State of Washington Looks to Make AI More Transparent
Washington State Rep. Clyde Shavers and co-sponsor Rep. Cindy Ryu have introduced two new 2025 bills in the Washington State legislature to make AI more transparent for Washington residents. The two bills are HB 1168, which would require developers to publish information about AI training datasets, and HB 1170, which would require labeling of AI-generated digital content. My friends at the Transparency Coalition are the primary civil society group advocating for the bills. One of the bills — HB 1170 — is modeled after California State Senator Josh Becker’s SB 942 (the California AI Transparency Act), a bill that I had the pleasure to propose, co-drafted, and testify a few times on its behalf. For HB 1170, Rep. Shavers was kind enough to ask me to testify remotely before a House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans Committee hearing on January 17, 2025. In this blog post I will provide more details on both bills.
I got to point my fingers during my testimony!
OVERVIEW
As noted by the Transparency Coalition:
The two bills closely align with the transparency bills adopted by California in late 2024, known as AB 2013 and SB 942. Codifying similar requirements into law in Washington, home of Microsoft, Amazon, and a thriving entrepreneurial tech industry, would protect consumers while establishing a consistent industry standard for all AI developers.
Rep. Shavers offered the measures as balanced proposals that “ensure consistency and clarity for developers operating across state lines.” The goal of the legislation, he said, is to forward the core principle of transparency while not stifling innovation.
The bills, he added, “are positioning Washington as a leader in ethical artificial intelligence development.” They “balance innovation with responsibility, and insure that technological progress serves the interest of all of our citizens.”
HB 1168
Transparency Coalition Founder Jai Jaisimha testified on behalf of both bills and said the following regarding HB 1168:
“HB 1168 will provide the public with critical insight into which content (text, image, video, audio, or other content) was used to train or refine a generative AI system,” he said during his testimony.
“A bill with the same requirements was heavily debated, negotiated, and passed with significant bipartisan votes and signed into law in California,” he added. “Companies all over the world are preparing to abide by these provisions or taking other curative measures. This bill will provide Washington state residents the same protections as residents of California will begin to experience in 2026.”
HB 1170
When it came time for me to testify on behalf of HB 1170, I made some of the following points:
HB 1170 is based in part on a bipartisan proposal at the federal level called the AI Labeling Act. So, it is not a Red or Blue proposal. I also quoted Senator Schatz on the need for this type of legislation: “People deserve to know whether or not the videos, photos, and content they see and read online are real or not.”
HB 1170 only applies to the largest providers of Generative AI (greater than 1 million users), so it won’t stifle startups.
I noted that the largest AI providers have already pledged as part of Biden’s Executive Order on AI to the following: “Develop and deploy mechanisms that enable users to understand if audio or visual content is AI-generated, including robust provenance.” So, HB 1170 codifies their commitments.
I also mentioned that large AI providers must also deliver comparable transparency as part of the EU AI Act, which says they must “clearly and distinguishably disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labeling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin.” So, again, this codifies what GenAI providers need to support in other jurisdictions.
I discussed that HB 1170 takes a pragmatic approach and does not require specific technical implementations.
I pointed out that this Washington bill is modeled on a California bill that ultimately received no opposition from the tech lobbyists.
Finally, recent technical advances, such as the new release of Google’s SynthID, make this bill’s labeling and disclosure requirements technically possible. I noted that SynthID now supports text, which is out of the scope of the California law and the Washington bill.
Next Steps
Per the Transparency Coalition:
The bills’ co-sponsors will now consider revisions and amendments to the measures, with the next look at the proposals expected to come during an executive session of the same House committee on Friday, Jan. 24.
Specific to HB 1170, I think this blog post addresses some of the misconceptions associated with SB 942 (and HB 1170) that were overcome, as witnessed by SB 942 resoundingly passing the legislature and being signed by Governor Newsom.