In its zeal to “do something” about artificial intelligence, as one Republican state senator put it, the Democrat-dominated legislature couldn’t resist the urge to pass a flurry of AI regulations. 

And they scored Republican votes in the process, particularly in the Senate — Republicans who are supposed to distrust government meddling where it doesn’t belong. 

So much for that. 

Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson, of Colorado Springs, deserves credit for being the sole Republican senator to responsibly oppose all four AI bills, including the sole ‘no’ vote on Senate Bill 26-189. 

SB 189 requires developers of “automated decision-making technology” to disclose the technology’s intended use to users and deployers — such as lenders, retailers, and landlords. It mandates deployers disclose the role automated decision-making played in a consequential “adverse outcome” if a consumer alleges AI was involved. 

“In other words,” The Gazette editorialized, “it’s wrapped in red tape.” The legislation invites lawsuits galore by “an endless procession of disgruntled consumers who don’t like a decision — even if it’s the same decision that would have been made by an ordinary human.” 

Say bye-bye to innovative AI developers, who may decide Colorado isn’t worth the risk. 

House Bill 26-1139 restricts AI use by health insurance companies, barring them from basing coverage decisions solely on group data collected using AI. It also micromanages the circumstances that insurance companies’ AI systems must consider in making coverage decisions. 

As patient friendly as that sounds, lawmakers aren’t equipped to insert themselves into highly technical medical and actuarial decisions. Insurance companies will pass added costs and delays onto policyholders, even when a decision merely aligns with AI recommendations. 

Similarly, House Bill 26-1195 limits AI use in psychotherapy services, prohibiting therapists and social workers from using it in crafting client recommendations or treatment plans without clinician review, among other mandates. It restricts both regulated and unregulated professionals, seemingly to protect patients from using chatbots for mental health advice. 

If the primary goal is to discourage youth from using chatbots — worried that one in eight patients between 12 and 21 years old report using AI chatbots for mental health advice — why is this bill targeting how AI is used to aid professionals in doing their work? 

It misses the target while micromanaging those who work in this space every day. 

Then there’s House Bill 26-1263 with sweeping chatbot regulations. As The Gazette detailed, it requires chatbots to inform users they’re communicating with AI, prohibits operators from providing minors with points or rewards encouraging engagement, and requires operators to enact “reasonable measures” to prevent chatbots from producing sexually explicit material or statements that “simulate emotional dependence.” 

Tech companies must provide privacy and account management tools and implement protocols when users mention suicidal ideation or self-harm. It also prohibits operators from stating or implying that any information the chatbot provides is equivalent to services provided by a licensed professional. 

These may be nice ideas. The problem is, they’re micromanaging a complex industry — presuming a “government-knows-best” attitude over rapidly changing technology while wrapping it up in red tape that will only grow over time. 

Even some of the people lawmakers claim to be protecting aren’t convinced, arguing Big Tech itself largely shaped HB 1263. 

Several parents of children who took their own lives after conversing with chatbots opposed the bill, including Lori and Avery Schoott, whose 18-year-old daughter Annalee died by suicide in 2020. The couple argued Big Tech effectively wrote the bill without input from affected parties. 

“Legislation must protect children, and not create a false sense of safety to parents. This opens doors for tech to self-regulate and shield tech from liability,” the Schootts wrote in a letter, citing Big Tech “infiltrating the halls of our Capitol while Colorado grieving families were left outside the door.” 

Sadly, they’re probably right. 

In the wake of 2019 data privacy scandals, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was asked at a U.S. Senate hearing whether he supports additional internet regulation. 

“I think if it’s the right regulations, then yes,” he testified. 

Asked if he’d propose regulations for his own industry, Zuckerberg agreed, promising to have his team follow up. 

The most fervent advocates for more regulation are often those who benefit from it the most. That includes Big Tech. 

After all, it helps shield them from upstart competitors by cutting out, well, the next Mark Zuckerberg. Higher barriers to entry mean the next small business will find a harder time getting a piece of the action. The dominant players have the connections and resources to help craft rules that disadvantage smaller competitors and skew markets to their advantage. 

Let’s be honest: Why wouldn’t Big Tech want to do the very same thing with AI, starting in Colorado? 

Regulators can be adequate at regulating certain things after they happen, but they aren’t skilled at predicting new things to regulate in dynamic markets. Even then, it usually takes months to figure out what happened, why and how to address it. 

That’s a case for less regulation, not more, particularly when it contributes to a patchwork of conflicting state rules for complex technology. 

Successful businesses dislike regulation — except when it stifles competition. Under the guise of good intentions, Colorado’s legislature has handed Big Tech exactly what they wanted. 

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.