Right to Compute laws provide proper balance for AI oversight – Mackinac Center

Report on Divergent Legislative Approaches to Artificial Intelligence Regulation and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A critical legislative divergence is emerging across the United States concerning the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). This report analyzes two contrasting approaches: a restrictive, punitive model proposed in Michigan and a more balanced, innovation-focused “Right to Compute” framework being adopted by other states. The choice of regulatory path has profound implications for achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to innovation, economic growth, and institutional strength.

Analysis of Michigan’s Proposed AI Legislation

The state of Michigan is considering a legislative package that adopts a stringent and punitive stance on AI development and deployment. This approach poses significant risks to the state’s progress toward several SDGs.

Key Legislative Provisions

• House Bill 4667: Establishes new felony offenses and mandatory prison sentences for the criminal use, development, or distribution of AI systems.
• House Bill 4668: Imposes burdensome compliance requirements on AI developers, including public disclosure of safety protocols, regular risk assessments, and mandatory third-party audits.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1. SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The proposed bills prioritize regulatory restrictions over technological advancement. By creating a hostile environment for developers, this approach threatens to stifle innovation, drive AI-related industries out of the state, and undermine efforts to build a resilient and technologically advanced infrastructure.
2. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The legislation’s broad definitions and severe penalties could inadvertently harm small businesses and entrepreneurs, hindering inclusive and sustainable economic growth. The potential for an eight-year mandatory prison sentence for minor regulatory violations involving common software like spreadsheets discourages economic activity and job creation in the tech sector.
3. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): While aiming to prevent misuse, the creation of new, severe felony offenses represents a heavy-handed institutional response. This approach may not be the most effective or accountable method for governing emerging technology and could lead to disproportionate legal consequences, challenging the principles of justice and effective governance.

The “Right to Compute” Framework: An Alternative Path

In contrast to Michigan’s proposed model, several states are adopting “Right to Compute” laws. This framework seeks to balance the promotion of technological progress with necessary safeguards, aligning more closely with the principles of sustainable development.

Core Tenets and Case Studies

States like Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Ohio are pioneering this model, which is built on principles that support long-term sustainable growth.

• Promotion of Innovation (SDG 9): The framework affirms the right to own and use computational technology, creating a stable and encouraging environment for research and development. It mandates that any new regulations be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored, preventing the stifling of innovation.
• Balanced and Responsible Governance (SDG 16): Rather than focusing on punitive measures, the “Right to Compute” model establishes clear, targeted safeguards. For example, the Montana law requires:
  • A shutdown mechanism allowing for human override.
  • An annual risk management review with mitigation plans.

  This approach fosters responsible oversight and builds effective, accountable institutions without sacrificing progress.

• Fostering Partnerships (SDG 17): The spread of this legislative model from Montana to other states like Ohio demonstrates a collaborative approach to developing effective governance for emerging technologies, sharing best practices to achieve common goals.

Comparative Impact on Sustainable Development

The legislative path Michigan chooses will determine its competitive standing and its ability to contribute to national and global sustainability targets.

Economic and Industrial Competitiveness

Adopting a “Right to compute” framework positions a state to lead in key industries reliant on AI, such as manufacturing, energy, and healthcare. This directly supports SDG 8 by attracting investment and creating high-value jobs. Conversely, a restrictive environment risks economic stagnation and a “brain drain” of talent to more welcoming jurisdictions.

Educational and Research Advancement

Progress toward SDG 4 (Quality Education) is also at stake. Universities in states with restrictive AI laws will be disadvantaged in attracting top researchers and preparing students for high-tech careers. A balanced regulatory environment is essential for fostering the academic ecosystems that drive the innovations needed to solve complex global challenges.

Conclusion

Michigan’s proposed AI legislation (HB 4667 and HB 4668) represents a significant departure from the principles of sustainable development, threatening to impede innovation (SDG 9), hinder economic growth (SDG 8), and implement disproportionate institutional controls (SDG 16). The “Right to Compute” model offers a superior alternative that aligns with the SDGs by creating a predictable regulatory environment that encourages technological advancement while implementing targeted, responsible safeguards. For Michigan to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth in the digital age, a shift toward this more balanced framework is imperative.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
4. SDG 4: Quality Education

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation. The article directly discusses how artificial intelligence is the “foundation of technological progress, economic growth,” and that different legislative approaches can either drive AI development and its associated economic benefits or cause a state to trail “the rest of the country in technological progress.”
   • Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation. The article contrasts Michigan’s proposed “heavy-handed” bills with the “Right to Compute” laws in other states, which are presented as a “balanced” approach that “promotes innovation” and creates a “welcoming” environment for businesses and creative individuals.

2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries…and encourage innovation. The central theme of the article is the need for a legal framework that encourages AI innovation rather than stifling it. It highlights how industries like “manufacturing, energy, and health care” will rely heavily on AI and how restrictive laws could hamper their technological upgrading.
   • Target 9.b: Support domestic technology development, research and innovation…including by ensuring a conducive policy environment. The article argues that “Right to Compute” laws create a “conducive policy environment” by providing “regulatory certainty for the AI sector” and protecting the “rights to be innovative,” which is essential for supporting domestic technology development.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article is a discussion about creating effective laws (institutions) to govern AI. It critiques Michigan’s proposed bills as ineffective and punitive, while praising the Montana and Ohio models for establishing “clear regulatory guardrails to properly balance innovation and responsible oversight,” which is a hallmark of an effective institution.
   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The debate described is about creating the right policies for the sustainable development of AI technology. The “Right to Compute” laws are framed as policies that are “demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored,” promoting a sustainable and innovative tech ecosystem.

4. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship. The article explicitly mentions that as the “AI arms race comes to universities,” institutions in states with restrictive AI laws “will be at a disadvantage in… preparing students for high-tech careers,” directly linking state policy to the development of relevant technical skills for future employment.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Implied Indicator: A state’s “competitive advantage” in the AI sector. This can be measured by the number of AI-related businesses, investment in AI development, and the growth of AI-reliant industries (manufacturing, energy, healthcare) within the state. The article suggests states with “Right to Compute” laws will gain this advantage.
   • Implied Indicator: Migration of businesses and skilled individuals. The article warns that Michigan’s approach will encourage its “businesses and most creative people… to move to more welcoming states,” which can be measured through business relocation data and talent migration statistics.

2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

   • Explicit Indicator: The adoption of specific types of legislation. The primary indicator discussed is the enactment of “Right to Compute” laws, which serve as a measure of a state’s commitment to creating a “conducive policy environment” for innovation.
   • Implied Indicator: Level of technological progress relative to other states. The article warns that Michigan’s proposed laws “will lead to Michigan trailing the rest of the country in technological progress,” which could be measured by comparing patents, research output, and technology adoption rates between states.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Explicit Indicator: Inclusion of specific safeguards in legislation. The Montana law is cited as requiring a “shutdown mechanism allowing reversion to human control” and an “annual risk management review.” These specific, mandated actions are direct indicators of the development of accountable and effective governance mechanisms for AI.
   • Explicit Indicator: Prevention of fragmented local regulations. The proposed Ohio law is praised for “preventing local governments from imposing a patchwork of contradictory rules.” The existence of a clear, statewide regulatory framework is an indicator of a strong and effective institution.

4. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Implied Indicator: A university’s ability to attract researchers and prepare students. Progress can be measured by tracking research funding for AI, the number of top-tier AI researchers at state universities, and the employment rates of graduates in “high-tech careers.” The article implies these metrics will be higher in states with innovation-friendly AI policies.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mackinac.org