A Seattle Times opinion essay published on September 29 has called on Washington state lawmakers to adopt a three-part response to artificial-intelligence risks: clearer liability for companies, stronger consumer control over personal data and mandatory licensing of material used to train large language models. The proposals are advocacy positions, not enacted policy.
The essay’s central argument is that near-term AI harm should be treated as a question of human responsibility rather than machine consciousness. It contends that developers and companies decide how models are trained, secured and connected to systems with real-world consequences, and should therefore be accountable when weak controls cause damage. The author compares that obligation with established expectations that manufacturers make physical products reasonably safe.
The first proposal would clarify liability for both model builders and organizations that deploy their models. The essay argues that existing law covering dangerous or defective products offers a starting point, but says lawmakers should address large language models sold as services more explicitly. It advocates consequences for executives who connect unreliable systems to consequential operations without adequate safeguards. That is a policy recommendation from the author; the article does not establish that current Washington law already imposes the proposed standard.
The second recommendation is passage of the People’s Privacy Act, a measure first introduced in the Washington Legislature in 2021 as House Bill 1433. As described in the essay, the proposal would require clear opt-in consent for use of personal data, including for AI training. It would also let individuals see profiles assembled about them and correct or dispute inaccuracies. The author links those controls to concerns about automated pricing, wage-setting and manipulation.
Third, the essay asks Washington to require licenses for content used in training large language models. It points to a national proposal associated with US senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal as a model, arguing that the state should not wait for federal action before establishing compensation rules for creators and authors.
The commentary arrives after Washington’s statewide AI task force concluded its work. According to the essay, task-force members advanced targeted ideas involving children, students, workers and consumers, but the author believes broader foundational legislation is still required. The piece frames Washington’s role as especially important because major technology companies are based in the state.
The proposals would involve difficult questions not resolved by the essay, including how liability should be divided across a model supply chain, what uses of training data would require a license and how state requirements would interact with federal law. Its immediate significance is as a public intervention ahead of the next legislative session, outlining a regulatory agenda rather than reporting an adopted government plan.
