Here's how the Texas Legislature is hoping to crack down on AI-generated child porn
Senate Bill 20 by Sen. Pete Flores, R-Pleasanton, would criminalize the possession of obscene material appearing to depict a child, "regardless of whether the depiction is an image of an actual child, a cartoon or animation, or an image created using an artificial intelligence application or other computer software." Under the proposal, the offense would be a state jail felony but a charge could be upgraded for previous convictions.
"Technology, whether through AI or other programs, has enabled child predators to produce material that is obviously so offensive, and I believe it has no redeeming value whatsoever," Flores said from the Senate floor Wednesday. "In fact, these materials are often used to groom and abuse children."
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the three-term Republican who presides over the Senate, designated SB 20 as a priority for the 89th Legislature and praised the chamber for its vote.
"With the proliferation of AI-generated pornography, steps must be taken to protect Texans, and specifically children, from harmful computer-generated content and the crimes that arise from it," Patrick said in a statement. "I named SB 20 as a priority because Texas law must do more to eliminate all types of child pornography and stop the crimes that result from it."
The Senate on Wednesday also approved SB 1621, a bill by Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, that would make additional changes to the penal code to tighten child pornography laws and includes a provision outlawing AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Senate OKs bills to crack down on AI-generated child porn
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Californians Say AI Is Moving 'Too Fast'
The liquid cooling system at Equinix Data Center in Ashburn, Virginia, on May 9, 2024 Credit - Amanda Andrade-Rhoades—TheHello and welcome to the Tuesday edition of In the Loop. I'm writing to you while looking out over the sunny city of San Francisco, where I'm spending the week on a reporting trip. If you're working on something cool here and want to say hi, feel free to shoot me an email at What to Know: Californians are fearful of AI Californians are more concerned than excited about the future of AI, by a margin of 55% to 33%, according to new polling shared exclusively with TIME ahead of its publication this Tuesday. Of the 1,400 adults polled, 48% said the technology was progressing 'too fast,' compared to 32% who said the pace was 'about right' and just 4% who said it was 'too slow.' And 59% of respondents said they believed AI would benefit the wealthiest corporations and households most, compared to 20% who said it would most benefit working people and the middle class. The poll was funded by TechEquity, a progressive non-profit. Support for regulation — The new data shows that 70% of Californians believe in the need for 'strong laws to make AI fair.' But the data also reveals high levels of skepticism that those laws will ever be enacted. 59% of those surveyed say they don't trust the California state government to control AI. Even more — 64% — said they do not trust the federal government. A picture emerges — The poll adds to a growing collection of data from around the world suggesting that ordinary people are worried about the impact of AI on their lives. In January, I wrote about a U.K. poll that showed 60% of Brits favoring a ban on the development of 'smarter-than-human' AI models. And in April, the Pew Research Center found that 43% of U.S. adults believed AI was more likely to harm than benefit them, compared to 24% who expected the benefits to outweigh the harms. Ground zero — California is emerging as a key battleground for efforts to legislate on AI, as the state where most top American AI companies are based. Last year a bill that aimed to regulate so-called 'frontier' models cleared the state legislature, only to be vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. That hasn't stopped other efforts to regulate AI in the state, however. California 'is a place where you can still legislate and govern with a semi-functioning legislative process, which is not something you can say about D.C., particularly on this topic,' says Catherine Bracy, the CEO of TechEquity. 'The federal government has made it clear that they are going to be completely hands-off, if not creating rules that unleash the industry even more,' Bracy says. '[So] it is incumbent on the states to pick up the slack and make sure that real people who are going to be impacted by these tools are protected.' Who to Know: Dean Ball, former White House advisor on AI For a stint in office, it was an unusually impactful one. Dean Ball joined the Trump Administration in April—headhunted based on an essay he had written titled 'Here is what I think we should do' about AI policy. What followed was a whirlwind five months in government, in which he played a key role contributing to the AI Action Plan, Trump's AI policy, which was announced in July. Earlier this month, Ball announced he was leaving the government to focus on his own research. Action planning — Trump's Action Plan won praise for its emphasis on bolstering U.S. energy grid capacity, plus onshoring datacenters and the production of the chips that power them. The document also urged U.S. companies to focus more on developing open-weight AI models, to prevent the world from coming to rely on Chinese models (which are currently the best in class). The document framed these recommendations, and more, in terms of the escalating AI race with China. Exit interview — In an interview with TIME, Ball emphasized the importance of AI to the Trump administration. 'AI is the President's number one technology policy priority, by a significant margin,' he said. At the same time, Ball says, there is a lot of skepticism inside the Administration toward AI industry projections that superintelligent machines are some two to five years away. 'The diffusion of AI is going to take a really long time,' Ball says. 'I've lived through technology revolutions before, where I was young and bright-eyed and thought it was all going to happen in two or three years. And it turns out a lot of it did happen, but it took 15.' AI in Action: Should you delete your old emails to save water? An official U.K. government document, published last week, has caught a lot of heat online for suggesting that users should 'delete old emails and pictures' to save water during a drought, because data centers 'require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.' It is true that many data centers use water for cooling, but let's get a sense of perspective here. Andy Masley, a blogger who has written several illuminating pieces about the energy and water expenditure of AI systems, ran the numbers. Fixing a leaking toilet, he wrote, can save 200-400 liters of water per day. 'To save as much water in data centers as fixing your toilet would save, you would need to delete 1.5 billion photos, or 200 billion emails. If it took you 0.1 seconds to delete each email, and you deleted them nonstop for 16 hours a day, it would take you 723 years to delete enough emails to save the same amount of water in data centers as you could if you fixed your toilet. Maybe you should fix your toilet.' As always, if you have an interesting story of AI in Action, we'd love to hear it. Email us at: intheloop@ What We're Reading 'Meta's flirty AI chatbot invited a retiree to New York. He never made it home' by Jeff Horwitz in Reuters A relentlessly bleak story from Jeff Horwitz, the best Meta reporter in the business. 'Bue's story, told here for the first time, illustrates a darker side of the artificial intelligence revolution now sweeping tech and the broader business world. His family shared with Reuters the events surrounding his death, including transcripts of his chats with the Meta avatar, saying they hope to warn the public about the dangers of exposing vulnerable people to manipulative, AI-generated companions.' Write to Billy Perrigo at
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
Adam Schiff forms legal defense fund
Trump specifically alleges that Schiff illicitly claimed his primary residence was Maryland for financial benefit, and his administration has tapped Ed Martin — now pardon attorney and director of DOJ's Weaponization Working Group — to oversee the matter. Just a few months ago, Schiff vowed he would place a hold on Martin's nomination to be U.S. Attorney in D.C., an effort to slow his confirmation prospects. Martin ultimately failed to gain enough support among the Senate GOP to secure his confirmation after Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said he would oppose Martin over his past defense of Jan. 6 rioters and his comments about the attack. Trump ultimately selected him for another post at the Department of Justice. Schiff's attorney, Preet Bharara — who has had his own confrontations with Trump as the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York — has argued that Martin's involvement into the Schiff probe represents 'the very definition of weaponization of the justice process.' FBI Director Kash Patel, who was once a House Intelligence Committee staffer working to undermine the investigation into election interference, has also released materials that suggests the California Democrat supported leaking information during his time on the House Intelligence Committee to damage the president's reputation. A spokesperson for Schiff has called the allegation 'absolutely and categorically false' and 'the latest in a series of defamatory attacks from the President and his allies.'
