Listen to this Post
Introduction
New York is stepping into the national AI debate with a bold move. Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed significant revisions to the state’s RAISE Act, aiming to reshape how AI companies report safety measures and incidents. As AI technology grows faster than lawmakers can regulate, states are emerging as battlegrounds for the future of responsible AI. Hochul’s actions reflect both the influence of tech lobbying and the push for stricter safety protocols that could set a precedent nationwide.
Summary of the Proposal and Current Debate
Governor Hochul recently “redlined” the RAISE Act, a New York AI safety bill initially authored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Alex Bores. The bill, designed to require AI companies to implement safety plans and report incidents involving powerful AI models, has undergone a significant transformation. Sources familiar with the proposal indicate that the original text of the RAISE Act has been replaced with language closely mirroring California’s SB53, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom earlier this year.
The revised legislation removes some of the more stringent safety requirements, including the mandate for detailed safety standards to reasonably reduce AI risks and the ban on releasing models deemed unreasonably dangerous. The bill’s provisions for reporting security incidents and addressing risks posed by foreign AI models, such as DeepSeek, have also been weakened. A critical component on catastrophic risk disclosure has been softened, reflecting pressure from AI companies and startups that have lobbied for a framework more aligned with California’s approach.
California’s SB53 requires large AI developers to disclose safety protocols publicly, report safety incidents, and provide protections for whistleblowers. It also expands cloud computing access for smaller developers and researchers, creating a more balanced regulatory environment. Hochul’s revised RAISE Act appears to adopt these principles while scaling back some of the stricter, risk-focused measures initially proposed in New York.
The move has sparked national attention, with pro-AI groups targeting Assemblymember Bores, who is advocating for the bill and simultaneously running for Congress in former Rep. Jerry Nadler’s NY-12 district. Leading the Future, a pro-AI PAC, has launched ad campaigns criticizing the RAISE Act, claiming it would “fail to keep people safe” while stifling innovation and jobs.
Hochul now has a ten-day window, excluding Sunday, to act on the bill—either signing it into law, vetoing it, or agreeing to chapter amendments with sponsors. The clock started when the redlined bill was returned to the legislature, signaling a pivotal moment in New York’s approach to AI governance.
What Undercode Say:
Hochul’s decision to align New York’s AI legislation more closely with California’s SB53 represents a calculated compromise between safety oversight and industry flexibility. By softening some of the original RAISE Act’s stricter mandates, the governor seems to acknowledge the lobbying power of AI companies while maintaining a regulatory baseline to address public concerns over safety and transparency.
The adoption of SB53-like provisions introduces public accountability through mandatory disclosures and whistleblower protections. This step may prevent some of the more egregious harms posed by frontier AI while encouraging innovation from smaller developers who now have expanded access to cloud resources. However, critics could argue that weakening catastrophic risk disclosures diminishes oversight on long-term AI threats, potentially leaving New York less prepared for unexpected AI incidents compared to the original RAISE framework.
Politically, Hochul’s revisions highlight the tug-of-war between federal ambitions and state-level experimentation in AI regulation. President Trump’s executive orders aim to curb state-level AI regulations, creating a legal and ideological clash over who controls the future of AI governance. New York’s move, therefore, is not just legislative but symbolic, showcasing the state as a testing ground for AI safety standards that could influence national policy.
The controversy surrounding Assemblymember Bores’ dual role as a bill advocate and congressional candidate underscores how AI regulation is becoming a highly politicized issue. Pro-AI groups’ media campaigns may shift public perception, framing safety measures as a potential barrier to technological growth and economic opportunity. Yet, the broader public and advocacy groups could push for a more stringent regulatory framework if high-profile AI incidents occur, forcing legislators to revisit safety standards.
For the AI industry, New York’s revised RAISE Act signals a preference for transparency over punitive enforcement. Companies can now adopt flexible safety protocols while remaining accountable to the public, though the absence of enforceable risk reduction mandates could lead to uneven compliance. This compromise mirrors a national trend where regulators attempt to balance innovation with precaution, particularly for technologies that evolve at unprecedented speed.
The redlined bill also reflects broader questions about state-versus-federal authority in AI governance. As companies operate across multiple jurisdictions, differing state regulations could create compliance challenges and competitive advantages. New York’s alignment with California may serve as a template for other states seeking a moderate but structured approach to AI safety.
Hochul’s timeline to act on the bill adds urgency, with potential negotiations and amendments likely shaping the final version. Stakeholders—ranging from startups to advocacy groups—will closely monitor the outcome, as it could influence investment decisions, AI deployment, and public trust in the technology.
Overall, the revised RAISE Act exemplifies the evolving landscape of AI regulation, where states are both laboratories and battlegrounds for policy experimentation. The balance between innovation, safety, and transparency will continue to define legislative outcomes, with New York positioning itself as a central player in shaping the future of responsible AI.
Fact Checker Results:
✅ Hochul has proposed revisions to the RAISE Act.
✅ The new version mirrors California’s SB53 in many provisions.
❌ The original RAISE Act’s strict safety mandates are largely removed.
📊 Prediction:
New York is likely to adopt the revised RAISE Act with Hochul’s adjustments, setting a moderate, industry-friendly regulatory standard. 🏛️ Public scrutiny may grow if AI incidents occur, potentially triggering future enhancements to catastrophic risk disclosure. Tech companies may view New York as a more navigable regulatory environment, encouraging continued AI development and investment in the state. 🚀
🕵️📝✔️Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
References:
Reported By: axioscom_1765487948
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://www.stackexchange.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
Bing
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon
