HB1384 establishes the Hawaii Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Department of Accounting and General Services to advise the Legislature and Governor on artificial intelligence policy, awareness, education, and usage in the state. The council is tasked with developing an action plan and updating it as needed to help Hawaii position itself for AI-related economic opportunities, improve government service delivery, and set standards for responsible AI use by vendors and public agencies.
The bill creates a broad, cross-agency council chaired by the chief information officer and director of finance, with members from key state departments, the University of Hawaii, and legislative appointees, plus additional invited participants from local government, higher education, workforce development, business, AI development, technology policy, and law enforcement. It requires regular meetings, cooperation from state agencies, and allows consultation with outside experts. The measure also authorizes staffing support, consultant services, and general fund appropriations to carry out the council’s work.
The bill requires multiple deliverables: a status report before the 2026 session, an interim report by December 31, 2026, and a final report and action plan by December 31, 2027. Those reports must address AI’s likely impact on labor markets, workforce and education needs, economic development, worker displacement, transparency and accountability, legal and ethical safeguards, infrastructure risks, and governance frameworks for state and county use of AI. The bill also amends chapter 27 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to add the new council and make related technical changes.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive and forward-looking, emphasizing planning, coordination, and responsible adoption rather than restriction. The measure frames AI as both an economic opportunity and a governance challenge, with a focus on helping residents capture benefits while protecting rights and public interests. No committee testimony, votes, or recorded debate were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s policy framing.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the cost of staffing, consultants, and appropriations; the scope of the council’s mandate; and how strongly the state should regulate AI vendors versus simply study the issue. The bill also raises questions about implementation timing, since it includes a delayed effective date of July 1, 3000, while also setting reporting deadlines through 2027 and a repeal date of December 31, 2027, suggesting the measure is intended as a temporary planning framework rather than a permanent regulatory regime.
HB1384 would add a new statutory subpart in chapter 27, Hawaii Revised Statutes, creating the Hawaii Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council and requiring state agencies to assist it. It would also make technical amendments to chapter 27 and authorize new permanent positions, consultant procurement, and general fund appropriations for the council’s operations. The bill affects state administrative structure, but it does not itself impose direct AI regulations on private actors; instead, it creates a process for studying, recommending, and coordinating future policy affecting state and county government, workers, education, and AI vendors.
The bill appears generally favorable toward artificial intelligence as an economic and governmental tool, while also reflecting caution about labor impacts, ethics, transparency, and public protections. Its tone is proactive and planning-oriented, with an emphasis on statewide coordination and long-term policy development. Because no committee discussion or vote record was provided, there is no documented opposition or support from legislators or stakeholders in the available materials.
Likely areas of contention include the need for new spending and permanent staff, the breadth of the council’s membership and mandate, and whether the state should focus on advisory planning rather than more immediate AI regulation. Stakeholders concerned with workforce disruption, privacy, accountability, or vendor oversight may favor stronger safeguards, while others may question whether the council duplicates existing technology or economic development functions. The unusual effective date and repeal structure may also draw attention as a drafting or procedural issue.