Regulating AI: Where U.S. State Policy and HCI (Mis)align

Jul 16, 2026

Upload by Eliana

Artificial intelligence technologies are increasingly integrated into everyday life, with most investment and development concentrated in the U.S. In the absence of comprehensive federal guidance, U.S. states have formed AI committees to study societal trade-offs. The work analyzes 18 state-level committee reports to examine how policymakers frame AI benefits and risks, compares these claims with an AI risk taxonomy, identifies gaps with HCI concerns, and proposes participatory, socio-technical policy support.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

Introduction

AI Committee Reports and Policymaker Framing

Comparing Risks With an AI Risk Taxonomy

Socio-Technical Gaps and HCI Opportunities

Findings and Implications

arXiv :2607 .03292v 1 [ cs .HC] 3 Jul 2026 Regulating AI: Where U.S. State Policy and HCI (Mis)align Nino Migineishvili [ninom@cs.washington.edu](ninom@cs.washington.edu)[ ](ninom@cs.washington.edu)University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA Alice Gao [atgao@cs.washington.edu](atgao@cs.washington.edu)[ ](atgao@cs.washington.edu)University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA Adinawa Adjagbodjou [aadjagbo@andrew.cmu.edu](aadjagbo@andrew.cmu.edu)[ ](aadjagbo@andrew.cmu.edu)Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, USA Dhanaraj Thakur [dthakur@cdt.org](dthakur@cdt.org) Center for Democracy & Technology Washington, District of Columbia USA René Just [rjust@cs.washington.edu](rjust@cs.washington.edu)[ ](rjust@cs.washington.edu)University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA Katharina Reinecke [reinecke@cs.washington.edu](reinecke@cs.washington.edu)[ ](reinecke@cs.washington.edu)University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA Figure 1: AI-Related Benefits Versus Risks Across Sectors. We assessed sectors and domains states described as benefiting from AI or being at risk from AI, scoring engagement with benefits and risks based on depth (Section 4.4.3). Across sectors, states emphasize benefits more than risks. Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly adopted into everyday life, with most investment and development concentrated in the U.S. In response to rapid AI integration and scant federal guidelines, U.S. states have formed AI committees charged with studying AI-related societal trade-offs. We analyzed the 18 existing state-level AI committee reports to understand how policymakers discuss AI-related benefits and risks. We then compared the risks surfaced by policymakers to an established taxonomy of AI risks aggregated from literature and examined how policymakers’ Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission [and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org](and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org). CHI, Barcelona, Spain © 2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s) . Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-XXXX-X/2018/06 [https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX](https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX) concerns align—or misalign—from those of HCI scholars. These insights provide important mileposts for shaping currently ongoing policy initiatives and future research. Our findings reveal important gaps: while committees invoke responsible AI, their framings often omit broader socio-technical concerns emphasized in HCI. We discuss opportunities for HCI to support socio-technical perspectives, employ participatory design, and close the gap between research and policy. CCS Concepts • Social and professional topics → Governmental regulations; • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI; • Applied computing → Law. Keywords Artificial Intelligence, AI, Policy, Governance, Regulation, HCIPolicy Interaction, Socio-Technical Approaches, Ethics, AI Benefits, AI Risks ACM Reference Format: Nino Migineishvili, Alice Gao, Adinawa Adjagbodjou, Dhanaraj Thakur, René Just, and Katharina Reinecke. 2018. Regulating AI: Where U.S. State Policy and HCI (Mis)align. In Proceedings of (CHI) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 20 pages. [https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX](https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX) 1 Introduction The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence across economic sectors is leading to rapid societal shifts [1], drawing the attention of governments, academia, indust

FAQs

Why do U.S. states create AI committees?

States establish AI committees to study AI-related societal trade-offs, develop regulatory frameworks where needed, and issue policy recommendations for AI expansion.

How does the document evaluate what policymakers emphasize about AI?

It analyzes 18 existing state-level AI committee reports and scores the depth of engagement with AI benefits versus risks.

What misalignment between state policy framing and HCI is reported?

Committee reports invoke responsible AI, but their framings often omit broader socio-technical concerns emphasized by HCI scholars.

Jul 16, 2026

Upload by Eliana