AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 3, Part 31, relative to the artificial intelligence advisory council.
HB1209 revises the statutory framework for Tennessee’s artificial intelligence advisory council. It updates the definition of “artificial intelligence” in state law to more closely track a modern machine-based system definition that includes machine and human inputs used to perceive environments, analyze data, and generate options for action. The bill also expands the council’s membership structure by allowing up to 27 members, adding two or three nonvoting expert members, and requiring that at least two governor-appointed members have demonstrated AI research or development experience in academia, private industry, or technology policy.
The bill further directs the council to play a more active policy-review role. It requires the council to identify best practices for data privacy and security for state agencies and to align its recommendations with the state’s enterprise artificial intelligence policy. Beginning no later than December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter, the council must compile an inventory of federal and state laws, regulations, and executive orders affecting AI development or use in Tennessee, and assess overlaps, conflicts, gaps, and compliance burdens. The inventory must also recommend revisions or clarifications and evaluate consistency with federal directives and recognized industry frameworks.
HB1209 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 3, Part 31, which governs the artificial intelligence advisory council. Its practical effect is to broaden and formalize the council’s membership, add expert participation, and expand its duties to include privacy, security, and regulatory inventory work. The bill does not directly regulate private AI systems, but it would shape how state agencies and policymakers evaluate AI-related laws, data handling practices, and compliance issues, potentially influencing future legislation and administrative policy.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears policy-oriented and administrative rather than controversial, with an emphasis on expert input, coordination, and reducing regulatory uncertainty around AI. The overall tone is constructive and forward-looking, focused on governance and planning rather than restriction.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas where disagreement could arise include the expanded role of the advisory council, the requirement to inventory and evaluate AI-related laws annually, and the directive to align recommendations with existing enterprise AI policy. Stakeholders concerned about regulatory burden, state oversight of AI, or the balance between innovation and privacy/security could differ on how prescriptive the council’s recommendations should be, but no such disputes are recorded here.