RELATING TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
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, education, awareness, and use in the state. The council is tasked with developing an action plan and updating it as needed to help Hawaii position itself to benefit economically from AI, improve the efficiency of state and local government services, and set standards for responsible AI use by vendors operating in the state.
The bill lays out a broad membership for the council, including key state officials, legislative appointees, and additional invited participants with expertise in local government, higher education, workforce development, business, AI development, technology policy, and law enforcement. It also requires regular meetings, cooperation from state agencies, and the submission of a status report in 2026, an interim report by December 31, 2026, and a final report and action plan by December 31, 2027. The bill further authorizes the hiring of two permanent staff positions, permits consultant services, and appropriates general funds to support the council’s work.
If enacted, the bill would add a new advisory structure to Hawaii law under Chapter 27 and create a formal state process for studying and planning around artificial intelligence. It would affect the Department of Accounting and General Services, require coordination across multiple agencies, and potentially influence future legislation, procurement standards, workforce policy, education planning, and government technology practices. The bill also includes an appropriation and new positions, so it would have direct fiscal and administrative effects on state government operations.
The available context suggests generally favorable support for the bill’s goals, as it advanced through the House and was referred onward after second reading. The measure’s focus on economic development, workforce impacts, and responsible government use of AI appears to have broad policy appeal. However, the recorded vote shows at least one member voting no, indicating some opposition or concern, while several members were excused and none voted with reservations.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s cost, the creation of new permanent positions, and whether a new advisory council is the best mechanism for addressing AI policy. Some lawmakers may also be concerned about the breadth of the council’s mandate, the inclusion of outside consultants, and the extent to which the state should regulate AI vendors or set standards before federal or broader industry norms are established. The lone recorded no vote suggests at least one member objected to some aspect of the proposal, though no committee transcript is available to identify the specific concern.