; definitions, development, deployment, and use, civil penalties.
Thank you for your consideration of the attached comments from the Business Software Alliance regarding HB 2094.
Please see attached.
TechNet's written remarks on HB 2094 are attached.
The R Street Institute strongly urges your opposition to HB2094 as outlined in the attached long form testimony.
My name is Stefan Padfield, and I am the Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Project, which is part of the National Center for Public Policy Research. In that capacity, I spend a significant amount of my time researching corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, otherwise known as DEI programs. I also routinely engage with corporations about those programs. In light of that experience, I am here today to comment on the definition of “algorithmic discrimination” in the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act, and specifically the proposed exclusion from that definition of “the expansion of an applicant, customer, or participant pool to increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.” In his 2019 book, "How to Be an Antiracist," Ibram X. Kendi infamously asserted that: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” This discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination is integral to critical race theory and DEI programs. It is rooted in an utterly divisive world view that separates people into oppressed and oppressor classes based on the color of their skin, and which has accordingly been quite properly described as neo-Marxist. Calling this discrimination “anti-discrimination” does not make it legal, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2023 case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, wherein the Court struck down affirmative action programs in colleges and universities because, among other things, it is impossible to discriminate in favor of one group based on race without discriminating against other groups on the basis of race, as the opening quote from Ibram Kendi quite brazenly acknowledges. This discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination, which can fairly be called neo-racist in addition to being neo-Marxist, has also been rejected by the American people as immoral. This can be seen in the rash of giant corporations that have recently walked back or entirely eliminated their DEI programs in response to having those programs exposed publicly or in order to avoid having those programs exposed publicly. These include Amazon, Meta, McDonald's, American Airlines, Boeing, Caterpillar, Ford, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, Lowe's, Toyota, Tractor Supply Company, and Walmart. And yet this illegal and immoral discrimination in the name of antidiscrimination appears to be precisely the goal of defining “algorithmic discrimination” in the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act as excluding “the expansion of an applicant, customer, or participant pool to increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.” This discrimination in the name of antidiscrimination has always been illegal and immoral, but it captured many of our institutions in the upheaval following the BLM riots of 2020 and under the cover of misleading labels like “anti-racism”, “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion”. But the truth of what is actually being done under those banners is ultimately rejected by mainstream Americans whenever and wherever it comes to light. In fact, the 2024 election results can be seen as in part driven by the country’s rejection of the left’s obsession with smearing this great nation as systemically racist, which underlies the discrimination in the name of antidiscrimination under consideration here. I urge you not to make this illegal and immoral discrimination a part of this legislation. Thank you.
TCAI supports passing HB 2094 because of its strong protections against discrimination.
TCAI supports recommending HB2094 for consideration by the full House.
Dear Chair Torian, Vice Chair Sickles, and Distinguished Members of the Committee, On behalf of the Electronic Transactions Association (ETA), the leading trade association representing the payments industry, we appreciate the opportunity to share our opposition and broad concerns with HB 2094. ETA and its members are supportive of efforts to promote responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and systems. Our industry has long been at the forefront of developing and implementing safeguards to ensure AI is used responsibly and does not result in unjustified differential treatment. ETA’s members and their use of AI occurs within the confines of one of the most highly regulated industries, while adhering to the principles of explainability, privacy, risk management, and fairness within existing legal frameworks, including: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which governs both traditional and AI-assisted lending practices, and state privacy laws. Currently, the list of activities in the definition of consequential decisions uses the term “(iv) a financial or lending service,” which ETA believes is overbroad and is likely to include low risk AI uses that greatly benefit consumers. Therefore, ETA believes that financial services should be removed from the list of consequential decisions. Doing so will enable companies to take a risk-based approach, consistent with multiple sections of this legislation, and avoid burdensome requirements for low-risk AI uses, such as using AI to categorize expenses for tax or other financial planning purposes or connecting people to financial experts. It will also avoid redundancies because our members already adhere to strict state and federal regulations.....