Edit Article

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a raft of bills regulating AI use in the state, including chatbots deemed addictive to children.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic, which are headquartered in San Francisco, backed the bills, though OpenAI’s support came later. While Newsom has so far rejected the pushback against data centers, he has called for regulation of AI technology at both the state and the federal level.

One of the bills Newsom signed was named Adam’s Law, after a teenager who committed suicide following interactions with a chatbot. Under the new law, chatbot operators must determine a user’s age, as well as use default settings that only a parent can adjust. According to Democratic Assemblyman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, this would help make AI safe for minors’ use.

Another bill Newsom signed was introduced by Republican Assemblyman Josh Hoover. The bill will require California’s Department of Education to expand “digital wellness” instruction in the state’s schools by January 2028. Newsom also signed a third bill that will prohibit certain social media from targeting people under 16 with addictive features.

The new regulations seem like common sense, and indeed, the bills attracted bipartisan support in the state legislature. One question that isn’t commonly asked among politicians in either party, though, is whether specific AI technology benefits the public at all, regulated or not.

To the extent that AI is another tool to eliminate certain types of busywork or make processes more efficient, a definitive case can be made for its use. The world certainly would not be missing anything, though, if there were no chatbots for children to develop unhealthy therapeutic relationships with.

Similarly, AI has led to a large uptick in cheating among college students. Obviously, cheating is not a new phenomenon, but the jury is out on whether California’s new “digital wellness” rules will actually do anything to prevent AI from accelerating this problem. It is all well and good to exhort students to do the right thing and promote “responsible” AI use, but if social media has taught us anything, it’s doubtful many will follow.

Ultimately, politicians in both parties should be rightfully wary of any technology that deepens social isolation, not only among minors, but among all Americans. If a given new program presents no meaningful benefit to society, or is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, there is nothing wrong with questioning why we need it at all, before it becomes a hazard to regulate.