The Denver Post reports that the Legislature is swaggering into special session not only to patch a $783 million hole, but to fix its own “first in the nation” AI law before it takes effect in six months. Four AI bills are queued up. Two are frontrunners and they contradict each other: one beefs up disclosures and individual rights around AI decisions; the other trims liabilities, centralizes enforcement with the AG, and tries to keep Colorado from scaring off anyone who can spell “startup.” Translation: they passed a Rube Goldberg machine, then realized nobody knows how to turn it on without blowing the budget.
Industry screams it is “unworkable.” Sponsors scream “protect consumers.” The Governor, who signed the original bill, is now nudging lawmakers to amend the thing he signed. Meanwhile, local governments and agencies are staring at compliance with rules that are both vague and sweeping. It is a mess, and that is a quote.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Four bills, two worldviews: One bill demands disclosures, explanations, and challenge rights for people hit by AI decisions; the other narrows who can sue and says let the AG do the whacking, not every plaintiff with a PDF.
- Clock ticking, rulebook foggy: The 2024 law kicks in around February, yet even backers admit it needs “reform.” Great, so we built the airplane, then noticed the wings are theoretical.
- Liability hot potato: Progressive camp wants developers and users both on the hook. Moderates warn that forcing systems to spit out every “characteristic” used in a decision is nearly impossible for many models.
- Governor hedges, industry panics: Polis says find a framework that fights bias and still allows innovation, preferably without new costs for state or local government. Cool goal. Where is the manual.
- Special session collision course: These rival bills start in opposite chambers and are backed by different power centers. Expect a multiday demolition derby. Bring coffee.
My Bottom Line
The damn Colorado Legislature would regulate your cat if it was nailed down. So of course they sprinted to be “first” on AI, then faceplanted into reality. As a county commissioner, I read this as yet another unfunded mandate wearing a cape. Bottom line: the law tries to make sure AI is politically correct. I guess we are supposed to put the computer through DEI training and hope it comes out “non‑biased,” certified, and housebroken. Only problem: nobody knows how to do it and nobody can price it. That does not bother the big brains under the gold dome, because the virtue signal already launched.
I will be watching this circus as special session opens. My job is guarding the taxpayer’s wallet, and the biggest threat to that wallet is the 100 under the dome who keep inventing compliance homework for counties. Best fix: repeal the damn law and start over with something that targets real harms, measures real outcomes, and does not make rural counties hire an ethicist for their chatbots. Until then, AI will not be the thing breaking the budget. The Legislature will.
