Texas AI Policy: TRAIGA, Don't Try Me Again!
HB 1079 was All Hat, No Cattle
“Don’t Mess With (AI in) Texas”
In December a misinformed [or misguided or mis-intended] state rep in Texas introduced a very ill-considered, ill contented, and ill-timed Bill which would have auto-destructed the AI industry in Texas.
Thankfully, pressure was brought to bear forcing the Rep to sheepishly pull and reintroduce a new Bill. This version is ADVISORY not MANDATORY.
In Texas parlance, it was taken out back and shot.
Good for Texas. Good for reason. Good for AI everywhere.
Said I in Jan:
Here is the abridged GPT summary as of today:
“The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), initially introduced as House Bill 1709 by Representative Giovanni Capriglione in December 2024, has undergone significant revisions. The updated version House Bill 149, reflects substantial changes.
The original TRAIGA aimed to impose comprehensive regulations on AI systems, particularly those classified as "high-risk," which could influence consequential decisions in areas like employment and healthcare. Developers and deployers of such systems were to be subjected to stringent obligations, including conducting semi-annual impact assessments and maintaining detailed documentation to prevent algorithmic discrimination. The bill also proposed prohibitions on AI applications deemed to present "unacceptable risks," such as social scoring and the use of biometric identifiers without consent.
The initial proposal faced criticism from industry groups and policymakers who expressed concerns about its potential to stifle innovation and impose heavy compliance burdens on businesses.
The new draft scales back several of the more restrictive provisions; limiting the authority of the proposed AI Council to an advisory role, removing its power to interfere with or override state agency operations.
Some advocacy groups argue that the updated bill still lacks sufficient safeguards to protect individuals from potential harms associated with AI technologies. Critics point out that the bill does not provide individuals with a specific right to sue tech companies over AI-related harms [-AIC: Good!] and contend that meaningful guardrails have been removed, potentially leaving consumers vulnerable.
The outcome of this legislative process will have significant implications for AI governance in Texas and could influence similar efforts in other jurisdictions.”
»»»»>
Coming so soon after a similar totalitarian AI suggestion was defeated in California, people must have wondered what was motivating Representative Capriglione. I know I was. Evidently he works in private investment in technology, so that could be a clue.
The Dallas Morning News did not run my article, yet I share anyhow below as it depicts some of the stakes at play in any overzealous (or ill-intended) government actor anywhere in the world wishing to propose same or similar anywhere in the world — to step in the way of AI/Speech/Commerce/The People’s Datasets.
REJECT HB 1709 THE “TRAIGA” ACT
IT IS ONLY A HALLUCINATION OF GOOD POLICYMAKING FOR TEXAS
At a time when the entire world is captivated by the most promising new technology since the Internet, and literally trillions of investment being committed due to its clear usefulness in accelerating business and life, and much of this in Texas, one Texas lawmaker thinks it is wise now to stick feet in the sand and make “No” as policy.
There are a variety of reasons why this is a bad idea now, a bad idea for Texas, and just a plain bad idea.
Rep. Giovanni Capriglione has advanced HB 1709, The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act. The essence of this bill is to superimpose a government “nanny” ruling infrastructure over one of the world’s most helpful and lucrative industries.
It seems like such an “odd duck” move out of step with technological advancement, investment and commerce, and business, why this and why now?
Problems:
● Favors Large Incumbents: HB 1709 creates a complex compliance framework that could impose heavy burdens on smaller firms, potentially pushing innovation toward larger, established companies while smaller innovators cannot afford to compete in the market.
● Huge Compliance Burden: The detailed documentation, ongoing compliance requirements, and high fines stipulated in the bill will cost major companies major revenue in their legal and compliance departments. Again “smaller players”, lacking the professional infrastructure to abide the innumerable and vague requirements will be estopped from competing at all.
● Commerce-killing: No less than the analysts at Goldman Sachs have determined that Texas is a “future market” for investment, siting their largest facility outside of New York in north Dallas. The 500B AI “Stargate Project” is completing opening of its first facility in West Texas. The Texas Stock Exchange is opening, and even the New York Stock Exchange wants to get in on the action but announcing launch of a “Texas branch” of their exchange. Why hogtie one of the largest industries, and at this time?
● Stifled Innovation: AI is a young and promising industry. Some have called it “the new oil.” Uber stringent rules, including the threat of high fines and potential litigation through a private right of action, will deter investors from committing to enterprises in Texas, electing to instead site in friendlier jurisdictions like Tennessee or North Carolina.
It is hard to know what motivates such a bad and hallucinatory bill, and at this time.
Rep. Capriglione’s professional background is in investment and technology. One does not want to imagine possible motives. Yet the overlap between his sponsorship and the market dynamics the bill would create raises valid questions.
-Cyrus Johnson, Esq.
Cyrus Johnson, McKinney, is a 22year corporate, investment, and technology attorney who is also a thought leader and entrepreneur in the nascent space of artificial intelligence for legal applications.