Crimes: other; use of artificial intelligence to commit certain crimes; prohibit. Amends 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.1 - 750.568) by adding sec. 411y.
HB4667 would add a new section to the Michigan Penal Code creating specific felony offenses tied to the use of artificial intelligence in connection with other crimes. The bill makes it a felony, punishable by 8 years in prison, to possess, develop, deploy, or modify an AI system with the intent to use it to commit another crime, and it separately criminalizes using an AI system in furtherance of committing or attempting to commit another crime. It also creates a 4-year felony for designing, distributing, cataloguing, or warehousing AI systems for another person when the intent is that the system be used to commit a crime.
The bill imposes mandatory consecutive sentencing rules, bars suspension of the sentence, and makes offenders ineligible for parole or probation during the mandatory term. It also requires restitution under Michigan’s criminal procedure code. The measure defines “AI system” broadly to include machine-based systems such as chatbots, voice assistants, generative AI models, and automated decision-making tools, while excluding certain AI-adjacent technologies like search engines and plug-ins that do not act independently in a way that obscures agency, intent, or authorship. It also exempts authorized law enforcement use in the official performance of duties.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create a new AI-specific criminal framework within the Penal Code, expanding Michigan’s existing criminal statutes to address the use, development, and distribution of AI tools in criminal conduct. It would affect individuals and entities involved in AI development, deployment, distribution, or storage, as well as prosecutors and courts handling related offenses, by adding mandatory penalties and restitution requirements.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the general sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears to reflect a punitive approach aimed at preventing AI-enabled crime and limiting misuse of emerging technologies. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the AI definition, the reach of liability to developers and distributors, the mandatory consecutive prison terms, and whether the law could sweep in legitimate commercial or research activity despite the law-enforcement exemption and exclusions for some AI-adjacent tools.
HB4667 would amend the Michigan Penal Code by adding a new offense section specifically targeting AI-related criminal conduct. It would create new felony penalties for using, developing, deploying, modifying, distributing, or warehousing AI systems with criminal intent, require consecutive sentencing and restitution, and prohibit suspension, parole, or probation during the mandatory term. The bill would therefore expand state criminal law to address AI-enabled offenses and impose significant penalties on both direct users and upstream facilitators of criminal misuse.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. From the bill text, the measure appears to be motivated by concern over AI-enabled crime and a desire to deter misuse through strong criminal penalties. The overall tone is precautionary and enforcement-oriented rather than regulatory or permissive.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope and precision of the bill’s definitions and penalties. Critics may question whether the definition of “AI system” is broad enough to capture ordinary software or legitimate business tools, and whether liability for developers, distributors, cataloguers, or warehouse operators could extend too far upstream from the actual crime. The mandatory 8-year and 4-year felony terms, consecutive sentencing requirements, and no-parole/no-probation provisions may also draw concern as inflexible punishments. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to deter AI-assisted fraud, cybercrime, and other emerging offenses, while the law-enforcement exemption may be viewed as necessary but potentially incomplete.