Montana legislators propose restrictions on artificial intelligence use by government entities

As the Montana Legislature convenes for its 69th session, House Bill 178 has emerged as a significant proposal aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems by state and local governments. Introduced on February 13, 2025, by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Representatives B. Mitchell and D. Zolnikov, the bill seeks to address growing concerns about the ethical implications and potential misuse of AI technologies in public administration.

The primary objective of House Bill 178 is to limit the deployment of AI systems in government operations, particularly those that could manipulate or influence individuals without their informed consent. The bill defines "artificial intelligence system" as any machine learning-based system that generates outputs from inputs, which can affect decisions and actions in both physical and virtual environments. Notably, it explicitly prohibits the use of AI for "cognitive behavioral manipulation," a term that encompasses deceptive practices aimed at altering thoughts or behaviors through psychological exploitation.

Key provisions of the bill require that any decisions or recommendations made by AI systems must be reviewed by a qualified human official before implementation. This measure aims to ensure accountability and oversight in the use of AI technologies, particularly in sensitive areas such as law enforcement and public policy. Additionally, the bill mandates the disclosure of AI usage in government processes, promoting transparency and public awareness.

The introduction of House Bill 178 has sparked notable debates among legislators and stakeholders. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step to safeguard citizens' rights and prevent potential abuses of power through AI technologies. They emphasize the importance of human oversight in decision-making processes that could significantly impact individuals' lives. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about the bill's potential to stifle innovation and hinder the efficiency of government operations. They argue that a blanket restriction on AI could limit the benefits that these technologies can bring to public services.

The implications of House Bill 178 extend beyond legislative discussions, touching on broader social and economic issues. As AI continues to evolve and integrate into various sectors, the bill reflects a growing recognition of the need for ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks to govern its use. Experts suggest that the outcome of this legislation could set a precedent for how other states approach AI regulation, potentially influencing national conversations about technology governance.

In conclusion, House Bill 178 represents a critical juncture in Montana's legislative landscape, addressing the intersection of technology, ethics, and public policy. As discussions continue, the bill's fate will likely hinge on balancing the need for innovation with the imperative of protecting citizens from potential harms associated with AI. The legislature's decision will not only impact Montana but could also resonate across the nation as states grapple with similar challenges in the age of artificial intelligence.