AI Task Force Reconvenes, Questions Attorneys and Law Enforcement
The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Task Force interim committee held its second and final hearing at the Indiana State House on October 10. The AI Task Force is a product of legislation passed earlier this year, Senate Bill 150, authored by Sen. Liz Brown (R-Fort Wayne). It established the committee to review how state agencies are using AI and evaluate the risks and benefits to Hoosiers – namely to their legal rights – by agencies’ use of AI. A report from the committee is due to the Legislative Services Agency by month’s end.
The first part of the hearing included very interesting testimony from healthcare professionals from the University of Chicago. They described AI use-cases and AI’s ability to reduce costs, improve care and enhance research. Although outside the precise scope of the committee’s area of study, its members quizzed witnesses about the ethics and risks of using AI in the provision of care. In short, the experts expressed confidence in AI’s long-term benefits but tempered expectations regarding expediency, citing regulatory oversight, workforce training and implementation costs.
A lengthier discussion about AI and criminal justice followed. The committee heard from representatives from the Indiana Public Defender Council and Indiana State Police (ISP). As one might expect, defense attorneys are skeptical about using AI to establish guilt and noted the flaws of facial recognition software as their primary example. The committee failed to press the witnesses, however, on whether advancements in technology could actually aid in establishing the innocence of their clients, similar to the way advancements in DNA testing have exonerated many (albeit too few) of those who were falsely accused.
Rebuttal from the ISP ensured the committee that human decision-making is still at the forefront of policework and stated that technology – used appropriately – is a valuable aid in their investigations. Lawmakers questioned ISP about their use of data and whether legal safeguards should be considered to protect the privacy rights of Hoosiers (currently, state agencies are excluded from Indiana’s data privacy law). ISP responded with the widely shared preference that – for now – the government should refrain from any new laws or regulations that will limit ISP’s ability to use technology to solve crime and ensured committee members that they have protections in place that protect Hoosiers’ data privacy rights.
The hearing concluded with statements from lawmakers that seemingly concurred with ISP’s plea to hold off on new laws or regulations concerning AI. While lawmakers are unlikely to introduce AI-related legislation next session that would stifle innovation, the committee expressed a strong desire to remain intact and reconvene next summer.
The Chamber encourages lawmakers to be involved in discussions about AI and how it impacts Hoosiers’ lives and careers. We also echo the sentiment expressed by ISP that “less is more” when it comes to governmental interference. While oversight is important and misuse should be punished, Indiana must establish itself as the best laboratory in the country to explore and develop cutting-edge technology.





