♪♪
-Welcome to City Inside/Out.
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
State lawmakers are trying
to regulate artificial intelligence
with measures aimed at controlling chat bots
and requiring disclosure
when content is created by AI.
-By making it clear when A.I.
generates media,
Washingtonians are better protected
against confusion, deception and misinformation.
-The state says a new law requiring A.I.
detection tools will help prevent deepfakes.
But tech industry leaders aren't so sure.
-And as of now, there's
no foolproof method
for determining whether or not
something was generated entirely
or in part by artificial intelligence.
-The state's also trying to protect people,
especially kids, from the challenge of chat bots.
-We're already seeing
the synthetic friendships
of chat bots normalize self-harm, promote
suicide and violence.
-How much regulation does
A.I. need
and how will these new laws
affect one of the leading
industries in Washington State?
-The companies want to hold themselves accountable.
-Our studio panel weighs in.
-We're seeing some pretty disturbing
emotional attachments that teens are forming.
-This is not a human.
This is technology.
-Is Washington State getting smarter
or getting outsmarted by artificial intelligence?
That's next on City Inside/Out.
♪♪
And great to have you back here on City
Inside/Out on the Seattle Channel.
Brian Callanan here with you and I am with three people
who will help us further understand
these very important issues, including State
Senator Lisa Wellman, the Democrat
from the 41st District out on Mercer Island.
A key figure talking about AI safety
in this past session for the legislature.
Thanks a lot for joining us. -Thank you for having me.
-We also have with us Amy Harris,
director of government affairs for the Washington
Technology Industry Association,
which raised a number of questions
about these measures during the session.
Amy, appreciate you being here, too.
-Thank you.
-Also with us, Dr.
Katie Davis, UW professor
and co-director of the Center for Digital
Youth, which has done a lot of study
on the impact of AI on teens and kids. Dr.
Davis, good to have you. -Thank you. It's a pleasure.
-Let me jump into it and I'm going to get into
some of the details about these major AI
bills that you were working on
in this past session in just a minute.
But first, I want to ask that
overarching question of why.
Why do you think
AI needs to be regulated in the first place?
There's this
balance between managing risks
and encouraging innovation in the field of AI.
Senator Wellman, you either sponsored or were involved
in the passage of several pieces
of this legislation in this past session.
How would you answer that?
-Well, I do think that we've created
a digital playground for our kids to learn in.
I was very responsible for making sure that we had
computer science
because we want to get kids ready
for the future that they're going into.
-And you have a background in teaching and tech, too.
-And so it's just making sure that our kids are aware
of the good parts and the bad parts, making
sure parents,
I think this is very important
that parents are aware of some challenges
of being on screens all the time
and using their phones or using
what is happening.
And we're
reading things in the paper that very disturbing.
You know, there are now
three cases of suicide where AI is involved.
And so it it says as a responsible
role as a legislator,
you've got to be looking at this
and you've got to be deciding what you can do
to bring things forward and make people aware.
-Thank you very much for that.
Amy, let's let's get your piece on this.
What sort of regulation does AI need?
How does that regulation impact
the business of developing AI in our state?
-Yeah, we as a as an industry
really wanted to make sure we aren't
regulating ourselves out of the innovation
and the good fortune that we have here;
being the hub of all of these amazing
world-class companies,
research institutions, and the good fortune
that we have of being Washington State,
just not regulating ourselves out of innovation.
And the future of tech startups we represent
as WTIA, the 0 to 50 0 to 10 startups
a lot of first gen Americans.
So that was our big concern in these regulations.
And anybody that brought us into the room,
we were happy to be a part of those conversations.
We had the experts that are,
“Hey, this worked in the state,
this didn't work in that state.”
And we've seen the EU,
UK come down in a lot of regulations as well.
And Senator Wellman was happy
to bring us in on those conversations.
And we have the subject matter experts
and I thought we landed in really good places.
-Okay, good.
I know there's a lot more to it.
We're going to crack that open in just a little bit.
But Dr.
Davis, let me get your point of view here.
Why do you think AI needs to be regulated?
What does your research with kids
and families showing you? -Yeah.
So I've been studying the impact of various
technologies, particularly social media,
on various aspects of children's
and teens development for over 20 years now.
And I think we've learned a lot
from the example of social media and not regulating
social media
and how difficult
that's been on teens and their families,
putting all the onus on families
to figure out
how to regulate social media
within the context of the family.
And I would really like
to see us avoid that when it comes to AI.
In our research
at the Center for Digital
Youth, we're seeing some pretty disturbing
emotional attachments that teens are forming to
AI chatbots.
In the most extreme cases, instances of suicide.
But even beyond that, just,
you know, teens are forming these emotional attachments
at a time
when they are particularly emotionally vulnerable.
And we just don't know yet
what are the long term consequences of that.
And so I think we really need to step in and regulate
how they're developed.
-I'm going to dive a little bit
more into chatbots right now, if I could.
Senator Wellman.
Let's talk about this chatbot
regulation that passed this session,
including 5984, Senate Bill 5984, where you were
the prime sponsor.
So this measure requires an AI chatbot,
that seems human,
to give reminders that it is not human.
And it would also require companies
that provide chatbots to have a protocol
for detecting and addressing suicidal ideation.
Can you break down a little bit further for us
what this bill is going to do
when it goes into effect this coming January?
-Well,
I think we've put the word
out to the manufacturers of these products.
What we're looking for and also giving the right of
litigation where
an important piece of this, yeah, things happen.
And I think it's really important to set
the stage, as WTIA is very involved,
and as you've heard,
they're looking across the entire country.
We never just
if I'm going to do a bill on anything, I'm going to say
who's done it.
Where else have they addressed this?
Because as far as the industry is concerned,
we'd like to have consistency.
It doesn't make any sense
to have this happen in this state.
And then you have to do this... -The patchwork idea, yeah.
-We’re not interested in doing that at all.
So it was very important for us to see what were
the specific things, establishing a relationship.
We didn't want young children
establishing a relationship.
This is not a human.
This is technology. -Right.
-And making sure that that's part of that. -Okay.
Amy, I wanted to get
and get your perspective here, too,
because you testified about this issue in Olympia
and said that this chatbot legislation
might be too broad in scope.
I'm thinking back to January here
when you were talking about this
and might amending
a making a number of companies
more vulnerable to this litigation
that the senator was talking about here?
You did support the chat bot bill in the end.
Do you have still concerns
about what passed or how would you describe?
-No, we landed in a much better place
because again,
through working through it again,
much better
conversations and again,
like I just got back from a conference in D.C.
where
one of the main pillars of this was avoiding
50-state patchwork.
I don't think a child in Iowa is less valuable
than a child in Washington state.
So asking these companies to hire 1000 more lawyers,
which I don't think is a good idea,
that that to me would be unreasonable.
I don't understand that.
So asking that it's nonsensical.
And if we've seen it not work here, that to me
it means it's not going to work here.
So a blanketed,
better solution would make more sense.
-What happened with that litigation piece
that that made more sense to you in Washington state?
-There must have been a language change.
And now I'm blanking
as I’ve rinsed my mind
from the 60-day session, which was a haul.
-Yeah. -It must have been a part of it.
Do you remember
the language change
that came through in it? -Not specifically,
but that's part of the process
that we're constantly when we put it out
there, we're looking at amendments.
-Yeah.
-There was a bill, actually, the bill from the House
is the one that finally made it through.
-There was because you said you said a bill number.
And now I'm thinking I remember it was House Bill
2225. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I was going to say that's what,
that's what I was thinking of. Yeah.
And I know
there was an issue with ongoing relationship.
So when I get in
to chatGPT, it knows it'll say Amy's tone.
And so it has to know me
from the last time I went on.
And that was one of the problems
because it was like, we don't want it to have
an ongoing relationship.
And it's like, well, that's actually part of the point.
So and having that ongoing relationship with a minor
was it was an issue. -Okay.
-So that like, I understand that.
And then
there was another issue with Alexa, so not right.
So it's like do does Alexa have to remind a minor
that it's not a person?
And it's like, well, it's
not interfacing, it's a... -Right.
-So like, that was
I know there was an issue there as well.
So I think it was those are specified in language.
=Okay.
-And then other products had had specified specificities.
-Right. Yeah.
And it sounds like
this is going to be this is part of the ongoing
part of this legislation for sure.
-And it's not
now that it's out there, we may get other information
and have to respond to that tweaking at this session.
-Yeah. Dr.
Davis, I guess I'll just ask that general question.
What impact do you see coming
out of these chatbot regulations?
-Yeah, so actually the piece of the bill
that I find most promising is the piece that prohibits
manipulative designs that extend
emotional interactions.
Actually, the
piece around reminding youth that this that you're
talking with a chatbot rather than a human,
I'm not so sure.
I'm not convinced that that's going to necessarily
be helpful because there's a difference
between knowing something intellectually.
And, you know,
my son has a robot at home, and we both know
that this is a robot. -Right.
-But it feels real.
And so there's a difference
between knowing and feeling.
And even we've seen in research,
even when people know and are reminded
that something is not human,
we are just natural anthropomorphizers.
And so I'm not sure about
that piece, but in our research
there's a lot of evidence that
these chatbots, the way they're designed,
is specifically to keep and prolong engagement
and particularly to engage users in an emotional way.
And so I really like that piece of the bill,
and I think that's
a lot of our research
is documenting these types of manipulative designs.
Yeah.
And I think if we can really
wring that in from companies,
then we'll be doing it. -Okay. Thank you. Please.
-Sorry, I was just going to say,
I think that that's one thing that I'm looking at,
whether or not we say you must end the session
completely at 10 minutes or 15 minutes.
We'll be talking about that
and get your recommendation.
But that may be something
that we'll have to do next session.
-What do you got?
-I know one of them was
if I'm in there and I'm, you know,
I want a briefing on this or I need to
I need a tone change on this or,
you know, summarize this 25 page, whatever.
And then I type in at the end, Wow.
This has been a really hard three weeks. I'm exhausted.
Is that mean? I'm depressed?
So one of it is like, is it is that me asking for help?
Is that asking So is it is that an emotional like cry?
So like, is that asking for a
response in an emotional way?
So I think those are those things like is that is
that is that it's called like does it send me to 911.
Yeah. Like do you know what I mean.
So I know those were the things of like, I'm fine.
Yeah, but is that me typing in.
Do you know what I mean?
So then what you're getting, I would at least on
then we're getting into legal responses
and I'm obvious
like I'm somebody that's okay and I have good
personal relationships and that's not that.
But like, that's
those are those concerns. -I see real quick
and I want to move on to another piece of it, please.
Yeah.
Was there something else you wanted to.
I was also going to say? -You know,
when we look at Facebook and we say, you
know, kind of
you've been on Facebook for a little while
and all of a sudden these ads start appearing
because you
you didn't think that you were talking about anything.
But, yeah, I was thinking about buying new shoes
and there's, you know, all of that.
So I'm concerned about gathering information.
Privacy.
Privacy is one of the things
that we have
to really examine
in terms of what they're learning about this child
and how it can be used, perhaps in other ways.
-Yeah.
Can I put chatbots aside for just a second?
Just because I want to make sure that I talk about
another big bill passed this session, House Bill 1170.
And maybe, Amy, I can talk with you. Yeah.
So this says that when content
is substantially modified with generative AI,
the information has to be traceable
using watermarks or metadata.
The big concern
I heard here
from an industry perspective was that
there's no guaranteed way to do this, and bad actors
are always going to find a way
to remove those watermarks.
Can you break down
some of the thoughts around House Bill 1170?
-We got
we got to pro on that
because by the time we had introduced it
and then by the time it had come to fruition,
number one,
they had modeled it after a state that had been
under litigation for three years.
Again, please don't model bills after states
that are not doing it correctly.
To me we should be leading the way
on doing this correctly.
-Okay. -So don't do that. Yeah.
Okay. Model it, please.
Let's be the model of how to do this right.
That that was the issue there.
-Okay.
-We got to pro on it, but it was
there will be bad actors.
But if we can do this right
and it got it got to a much better place
and the companies want to hold themselves accountable.
Those large actors want to hold themselves accountable
because then they can be the ones leading it.
-Okay, Do
they have concerns that, well,
maybe I'll hold that question for just a second
because I want to get some more input here.
Dr. Davis,
some thoughts about this idea
of requiring watermarks, etc..
Do you think House Bill 1170 is going to be effective?
-I was less involved with that House bill.
However, I do feel that there's
real opportunity there when it comes to
developing children's AI literacy and helping them
to figure out what is AI versus not
and what should I trust when I when I'm reading
and encountering content online and not so...
I do see that there's some value there
in that bill
that could be incorporated
into educational interventions
to help develop young people's AI
literacy. -Got it.
And this feels like
one of those situations where it's a moving
target again, but some toss up.
-Well, I was also going to say that
one of the things that we did was to specify
that if you use the word nurse,
you have to specify that
that cannot be used for an AI.
In other words, I'm a nurse, I'm
giving you this information.
It must be a person who has a degree of a nurse.
-I see. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
That's
and just overall, with 1170, do you think it's going
to be it's going to be effective.
What are your thoughts about that piece?
-Yeah, no,
I think that we are going to make a difference
with all the bills that we did.
I think,
you know, we're teaching
digital literacy is one of the really
challenging things that we're focusing in on
and making sure that people understand is
you can only imagine
the things you've seen on YouTube, etc..
-Yeah.
-And you're being told that
somebody is saying something.
You want to have some degree of confidence
that that is the person saying it. -Yeah.
-That what you're seeing is authentic.
-Yeah.
You don't think people can can work around that.
I've seen some amazing things done with AI.
What are your thoughts about that?
-Well, I'm
I will tell you and I've said before that
I am a science fiction nut and I read a lot of science
fiction nut, and I love Isaac Asimov.
-Oh, one of my faves.
-So the three laws of robotics. -Ah, there we go.
-The robot may not harm a human.
I don't see any three laws,
four laws or five laws of AI.
And I think that that's unfortunate that companies
that we need to be doing the work that we're doing.
-Yeah.
-And by the way, we were ready.
Now, EU just passed their AI program
and I think we want to be consistent across the world
because all of our companies
do a lot of business in other parts of the world.
-Yeah, yeah, that's true.
-”I, Robot,” read the book, don't watch the movie.
I just want to make sure I put that out there.
Let me talk about the industry of
AI in the state.
Maybe I'll just go down the line here.
Dr. Davis This critique that regulating AI
too much might have bad effect
on an important industry in Washington.
You have companies saying new laws
could stifle innovation in our state.
There's also a threat from President Trump,
who signed
an executive order back in December
saying he would pull
federal broadband funding from states
if the federal government believes
that states have passed onerous AI laws.
Regulation hurting innovation.
What's your stance on that?
-Well, what I would love to see
is AI companies compete in an innovative way
to develop products that support well-being
rather than
prolong engagement and and take advantage of our
our attachment system.
-But where's the financial incentive in that?
-Well,
if they are compelled to by regulation,
then I think they could get
really creative and innovative
in the way they design their products
so that they're putting well-being first.
And I don't see how putting well-being
first is at odds with innovation.
But I just think that the incentives right now
are more to capture market share and
to put engagement and capturing
as many users as possible.
That is first and it really blocks out
some well intentioned actors who maybe can't get in
and establish a foothold.
And so I feel like regulation
could really help even the playing field
so that companies are compelled to innovate
on the basis of well-being rather than engagement.
-Amy, let me ask you this question.
I know you've heard some of these points before.
When does regulation become too much?
When does it stifle innovation?
-We're a pretty heavy regulated state.
So, yes, it will drive our innovation.
And that's that's a WTIA position.
There was 20 bills that affected tech.
Two passed this last legislative session.
So I think everybody's
I think tech is fine if we're brought to the table.
Again, we have subject matter experts
that have worked in this
that want to see
a national framework, not a 50-state patchwork.
A national framework from the
last conference I was out in D.C.
would involve
national security, child safety and protection
for innovators.
So if we long as we are protecting people that are
putting themselves out there and starting that
we have to protect people that are willing to
start that,
to start their American dream, to start their
their passion, I think we can do that.
And we a lot of them, what's hard is
a lot of them are former big, big tech employees.
And we have that hub here.
And what's funny is when I'm there
and when I was in D.C.
and I was talking to people from Arizona,
Louisiana and Pennsylvania, they're just like,
wow, like Washington, that's the model.
And when you're here, it doesn't feel that way.
It's more of a burden then, yeah,
then this massive something to clamor for.
-But but just in looking at that,
you still hold the concern that these new laws
that have been passed will push out
some tech companies
-Think what happened this
last legislative session because we were
we were brought in on some of these,
but not all of them.
And some of them
it was like maybe they just didn't pass
because there wasn't enough time.
There's only a 60 day session. -Right.
-I'm not sure. So.
-And one more follow up here.
Do people to people trust big tech, right?
(overlapping conversation)
-It’s more of the overarching narrative. Yeah.
It's funny,
we have people that would come in
and on Zoom and talk about how terrible
we were and all of these, and it was like,
Wait a year, You just disconnected it.
Like you're here to tell me how terrible I am.
And it was like, and look where we are.
We're in the studio
and we're doing this amazing thing.
And so it's like, we can't what a double edged sword.
So and I understand
the concerns and the worries with it.
It's almost the same as Big Pharma.
Like what?
You know, you hate it until you have cancer.
So I don't know.
I don't know what to tell you.
So I think we just need
to continue working through those things.
And I, I completely understand those worries.
But what a what a fortune that we have here.
-Okay, Senator
Wellman
I know you've heard some of these critiques, too,
about how AI regulation could impact
a global industry in our state.
What is your message to industry leaders
here in Washington
who are concerned about maybe what the legislature
is doing to their businesses?
-Well, first of all, I have not heard that
from any big tech companies, and I have been lobbied
by them all.
I have not heard that they have
their business has been hurt by what we're doing.
And being able to praise them
and bring them forward and say,
look how this company is responding
to the concerns that we've brought forth
is the best advertising you can get.
So I don't think that that's really the problem.
I do think that on a national level,
we have some issues as far as
big tech is concerned and that is we're now
seeing some of big tech leave the country
because of being here on visas.
You're right,
with immigration, we have other pieces
that are concerning, much more concerning to me
in our state,
we really have lost half of the bioscience
industry of our state.
Not that it's not continuing,
but where it's being done
is going to be done in another country unfortunately.
-A whole other show there. Thank you.
-We'll follow up. -I can't wait. Okay.
We do need to start wrapping up now.
And I,
I think it's important to point out
that this conversation, this has come up a few times.
AI when it comes to regulation,
it's constantly changing.
It feels like a moving target here in many ways.
City of Seattle, for example, is right now
trying to figure out
the best way to roll out the use of
Microsoft Copilot among city workers,
one of many local governments
grappling with the risks and benefits of AI use.
Senator Wellman, maybe I can start with you.
What advice do you have for local leaders,
maybe some state leaders, too, trying
to create some guidelines about how to use AI
properly?
-Well, I think
there are different issues surrounding every use.
I'm very excited.
We know we have a housing problem,
a significant housing problem.
If we can speed up the permitting process,
which sometimes can go on
for months and months and months,
where we can get more housing out there.
That's a very good thing.
So we what we need to be working in a partnership,
but we have to know that we're working
with a trusted partner
who is responsible and listening
to the concerns that we have. -Yeah, trying to use AI
for good, it sounds like. -Absolutely.
There's so many things I can think of where
AI can make a really positive difference.
-Okay. Looking forward to hearing more about that.
Amy, same question to you.
How should local governments
be approaching this issue of regulating AI?
What should they be keeping in mind?
-100%. We don't hear it because it's not attention grabbing.
The Department of Natural Resources
is already using it for detecting wildfires.
I'm sure you're aware of that. Why?
Why is that not getting more?
I mean, this is a ways that we can help
people save lives,
get people out of their homes quicker. -Yeah.
-I mean, there's there's already
so many ways that we're using it.
So not sexy,
not the headline, but we have got it.
We have got to be integrating this quicker.
-I was just at a demonstration
and seeing that they can identify
that, is this kind of a fire,
you don't have to worry about it
and identifying that this is a fire.
Get the guys there immediately.
-I see saving lives. I mean, some of this stuff.
So but like, that's not I get that's not clickbait.
That's not that's I understand that.
But but that to me is also like on tech of like
why aren’t we telling this story better?
Yeah. So let's, let's, let's do that.
-You think there might be
some other avenues too, in terms of using AI
for good? Okay. Okay. All right. All right. I know
an interesting
piece ahead from you to look at the story.
I can't wait.
I can't wait. I can't wait.
Dr. Davis, I'll jump jump to you to finish up here.
You study a lot of kids and families
dealing with the impact of AI.
What sort of things should, I guess the average person,
the average family, be considering
moving forward when it comes to this debate over AI?
There's a lot to consider. What do you have to say?
-Yes. Well, that's right.
So with all of my research, we find over and over again
that when it comes to
figuring out and navigating how to introduce kids
to different technologies, social media
and the Internet, cell phones, and now AI,
a lot of those decisions fall to individual families
and individual youth and parents.
And so I see the same thing happening here with AI.
And I guess I would just want families to know
that absolutely learn as much as you can about AI.
Have conversations with your kids
as much as possible, but also look to lawmakers
and look to broader systems for guidance.
I really strongly believe that
all of this responsibility
should not be foisted on individual families
because these are very complicated situations
and challenges that we're dealing with.
Me as a researcher, we need
to step up and figure out what are the effects
of young people's engagement with AI.
We need to communicate that well.
Lawmakers need to pass robust legislation.
And yeah, and then to really support our families.
-Just quickly on this,
is there a
resource that you like to direct families
to when they have questions about this? -Yes.
So we at the Center
for Digital Youth, we have our website,
but I also think there's some great other resources.
The American Academy of
Pediatrics has a wonderful website
with a ton of resources on every sort of technology
that you can think of.
Common Sense Media has fantastic resources
to help
parents to navigate
which applications and devices are okay
and safe for my kids and which are not.
-Okay, Thank you for that.
And just a note to folks at home.
If you or someone you know
is having a serious problem with AI,
might be facing a mental health crisis--
local support is available.
Make sure you call or text 988. We'll be right back.
What are people saying
online about regulating artificial intelligence?
One person writes:
Another comments:
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an email at contact@seattlechannel.org,
or find us on social media.
Great to get that feedback.
And a big thanks to Dr.
Katie Davis, Amy Harris,
and also State Senator Lisa Wellman.
Thanks a lot for being here. -Thank you. -Thank you.
And we'll see you next time on City Inside/Out.
♪♪