To create the Artificial Intelligence Study Commission to study and make recommendations regarding the use of artificial intelligence in state and local government.
HB663 creates the Artificial Intelligence Study Commission to examine how artificial intelligence is being used by state and local government in Ohio and to recommend a broader regulatory framework for the state. The commission is tasked with reviewing current oversight and regulation approaches, studying government use of AI, and delivering a report with findings and recommendations to legislative leaders and the Governor by December 31, 2028.
The commission would include state officials, legislative appointees, and representatives from the private sector, higher education, public safety, K-12 education, workforce development, consumers, local government, and agriculture. It may also hold hearings on pending AI-related legislation and advise members of both chambers. The bill is temporary in nature: the commission must hold its first meeting by January 30, 2027, meet at least quarterly, receive administrative support from several state entities, and terminate on January 1, 2029.
If enacted, HB663 would not immediately regulate artificial intelligence directly, but it would create a new temporary state commission and establish a formal process for studying AI policy in Ohio. It would affect the Governor’s office, legislative leadership, and several agencies and stakeholder groups by assigning appointment responsibilities and support duties, while also creating a forum for evaluating state and local AI use and potential future legislation. The bill could serve as the basis for later statutory or regulatory changes by producing recommendations for a comprehensive AI framework.
Because the bill is still at the introduced stage and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the available record. The bill’s structure suggests a generally exploratory and policy-development approach rather than an immediate regulatory or enforcement posture, which may make it more broadly acceptable to members interested in studying AI before adopting binding rules.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. Potential areas of debate, however, are implicit in the commission’s scope and membership: whether Ohio should move quickly toward AI regulation or first study the issue, how broad the commission’s mandate should be, and whether the appointed membership adequately balances government, industry, consumer, education, and local interests. The inclusion of legislative members and multiple agencies may also raise questions about representation, workload, and the commission’s ability to produce actionable recommendations by the 2028 deadline.