California AI bills advance as Congress considers state-level regulation ban
Why it matters: Those bills — both authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego) are clashing with efforts in D.C. to stop state-level AI legislation.
House Republicans' reconciliation bill would prohibit states or localities from regulating AI for a decade.
State of play: One bill, SB 243, aims to counter tech marketing of chatbots as an alleviation to loneliness and mental health struggles.
It would prohibit operators from relying on addictive practices to boost engagement, require notifications and reminders the bot is not human.
Between the lines: The other bill, SB 420, seeks to create a regulatory framework for AI systems.
It would require for individuals to be notified when a public or private automated system is used to make decisions about them, how the tool works and in some cases to appeal for review by a person.
The bill would also force an impact assessment on the purpose, use of data and potential for bias present in those automated systems.
What they're saying: "Tech companies would have us believe any regulation at all would be disastrous," Padilla said in a statement. "The truth is it would be disastrous to allow tech titans to operate AI without oversight, accountability, or restraint."
What's next: Both bills now move to the Assembly before a potential trip to the governor's desk.
The big picture: All over the country, states are advancing and implementing AI safeguards while Congress considers a national moratorium in the reconciliation bill.
Padilla told Axios he "can't think of a more irresponsible or stupid thing to do at this juncture" than for Congress to pass the AI moratorium and stop state lawmakers from regulating the tech.
Threat level: The proposed federal moratorium could hinder California's broader efforts to develop a framework for governing AI models.
In March, a working group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom released a report outlining guidance for policymakers on how to regulate the burgeoning industry, which Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said strikes "a thoughtful balance between the need for safeguards and the need to support innovation."
"AI presents tremendous opportunities to transform our world for the better. At the same time...the rapid pace of technological advancement in AI means policymakers must act with haste to impose reasonable guardrails to mitigate foreseeable risks," Wiener, who introduced AI whistleblower bill SB 53 in February, said in a statement .
The bottom line: California has historically led on tech regulation while Congress gets stuck in debate mode — first on privacy and now on AI.
The state has enacted a wide range of bills addressing everything from digital replicas of individuals to election ads, and has more legislation in the works.
Today, 260 state lawmakers from both sides of the aisle across all 50 states sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to oppose the moratorium.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California Republican moves to ban middecade redistricting wars
A California Republican is pushing a bill in Congress that would ban virtually all redistricting before 2030, a move that would kill President Donald Trump's effort to flip up to five Democratic seats in Texas and also efforts to retaliate by blue states like New York and California. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., says he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would bar middecade nationwide and nullify any new maps approved before the next census is carried out in 2030. 'This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country,' Kiley said in a statement. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York, who represents a swingy Westchester County-based district, has said he will introduce a similar bill to ban all gerrymandering in all states. The seats represented by both Lawler and Kiley could be on the chopping block if Democrats to the Texas effort by gerrymandering their own congressional maps. 'Newsom is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,' Kiley said. 'Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters.' Trump, who has pushed the Texas effort to flip Democratic seats in the 2026 midterms, showed no interest in any redistricting compromise Tuesday. 'I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats,' Trump told CNBC. GOP leaders in Congress, who would need to give the green light, haven't commented on the proposals by Kiley and Lawler. Although Kiley slammed Newsom, the most immediate impact of his legislation would be to nix the controversial Republican effort to rejigger Texas congressional map with the goal of changing the current 25-13 GOP edge to a 30-8 margin. The Lone Star State GOP has launched the effort after Trump demanded they find a way to give Republicans more seats in an effort to hold onto the House of Representatives in what is shaping up as a tricky political environment in 2026. Democratic state lawmakers fled the state Monday and for now have succeeded in denying a quorum for Republicans to move ahead. But most analysts believe the GOP can eventually muscle through its move in Texas. Republicans in other red states like Missouri, Florida, Ohio and Indiana are also considering similar efforts to nuke Democratic seats before 2026. But Democrats are considering responding with changes of their own. If Texas goes ahead with its redistricting plan, Newsom says he will push to redraw California's map to benefit Democrats. The Golden State's delegation is now split 43-9 in favor of Democrats but political insiders say it could easily be redrawn to give Democrats up to a 49-3 edge. Gov. Hochul is also vowing to fight fire with fire by redrawing New York's map to extend Democratic edge from the current 19-7 margin, although any such effort is unlikely to take effect in time for the 2026 vote.
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
Worried about AI at work? Avoid these 5 leadership mistakes with your team
Artificial intelligence may be transforming the workplace, but for many employees, it's fueling uncertainty instead of excitement. According to a 2025 Pew Research Center study, 52% of U.S. workers worry AI could disrupt or replace their jobs. And an August 2024 SHRM survey found that nearly half feel unprepared for automation, while 95% say they don't trust their organization to manage the shift in a way that benefits everyone. How managers address these concerns can make or break team morale and productivity. Experts say clear, honest communication is critical, but the wrong message can backfire, fueling fear instead of trust. Whether you're rolling out new tools or just starting the conversation, it's important to engage your team with transparency, context and empathy. Below, two human resources experts break down five common mistakes to avoid when discussing AI with your team and provide guidance on navigating the discussion more effectively. 1. Acting like it's no big deal According to the World Economic Forum, when managers dismiss or avoid discussing AI concerns, they often create bigger problems down the road. 'Business leaders can't bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best,' says Eric Mochnacz, director of operations at Red Clover HR in New Jersey. 'They must have up-front discussions about the benefits of AI in their business, the drawbacks, the potential impacts and the areas where they'll not allow AI usage.' Chad V. Sorenson, president of Florida-based Adaptive HR Solutions, agrees that direct communication is key. 'Employees may feel AI threatens their jobs and may question leaders' motives for introducing AI tools,' he explains. So, 'address the fear and explore how AI can augment workflows and streamline repetitive tasks rather than replace workers.' Takeaway: Don't downplay concerns about AI. Acknowledge employee fears openly and explain how AI will support, not replace, their work. 2. Throwing around 'AI' without defining it AI isn't just one thing. Mochnacz explains that there's a significant difference between using generative AI to enhance email communications and utilizing AI chatbots to manage all customer interactions. Without these distinctions, employees don't understand what to expect from their workplace changes or how they can remain relevant. 'AI is such a buzzword, and leaders haven't taken the time to define it and understand the differences,' says Mochnacz. 'I've been in meetings where people ask, 'Can you do this with AI?' or 'Everyone's talking about AI, so we have to do something with it.'' He emphasizes the importance of clarifying the fundamentals: Takeaway: Don't use 'AI' as a vague catchall. Clearly define what types of AI you're using, what they do and why they matter to your team. 3. Failing to explain the why 'Any time leaders announce a new program or procedure without employee buy-in, there could be fear, skepticism or anger,' Sorenson cautions. Instead of simply telling employees what's changing, explain why the company needs AI. How does it fit into broader business goals? This context helps employees understand their role in the transition rather than viewing it as a threat. 'Ongoing two-way feedback is critical for continued refinement of how teams use AI to improve workflows, processes and results,' notes Sorenson. Takeaway: Don't skip the context. Explain why AI is being adopted and how it supports your team's goals to build trust and buy-in. 4. Overhyping what AI can do 'Leaders promising that AI will handle everything don't have a clear understanding of its possibilities and limitations,' Sorenson says. For instance, AI can help employees understand benefit plans. But it can't handle nuanced harassment complaints or mental health concerns. 'AI systems must be trained to understand when a human must intervene,' he adds. Mochnacz says the problem gets worse when leaders promise capabilities that may never materialize. 'We have no idea what AI is going to be able to do in a month, three months or a year,' he emphasizes. So, it's better to focus on specific, tested use cases rather than grand predictions about AI replacing everything. Takeaway: Avoid making big promises. Focus on what AI can realistically do today, not speculative future capabilities. 5. Leaving people out of the process 'Whenever there's a business, industry or technology shift, involve those it may impact,' stresses Mochnacz. 'Have up-front, direct conversations with your people about their roles and how they see AI helping them be more effective.' A recent MIT Sloan working paper finds that the most successful generative AI deployments consistently involve frontline workers from the earliest stages through rollout. Drawing on over 50 in-depth interviews, MIT researchers demonstrate that when employees help define the problem, co-design workflows, experiment with tools, and shape fair transition policies, not only does adoption improve, but worker productivity and job quality also rise. The key here is framing AI as a collaboration partner rather than a threat. Mochnacz explains that when leaders present AI as a good reality for everyone, employees will engage with the technology. But when the message becomes "prove AI can't replace you," workers resist because it feels like an ultimatum. Takeaway: Don't make AI decisions in a vacuum. Engage employees early and frame AI as a tool to support their work, rather than compete with it. What successful AI communication looks like Sorenson says poor AI communication shows up in obvious ways. You might notice more pushback in meetings, higher employee turnover or a spike in anxious watercooler conversations. These signals suggest that employees feel excluded or uncertain and may be bracing for the worst. In contrast, when communication is clear and inclusive, team engagement improves. 'If your AI communication strategy is successful, employees should engage in the conversation,' Sorenson notes. 'They'll make suggestions to continue to refine its use, and demonstrate an increased productivity level.' Look for those signs of healthy adoption: employees asking questions, suggesting improvements and using AI to work more efficiently. When teams feel empowered, not threatened, you know you've struck the right balance. What is USA TODAY Top Workplaces 2025? Do you work for a great company? Each year, USA TODAY Top Workplaces, a collaboration between Energage and USA TODAY, ranks organizations across the U.S. that excel at creating a positive work environment for their employees. Employee feedback determines the winners. In 2025, over 1,500 companies earned recognition as top workplaces. Check out our overall U.S. rankings. You can also gain insights into top-ranked employers by checking out the links below.
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
Byron Black executed for triple murder despite concerns of disabilities, heart device
The execution came after Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee declined requests, including from some Republicans, to intervene because of the inmate's intellectual disabilities and heart device. Tennessee has executed a man for the 1988 murder of his girlfriend and her two young daughters despite arguments he suffered from intellectual disabilities and concerns his heart device would shock him back to life during the lethal injection. The state executed Byron Black on Tuesday, Aug. 5, after Gov. Bill Lee declined requests from attorneys, advocacy groups and even some Republicans to intervene. He was pronounced dead at 10:43 a.m. CT. "This is hurting so bad," Black said during the execution, according to news media witnesses who saw him die. On March 28, 1988, Angela Clay and her eldest daughter, 9-year-old Latoya, were found shot dead in bed. Clay's other daughter, 6-year-old Lakeisha, was found dead on the floor in another bedroom with multiple gunshot wounds. Black became the 28th inmate executed in the U.S. this year, a 10-year high, with at least nine more executions scheduled. He's the second inmate to be put to death in Tennessee this year after a five-year break in executions in the state. Black's case stands out for two reasons. What his legal team said was an "undisputed intellectual disability" had many calling for a reprieve, including some Republicans. And his attorneys raised serious questions about whether Black's implanted heart device would cause "a prolonged and torturous execution" in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told USA TODAY in a statement that expert testimony "refutes the suggestion that Black would suffer severe pain if executed" and that the state was seeking "to hold Black accountable for his horrific crimes." Here's what you need to know about the execution, the crime and the issues surrounding the case. What was Byron Black convicted of? Black was convicted of fatally shooting his girlfriend, Angela Clay, and her two daughters: 9-year-old Latoya and 6-year-old Lakeisha. They were murdered on March 27, 1988. At the time, Black had been on work release from prison for shooting Clay's estranged husband and her daughters' father, Bennie Clay, in 1986. Prosecutors told jurors at trial that Black killed Angela Clay because he was jealous of her ongoing relationship with her ex. Investigators believe that Angela Clay and Latoya were shot as they slept, while Lakeisha appeared to have tried to escape after being wounded in the chest and pelvis. Bennie Clay previously told The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network, he believes Black killed the girls to spite him. "My kids, they were babies," he told the newspaper. "They were smart, they were gonna be something. They never got the chance." More recently, he told The Tennessean he planned to attend the execution, though he said he has forgiven Black. 'God has a plan for everything,' he told the newspaper. 'He had a plan when he took my girls. He needed them more than I did, I guess.' Judge ordered Byron Black's heart device removed before execution On July 22, a judge ordered that a heart device implanted in Black needed to be removed at a hospital the morning of his execution, a development that appeared to complicate matters as a Nashville hospital declined to participate. But the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the judge's order, and the U.S. Supreme Court backed that up, clearing the way for Black to be executed despite the heart device. His attorneys argued that the device, designed to revive the heart, could lead to "a prolonged and torturous execution." "It's horrifying to think about this frail old man being shocked over and over as the device attempts to restore his heart's rhythm even as the State works to kill him," Henry said in a statement. The state argued that Black's heart device would not cause him pain. Robin, Maher, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, told USA TODAY that an inmate being executed with a defibrillator implant was "a completely unprecedented issue." But, she added, "one I fear we will see again as states move toward executing aging prisoners on death row." A reporter for The Tennessean was among the witnesses to the execution and USA TODAY will update this story with her observations. Tennessee governor declined to intervene With their arguments over Black's heart device at the end of the legal road, his attorneys re-focused their attention on his intellectual disabilities during his final days and hours, calling on Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to stop the execution and prevent "a grotesque spectacle." Citing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and exposure to toxic lead, Black's attorneys said mental impairments meant that he always had to live with and rely on family. More recently on death row, his attorneys said that other inmates had to "do his everyday tasks for him, including cleaning his cell, doing his laundry, and microwaving his food." "If ever a case called for the Governor to grant clemency or, at the very least, a reprieve, it is this one," Henry said in a statement. The director of Tennessee Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty said that she supports accountability for people who commit heinous crimes, but "the law is clear that we do not execute people with intellectual disability." "Governor Lee can insist on accountability while ensuring that the law is also followed. A situation such as this is exactly why governors have clemency power," Jasmine Woodson said in a statement. "Mr. Black has spent over three decades in prison for this crime and will never be released. As a conservative, I believe that he should remain behind bars, but he should not be executed." Lee's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment from USA TODAY. In his statement to USA TODAY, Attorney General Skrmetti pushed back at findings that Black was intellectually disabled and said that "over the decades, courts have uniformly denied Black's eleven distinct attempts to overturn his murder convictions and death sentence." Angela Clay's family long sought justice Earlier this year, Angela Clay's sister, Linette Bell, told The Tennessean she and her family were frustrated with years of delays, court hearings, and uncertainty: "He needs to pay for what he did." Angela Clay's mother, Marie Bell, told The Tennessean she had been waiting far too long. "I'm 88 years old and I just want to see it before I leave this Earth," she said. Outside the prison ahead of the execution on Tuesday, Angela Clay's niece, Nicoule Davis, told The Tennessean "it's time for a celebration." "It's time for a celebration," Davis said. "We've been waiting for years and years." Family members, some of whom witnessed the execution, were expected to address reporters afterward, and this story will be updated with their comments. What was Byron Black's last meal? Black's last meal was pizza with mushrooms and sausage, donuts, and butter pecan ice cream. Byron Black's execution is second in the state this year Black is the second inmate to be executed in Tennessee this year following a five-year break in the death penalty in the state. The break followed an independent review that found the Tennessee Department of Corrections was not consistently testing execution drugs for potency and purity. Nationwide, nine more executions are scheduled for this year, with more expected to be carried out as governors sign more death warrants. The next execution is Kayle Barrington Bates in Florida on Aug. 19 for the 1982 stabbing death of a 24-year-old woman named Janet White, who was kidnapped from her office and taken to the woods before Bates beat her, tried to rape her and ultimately killed her. Contributing: Kelly Puente, The Tennessean Amanda Lee Myers is a senior crime reporter for USA TODAY. Follow her on X at @amandaleeusat.
