New York’s AI Law: The Perfect Recipe for Digital Molasses
New York has just taken a significant step in AI governance with Governor Hochul signing the Legislative Oversight of Automated Decision-Making in Government Act (LOADinG Act).
This legislation establishes strict guidelines for how state agencies can use AI and automated systems. Here’s why this matters:
Key Features of the LOADinG Act
- Mandatory Human Oversight: No state agency can use AI or automated decision-making systems without “meaningful human review.” This means trained professionals must have the power to approve, modify, or reject AI-generated decisions.
- Regular Impact Assessments: Agencies must conduct thorough evaluations every two years and before any significant system changes. These assessments examine:
– System objectives and effectiveness
– Algorithm transparency
– Bias and discrimination testing
– Cybersecurity vulnerabilities
– Privacy risks
– Potential misuse scenarios
- Strong Accountability Measures:
– Impact assessments must be submitted to top state officials 30 days before implementation
– Assessments will be publicly available on agency websites
– Immediate system shutdown required if discriminatory outcomes are detected
CRITICAL COMMENT: The Empire State’s AI Straitjacket
Welcome to Albany’s latest masterpiece of bureaucratic artistry, where innovation goes to drown in paperwork. New York’s freshly minted LOADinG Act reads like a love letter to red tape, co-authored by the ghosts of efficiency’s past and present-day labor unions.
Picture this: You’re a bright-eyed tech entrepreneur with a brilliant AI solution that could slash DMV wait times in half. But before your first line of code can touch a government computer, you’ll need to navigate a labyrinth of impact assessments, human oversight committees, and enough documentation to wallpaper the Empire State Building. Twice.
Let’s talk about that “meaningful human review” requirement. Sounds reasonable, right? Like having a responsible adult supervising the playground. Except this playground monitor needs to file a report every time a child goes down the slide, and the slide needs a biennial safety assessment that makes nuclear plant inspections look like a casual once-over.
The act essentially declares war on workplace evolution. It’s as if New York looked at the industrial revolution and said, “Nah, we’re good with manual looms, thanks.” The law forbids agencies from reducing work hours through automation or transferring tasks to AI systems. It’s job protection with a vengeance, ensuring that if there’s a less efficient way to do something, by golly, we’ll find it and preserve it in legislative amber.
The cost? Oh, just the small matter of New York’s competitive edge in the 21st century. While other states are sprinting toward digital transformation, the Empire State is meticulously crafting its own digital stone age, complete with mandatory human oversight of calculator functions (I’m only half joking – the definition of “automated decision-making system” is broad enough to make a spreadsheet nervous).
Don’t get me wrong – protecting workers and ensuring AI fairness are noble goals. But this law doesn’t just move the goalposts; it digs them up, fills the holes with concrete, and demands a environmental impact study before allowing anyone to play ball again.
The real victims here aren’t just the obvious ones – state agencies drowning in paperwork or tech companies fleeing to more innovation-friendly pastures. It’s the New Yorkers who’ll be stuck in longer lines, waiting for humans to meaningfully review what a computer could do in milliseconds, all while paying higher taxes for the privilege.
And let’s talk about that bias detection requirement. Find any bias in your system? Shut it down immediately! It’s like demanding we close every highway where someone speeds – a solution that creates more problems than it solves.
The cherry on top? The law requires public disclosure of these assessments, but with enough redaction allowances to make a CIA document look chatty. So we’re achieving neither true transparency nor practical security – just a beautiful demonstration of bureaucratic theater.
What could we do instead? How about a tiered approach that matches oversight to actual risk? Or focusing on worker retraining instead of job preservation? Maybe even – and I know this is radical – letting some basic automation happen without treating it like a threat to democracy?
In the end, the LOADinG Act feels less like thoughtful regulation and more like digital protectionism dressed up in safety concerns. It’s a masterclass in how to strangle innovation with the very best intentions, wrapped in enough paperwork to make Kafka blush.
Welcome to New York, where the future is carefully regulated, thoroughly documented, and meaningfully reviewed – right into submission.
Robert Nogacki – licensed legal counsel (radca prawny, WA-9026), Founder of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec.
There are lawyers who practice law. And there are those who deal with problems for which the law has no ready answer. For over twenty years, Kancelaria Skarbiec has worked at the intersection of tax law, corporate structures, and the deeply human reluctance to give the state more than the state is owed. We advise entrepreneurs from over a dozen countries – from those on the Forbes list to those whose bank account was just seized by the tax authority and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning.
One of the most frequently cited experts on tax law in Polish media – he writes for Rzeczpospolita, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, and Parkiet not because it looks good on a résumé, but because certain things cannot be explained in a court filing and someone needs to say them out loud. Author of AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto: Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator. Co-author of the award-winning book Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy (Security of a Modern Company).
Kancelaria Skarbiec holds top positions in the tax law firm rankings of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Four-time winner of the European Medal, recipient of the title International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.
He specializes in tax disputes with fiscal authorities, international tax planning, crypto-asset regulation, and asset protection. Since 2006, he has led the WGI case – one of the longest-running criminal proceedings in the history of the Polish financial market – because there are things you do not leave half-done, even if they take two decades. He believes the law is too serious to be treated only seriously – and that the best legal advice is the kind that ensures the client never has to stand before a court.
