The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the way we live, work, learn, and communicate. Like many emerging technologies, it brings tremendous opportunities. It also presents legitimate questions about privacy, consumer protection, intellectual property, public safety, energy use, and the impact of automation on our economy.

As lawmakers, our responsibility is to address those questions thoughtfully and responsibly. That is why I recently joined state legislators from across the country in expressing concerns about a proposal currently being considered by Congress that would prevent states from enforcing or adopting certain artificial intelligence laws for a period of three years.

My concern is not about whether artificial intelligence should be regulated, but who should make those decisions. I have long been a supporter of federalism and states’ rights. Our constitutional system recognizes that not every policy decision should be made in Washington, D.C. States serve as laboratories of democracy, allowing different approaches to be tested, evaluated, and improved over time.

Wisconsin has often been at the forefront of that tradition. Whether the issue is education, elections, environmental policy, public safety, or consumer protection, states are often better positioned than Congress to respond to the unique needs and concerns of their citizens. Artificial intelligence should be no different.

The proposal currently under discussion in Congress would broadly restrict states from acting in several areas related to artificial intelligence while providing no comprehensive federal framework to replace existing state protections. That means states could lose the ability to address emerging concerns even as AI technology continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace. Regardless of where one stands on specific AI policies, that should concern anyone who believes in responsive government.

Technology changes far more quickly than Congress typically acts. If states are prevented from responding to new developments, citizens may be left waiting years for federal policymakers to address problems that are already affecting their communities.

Consider some of the issues already being debated across the country:

  • How should consumers be protected when artificial intelligence systems collect and use personal information?
  • How should states address AI-generated fraud and scams?
  • How should artists, authors, and creators protect their work from unauthorized use?
  • How should policymakers respond to artificial intelligence systems that target children or expose them to harmful content?

The best path forward is still being debated. That is exactly why Congress should not prevent states from exploring solutions and responding to the concerns of their citizens. The proposal has drawn concern from lawmakers across the political spectrum. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents from dozens of states joined together to oppose the federal preemption language because they recognize that states have an important role to play as artificial intelligence continues to develop.

As a Wisconsin legislator, I am not interested in allowing Silicon Valley corporations or federal bureaucrats to dictate every aspect of artificial intelligence policy. I trust Wisconsinites to have a voice in decisions that affect their families, businesses, schools, and communities.

If Congress believes a national framework is necessary, then Congress should debate and enact one, but freezing state action without establishing meaningful federal protections is the wrong approach. Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the future. The question is whether states will be allowed to help shape that future as well. I believe they should.

As long as I serve in the Wisconsin Legislature, I will continue defending the principle that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states and the people. Artificial intelligence may be new technology, but the importance of local representation, accountable government, and state authority remains as important as ever.

Knodl, R-Germantown, represents the 24th Assembly District.