California AI Standards and Safety Commission: independent verification organizations.

Plain English Breakdown

The bill summary and text do not specify detailed requirements for fees, certification processes, or the exact nature of the legal presumption in civil actions.

California AI Standards and Safety Commission: Independent Verification Organizations

This legislation establishes a process for designating private entities as Multistakeholder Regulatory Organizations (MROs) to ensure the safety of artificial intelligence models, creates an independent verification organization (IVO) system under the California AI Standards and Safety Commission, and sets up requirements for these entities.

What This Bill Does

• Requires the Attorney General to establish a process by which private entities can be designated as Multistakeholder Regulatory Organizations (MROs) if they meet certain criteria.
• Specifies that MRO applicants must submit plans detailing how they will mitigate risks from AI models and applications, including cybersecurity threats and malign persuasion.
• Establishes an Independent Verification Organization (IVO) system under the California AI Standards and Safety Commission to oversee the safety of AI systems.
• Authorizes the commission to charge fees to cover costs related to managing MROs and IVOs.
• Creates a rebuttable presumption that developers exercised reasonable care if their AI models were certified by an MRO at the time of any injury or damage.

Who It Names or Affects

• The Attorney General, who will designate private entities as MROs.
• Private entities applying to be designated as MROs and IVOs.
• Developers of artificial intelligence models and applications.
• State agencies deploying or procuring AI systems.

Terms To Know

Multistakeholder Regulatory Organization (MRO)

A private entity designated by the Attorney General to ensure the safety of artificial intelligence models and applications.

Independent Verification Organization (IVO)

An organization designated by the California AI Standards and Safety Commission to verify the risk mitigation plans for AI systems.

Limits and Unknowns

• The bill does not specify how fees will be structured or what costs they are meant to cover.
• It is unclear who will bear the cost of certification and decertification processes by MROs.
• The effectiveness of the legal presumption in civil actions remains uncertain.

Official Summary Text

SB 813, as amended, McNerney.
Multistakeholder regulatory organizations.
California AI Standards and Safety Commission: independent verification organizations.
Existing law requires, on or before September 1, 2024, the Department of
Technology
Technology, within the Government Operations Agency,
to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.
The California AI Transparency Act requires a covered provider, as defined, of a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) system to offer the user the option to include a manifest disclosure in image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created or altered by the covered provider’s GenAI system that, among other things, identifies content as AI-generated content.
Existing law requires the department to annually submit a report of that comprehensive inventory to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection and the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization.
Existing law, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, among other things related to ensuring the safety of certain artificial intelligence models, requires a large frontier developer to write, implement, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer’s frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches, among other things, incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework.
This bill would
require the agency to
establish
a process by which the Attorney General designates, for a renewable period of 3 years, a private entity as a multistakeholder regulatory organization (MRO) if that entity meets certain requirements, including that the entity presents a plan that ensures acceptable mitigation of risk from any MRO-certified artificial intelligence models and artificial intelligence applications. The bill would require an applicant for designation by the Attorney General as an MRO to submit with its application a plan that contains certain elements, including the applicant’s approach to mitigating specific high-impact risks, including cybersecurity, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, malign persuasion, and artificial intelligence model autonomy and exfiltration. The bill would require the Attorney General to adopt regulations, with input from stakeholders, that establish minimum requirements for those plans and conflict of interest rules for MROs, as specified.
the California AI Standards and Safety Commission and would provide for its membership, as specified.
This bill would require
an MRO to perform various responsibilities related to certifying the safety of artificial intelligence models and artificial intelligence applications, including decertifying an artificial intelligence model or artificial intelligence application that does not meet the requirements prescribed by the MRO and submitting an annual report to the Legislature and the Attorney General that addresses, among other things, the adequacy of existing evaluation resources and mitigation measures to mitigate observed and potential risks.
the commission to take certain actions related to the safety of artificial intelligence, including maintaining formal
liaison relationships with state agencies deploying or procuring artificial intelligence, providing artificial intelligence technical expertise and artificial intelligence risk assessment, and designating one or more entities as independent verification organizations (IVOs), as specified.
This bill would require an IVO to take certain actions, including to implement the plan for artificial intelligence risk mitigation that it submitted to the commission when it applied for designation as an IVO and submit to the Legislature and to the commission an annual report that addresses, among other things, the adequacy of existing evaluation resources and mitigation measures to mitigate observed and potential risks.
This bill would authorize the
Attorney General
commission
to establish a fee structure for charging fees to applicants and designated
MROs
IVOs
to offset the reasonable costs incurred by the
Attorney General
commission
in carrying out its duties pursuant to the bill and adopt regulations necessary to administer the bill.
This bill would, in a civil action asserting
claims for personal injury or property damage caused by an artificial intelligence model or artificial intelligence application against a developer of the artificial intelligence model or artificial intelligence application, create a rebuttable presumption that the developer exercised reasonable care if the artificial intelligence model or artificial intelligence application in question was certified by an MRO at the time of the plaintiff’s injuries, as specified.

Current Bill Text

Download Bill PDF