Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/01/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB159 | |
| SB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 177-AI, DEEPFAKES, CYBERSECURITY, DATA XFERS
3:52:11 PM
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, District M, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, co-presented an overview as the sponsor of SB
177. She stated that the bill emphasizes transparency, which
informs and protects Alaskans. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) is
considered a new technology, but its concept was developed
earlier in time. In 1950, Alan Turing wrote a paper titled
"Computing Machinery and Intelligence." In 1956, three men put
together a program called "Logic Theorist," which mimicked human
problem-solving skills, which was presented at a conference
titled "Dartmouth Summer Research Project." During that same
year, the term 'A.I.' was coined.
3:53:37 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said since these milestones, A.I. technology has
been perceived as a new frontier, despite having existed for
almost 75 years. Its evolution and capabilities have developed
at an unprecedented pace. The momentum around this technology is
historic and revolutionary, and is becoming a normal component
to our lives. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is
assisted by A.I. She has heard emotional expressions ranging
from fear and anxiety to anticipation and excitement with the
emergence of A.I. technology. As policymakers, it is important
to realize that this technology is just another tool. It is also
critical to safeguard the public and defend against bad actors.
Considering the vast amount of data in state agencies, the state
should ensure data outputs are well protected and deepfake is
appropriately controlled.
3:56:42 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to slide 2 of the presentation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Defining A.I.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
an automated system that uses data input, human-
defined objectives, machine learning, natural language
processing, or other computational processing
techniques of similar or greater complexity to make a
decision or facilitate human decision-making.
3:57:03 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to slide 3.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Why now? Why here?
WHY NOW? A.I. is here. It is evolving at lightening
speed. We cannot stop it. We cannot ignore it. "A.I.
is a tool and in itself is not inherently evil. Our
job is to protect against bad actors and harness A.I.
for good the very best we can." -Senator Shelley
Hughes
WHY HERE? Congress is unlikely to unite on parameters
and best practices anytime soon. State legislatures
are more nimble and ready to mitigate the harm and
bridle the benefits of A.I.
SENATOR HUGHES said conversations about A.I. are taking place in
state capitols across the country, but the U.S. Congress is
unlikely to take legislative action on this front. She said she
serves on the National Conference of State Legislature's task
force on A.I. One advantage of taking legislative action is that
the state could more quickly respond and customize.
3:58:20 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to slide 4:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Why this focus?
1. State Agency Use of A.I.
a) Targeting private sector development and
deployment would stifle innovation and be a
fool's errand for a state with a small
population.
b) Setting the parameters for state agency use is
necessary
1. to safeguard the public
2. to ensure appropriate deployment that will
offer efficiencies and solutions for the
workplace
2. Political Deepfakes.
a) It's 2024! Elections are around the corner.
b) In general, lack of trust chaos.
SENATOR HUGHES said because of its small population, Alaska
should support innovation rather than targeting vendors. She
opined that focusing on state agencies is the right step forward
and the public would appreciate doing so. Microsoft Corporation
will soon introduce A.I. tools for state government use.
Elections are around the corner. She hopes society doesn't have
to question reality, but believes it is a possibility that would
create chaos. It is important to have the ability to trust one's
sense of truth. She expressed concerns about the constitutional
republic and the integrity of elections.
4:00:41 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to slide 5 and highlighted A.I. principles:
[Original punctuation provided.]
A Good Starting Point
Agreeing on AI Principles
• Differentiate between tool and actor
o Protect against bad actors
o Support innovation for beneficial uses
• Aim for tech neutrality
• Assign human oversight and responsibility •
Maintain transparency • Avoid harm/injury
• Respect sensitive personal data privacy and
security
• Embrace data hygiene • Avoid creating/reinforcing
unfair bias
• Uphold laws and protect individual rights
SENATOR HUGHES said after a discussion with the Chief
Information Officer of the Alaska State Legislature, she
gathered the importance of considering data hygiene.
4:01:32 PM
STEPHEN KNOUSE, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, co-presented an overview of SB 177.
He moved to slide 6 and said SB 177 would provide a stop-gap to
better identify deepfake usage, which would engender more trust
into the public.
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 177 -- What it does
1. Adds disclosure statement requirements for
political deepfake communications
2. Adds new sections regarding state agency use of
artificial intelligence and individuals' data. SB177
3. Adds section to allow individual who suffers harm
to bring civil action to superior court
4:02:43 PM
SENATOR HUGHES commented that SB 177 is a work in progress and
acts as a conversation starter. There is opportunity for
legislators to provide amendments.
4:03:54 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 7:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 177 -- What it does
Requires biennial inventory and report of AI systems
being used by state agencies published on DOA website.
1. Name and vendor of system
2. General capabilities and uses
3. Whether impact assessment completed prior to
implementation
Requires biennial impact assessments published on DOA
website.
4:04:14 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 8 and briefly explained the intent of
the impact assessment:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 177 -- What it does
Impact Assessment
1. System efficacy
2. Human oversight
3. Accountability mechanisms
4. Decision appeals process
5. Benefits, liability, and risks to state
6. Effects on liberty, finances, livelihood, and
privacy interests of individuals, including
effects from geolocation data use
7. Unlawful discrimination or disparate impact on
individual or group
8. Policies and procedures governing process of
A.I. system use for consequential decision-
making.
4:04:32 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 9 and listed state agency requirements
under SB 177:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 177 -- What it does
Requires state agencies to
1. Notify individuals who may be legally or
significantly affect
2. Obtain individual's consent before soliciting or
acquiring sensitive personal data or sharing data
with another state agency*
3. Provide appeals process including manual human
review
4. Inform and acquire consent if AI used in hiring
interview video
5. When outsource, multi-factor authentication must
secure system and stored data
4:05:00 PM
SENATOR HUGHES added feedback on the final point on slide 9. She
said for data to be shared with agencies such as the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) or the courts, consent would not be
required. She noted that the Alaska State Legislature's Chief
Information Officer informed her of the 42 applications on the
MyAlaska website that are shared across numerous departments, so
the corresponding section under SB 177 will need to be refined.
4:05:40 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 10 and listed rules for state agencies
under SB 177:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 177 -- What it does
Prohibits state agencies from using.
1.Biometric identification e.g., facial recognition
2.Emotion recognition
3.Cognitive behavioral manipulation of individuals or
groups 4.Social scoring
5.AI systems that use data hosted in hostile nations.
4:06:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to slide 11 and summarized state agency
provisions:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Process Checks and Balances
• Transparent
o What are we doing (algorithmic assessment
made public)
• Explainable
o Why are we doing it
• Conservative
o Within scope and purpose only
• Accountable
o Human oversight
o Developer
o Deployer
o User
o Regular audits/assessments, and retraining
as-needed
o Secure data storage
SENATOR HUGHES said when looking at A.I., oversight is important
at all stages in its development. Narrowing the scope to
generative A.I. would support checks and balances and reduce the
fiscal requirements.
4:08:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI wondered if either private or publicly-held
companies would have the ability to store biometric
identification.
4:08:46 PM
SENATOR HUGHES replied that multi-factor authentication would be
required to protect data within state agency contracts under SB
177. She offered to obtain further information from DPS.
4:09:37 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 12 and explained deepfakes in
elections:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Deepfakes in Elections
Generative A.I. can convincingly imitate elected
leaders and other public figures.
AI tools can synthesize audio in any person's voice
and generate realistic still and moving visuals of
almost anyone doing anything.
The proliferation of "synthetic media" poses
challenges to the functioning of our constitutional
republic when such communications can deprive the
public of the accurate information it needs to make
informed decisions in elections.
4:10:16 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 13 and listed examples:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Deepfakes in Elections
• USA: Voice altered to sound like Biden urged voters in
New Hampshire not to cast ballots.
• TURKEY: News outlet published deepfake video showing a
party endorsing opposition; presidential candidate
withdrew from race due to a deepfake "sex tape" video
• SLOVAKIA: Leader Michal ?imecka was depicted as saying
he would raise the price of beer and had plans to rig
the election.
4:10:52 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 14 and read the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Deepfakes in Elections
"The fact-checkers trying to hold the line against
disinformation on social media in Slovakia say their
experience shows AI is already advanced enough to
disrupt elections, while they lack the tools to fight
back."
4:11:10 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 15 and presented A.I. generated photos
of Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
4:11:36 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 16 and presented an artificially-made
news video segment about Santa Clause.
4:12:30 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that a free A.I. tool was used for the
video example, but paid software would be more realistic.
4:12:42 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 17 and showcased a deepfake-generated
video clip of senators whose faces were swapped with Star Wars
characters.
4:13:44 PM
MR. KNOUSE moved to slide 18 and showed a deepfake-generated
video of Senator Hughes as Queen Elizabeth II. He reiterated
that more robust software would be far more convincing.
4:14:13 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said the videos she created were made to be
intentionally less convincing to prevent widespread circulation,
but the ability to create more realistic content is possible.
She stated that one presidential candidate in the recent
presidential election in Turkey used deepfake technology to
falsely distort his opponent's character and uplift his own
appearance. A candidate running for public office has the
ability to create deepfake content falsifying one's own
character.
4:15:10 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to slide 19 and highlighted potential
solutions:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Solutions
• Power of disclosure
o Establish norms, standards, and laws now
o People can discount untruths
• Enforcement and penalties are necessary
• Injunctive relief is important
SENATOR HUGHES stated that SB 177 does not include injunctive
relief, but while a court would likely order a deepfake video be
removed, it would be possible for content to already been copied
and shared on the Internet.
4:17:04 PM
At ease.
4:17:45 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting.
4:18:27 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony.
4:19:20 PM
SPENSE PURNELL, Director, Technology Policy, Reason Foundation,
Tallahassee, Florida, invited testimony for SB 177. He expressed
disappointment knowing there is no existing federal framework on
the issue of A.I. regulation, but acknowledged that other states
are stepping in to fill the policy-void. He opined that SB 177
would do several positive things and addresses state use of AI,
which could help identify threats in addition to opportunities.
He said the third section in the bill regarding civil liability
is an essential piece and expressed anticipation to see what
state agencies could accomplish with this bill. SB 177 could
also address potential threats that have not yet been realized
and it underlines the idea that A.I. is a quickly-evolving
technology. He conveyed that there are a range of actions states
could take to navigate A.I. technology, such as banning it
entirely or crafting legislation to manage its use. He stated
his belief that SB 177 may require refinement, but appreciates
that it is less invasive. He encouraged the committee to
research and learn about A.I. technology to help define parts of
the bill.
4:24:23 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if Adobe Photoshop and its filtering tool
falls under the definition of a deepfake given its computational
processing technique that allows programs to alter one's
appearance.
4:25:05 PM
MR. PURNELL replied that the example of Adobe Photoshop
demonstrates the downside to establishing a broad definition.
Google Search and tools such as spellcheck or could be arguably
defined as A.I. technology. The computational processing
technique is likely too broad and would need to be refined in
statute. He opined that the state may benefit from taking
inventory of A.I. uses, but current language under SB 177 could
be refined.
4:26:39 PM
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that the computational processing
technique is included in part of the deepfake definition under
SB 177. She expressed the importance of remaining technology
neutral. She stated that when she previously worked on unmanned
aircraft policy, aviation rules were generalized, so bill
language on deepfake could include provisions on manually-
produced or photo-shopped material in addition to generative
A.I. She suggested updating the bill language so definitions are
technology-neutral. However, state agency usage may require a
closer lens on generative A.I usage.
4:29:07 PM
DANIEL CASTRO, Director, Data Innovation, Information Technology
& Innovation Foundation, Washington, District of Columbia,
testified in support of SB 177 and provided recommendations. He
said there have been rapid advances in generative A.I.
technology, so the public is rightfully concerned that bad
actors could exploit it to create deepfake content. Deepfake
technology has the potential to harm and influence elections,
harm a candidate's reputation, mislead voters, and foster
mistrust. He made several suggestions to reduce the risk of
deepfake exploitation:
1. Update state election laws to make it unlawful for
campaigns or political organizations to knowingly
distribute materially-deceptive media that uses a person's
likeness to manipulate voters without providing clear and
conspicuous disclosure.
2. A.I. generated content should allow beneficial uses, such
as a simple campaign video edit, when done with the
candidate's consent.
3. Avoid requirements for disclosure that inadvertently
mandate disclaimers on all media, which could desensitize
voters to these types of nuisances.
4. Warning the public on deceptive media rather than
explicitly pointing out A.I. uses, which is more
informative and less stigmatizing.
5. Developing a robust enforcement mechanism that requires
swift consequences and penalties for distributing deepfake
content.
6. The legislative focus should center on political
organizations that are intentionally creating or
distributing deepfakes; it is important to avoid creating a
patchwork of conflicting state laws for various platforms.
4:33:27 PM
MR. CASTRO said he appreciated the committee continuing the
discussion on this issue as Election Day nears. The growth rate
and ease of of A.I. technology usage is escalating, so he urged
the committee to address public concerns without constraining
many of its beneficial uses.
4:34:01 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked about the current and potential approach to
enforcement.
4:34:35 PM
MR. CASTRO replied that it is important to differentiate genuine
from illegitimate campaigns, especially in recognizing the
influence of deepfake used by Russian hackers to sway elections.
While federal and state laws are unable to prevent these types
of activities, legislative action could prevent legitimate
campaigns from using robocalls, creating deepfake content, or
falsifying advertisements. Developing a swift response and
establishing civil penalties would effectively mitigate the
influence of A.I. on elections.
4:36:37 PM
NATE PERSILY, Professor, Stanford Law School, Stanford,
California, invited testimony for SB 177. He emphasized that
A.I. has had its "Taylor Swift moment," which entailed the
publishing and circulation of a deepfake photo of the singer.
This incident acted as an opening silo and its impact will be
apparent through political expression. The use of deepfake
technology will blossom and multiply quickly. He suggested the
following:
1. Identify dimensions or subjects to regulate, and focus on
creators and speakers, outlined in SB 177.
2. Ensuring regulations are not placed on standardized
Internet communication tools do not establish measures that
would detrimentally impact the political process.
3. Identify the location of regulation. A law could affect
deepfake creation anywhere in the U.S. on the Internet.
4. Narrow a definition for organic communication versus
advertising.
5. Define libelous deepfakes or efforts intended to damage
political parties or candidates.
6. Develop criminal or civil liability enforcement measures.
MR. PERSILLY encouraged members to review the EU AI Act, which
comprises a series of definitions developed by the European
Union that the state could potentially modify for particular
context. The approach to regulating deepfake content varies
among different states, while SB 177 specifically measures
damage done to the reputation of a political candidate.
4:41:19 PM
MR. PERSILY said that for political campaigns, it is important
to determine when and to whom regulations would apply. First
amendment concerns currently exist around vagueness, content-
based, and viewpoint-based discrimination. To address this, SB
177 focuses on the disclaimer mandate for communications. For
example, Citizens United struck down campaign finance laws but
upheld disclaimer requirements. Defining deepfake context is
important because disclosure measures would not raise all the
same constitutional concerns as general libel. He stated his
belief that this focus area will occupy the legislature.
4:43:15 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated his belief that SB 177 only requires
a disclaimer if deepfake content injures the reputation of a
candidate or party, so the interpretation could be subjective.
He wondered if a better policy would comprise a direct
disclaimer.
4:43:50 PM
MR. PERSILY replied that part of the challenge is that the
narrower disclaimer is more likely to be upheld. Every current
digital platform utilizes A.I., so there is a risk of
disclaimers applying to all imagery on the Internet and people
would become numb to disclaimers to any content with an A.I.
tag. He stated his belief that the rationale is to limit
disclaimers to the types of deepfakes people are currently
worried about. One way to avoid the viewpoint-based
discrimination claim is to enlarge the focus on political
communications. He suggested using Stanford Law School's libel
language for reckless regard if the legislature decided to focus
on reputational injury.
4:46:34 PM
ROBERT WEISSMAN, President, Public Citizen, Washington, District
of Columbia, invited testimony for SB 177 on behalf of Public
Citizen. He thanked Senator Hughes and the committee for their
leadership. He conveyed that while it is important to get the
details of deepfake regulations right, quick action is
necessary. Failing to act would result it damaging consequences
for Alaska and around the world. The political deepfake moment
is upon society. The examples seen in the U.S. and around the
world are harbingers of what will come in the absence of
regulation. He guarantees that political operatives of all
backgrounds will misuse A.I. technology without rules in place
or legal repercussions, and the impact would stretch beyond
foreign influence on elections. This could result in a late-game
shift in election influence, widespread voter doubt, and
candidates denying the truth.
4:48:22 PM
MR. WEISSMAN suggested that the state must take action. Public
Citizen asserts that the most important thing is to establish a
law and social norms that define political deepfakes without a
disclosure as unacceptable. He opined that it is crucial to
establish the standards contained in SB 177 and maintained that
a disclosure mandate is the correct approach to take because it
takes into consideration the first amendment and Supreme Court
jurisprudence. He recommended strengthening SB 177 by doing the
following:
1. Focus on enforcement and strengthen legal repercussions.
2. Establish a right to conjunctive relief; an impacted
candidate has every incentive for quick action.
3. Specify that the use of deepfakes for satire would not be
covered under the bill to mitigate first amendment
challenges.
MR. WEISSMAN said states across the country are taking action on
this issue. Although there is bipartisan support for federal
legislation to regulate deepfake content, Congress is unlikely
to take timely action.
4:51:31 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if any states have gotten ahead of the game
to deploy A.I. legislation to prevent the potential concerns
mentioned for 2024.
4:51:59 PM
MR. WEISSMAN said there are five states that have passed laws
prohibiting deepfakes without disclosure, including Michigan,
and more than two dozen states have introduced similar bills.
4:52:36 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI referenced the New Hampshire deepfake robocall
scenario that did not clearly state the call was from "Joe
Biden," but sounded like him. He said legislation in Alaska
would not have penalized or prevented this type of incident from
happening. He asked how the legislature could prevent this
situation from happening or whether it could establish a
penalty.
4:53:30 PM
MR. WEISSMAN replied that Public Citizen would strongly favor
that approach. He believes there are current laws in Alaska that
prohibit the dissuasion of voting, which are established in New
Hampshire. Even in the absence of a deepfake bill in that state,
the robocall incident was illegal. He suggested adding a
specific measurement concerning the use of deepfakes that deter
or mislead voters.
4:55:13 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said while SB 177 is a work in progress, it is
important to start the conversation. She noted a section
concerning state agency use and data that will need to be
updated. The Alaska State Legislature's Chief Information
Officer informed her about a policy that refers to a dynamic
list on state departments, so including this component would be
wise.
4:56:01 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI stated that there is a lot to consider on the
issue of A.I.
4:56:36 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 177 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 177 AI Sponsor Statement 1.24.2024.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis ver B 1.24.2024.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 159 Sponsor Statement 1.18.2024.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 Sectional Analysis 1.18.2024.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 VA Article 5.16.2023.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 In Flanders Fields.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 Invited Testimony 1.18.2024.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 In Flanders Fields.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 American Legion Auxiliary Resolution 2023.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 American Legion Auxiliary Resolution 2023.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 177 AI Presentation 2.1.2024.pdf |
SSTA 2/1/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |