February Dump 1

Question 1

What is the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) focused on?

Answer 1

Prohibited practices, governance by negation, compliance not punishment

TRAIGA addresses the development and deployment of AI systems in Texas.

Question 2

What are the jurisdictions of TRAIGA?

Answer 2

• Develops or deploys an AI system in Texas
• Advertises, promotes, or conducts business in Texas
• Offers products or services used by Texas residents

These jurisdictions define the scope of TRAIGA’s regulatory reach.

Question 3

What are the prohibitions under TRAIGA?

Answer 3

• Intentionally inciting or encouraging physical self-harm
• Harm to another person
• Engaging in criminal activity with sole intent of CP/CP convo simulations

These prohibitions aim to prevent harmful uses of AI systems.

Question 4

What does the Four Fifths Rule (80% rule) indicate?

Answer 4

Selection rate for protected group must be at least 80% of other groups to avoid disparate impact

This rule is used by the EEOC and other federal agencies to identify adverse impacts in employment decisions.

Question 5

What is the purpose of the TRAIGA Regulatory Sandbox?

Answer 5

Allows developers to test innovative AI systems under supervision for 36 months without strict regulatory enforcement

This sandbox provides a controlled environment for innovation.

Question 6

What does TRAIGA say about biometrics?

Answer 6

Prohibits social scoring and facial regulation without consent or legal authorization

This regulation aims to protect individual privacy rights.

Question 7

What is the cure period under TRAIGA?

Answer 7

Usually 30-60 days to rectify issues before penalties are assessed

This emphasizes compliance over punishment.

Question 8

What does TX HB149 amend regarding biometrics?

Answer 8

Amends CUBI for AI training, allowing certain exceptions for processing biometric identifiers

Prohibition on using biometrics for identification without consent remains.

Question 9

What is required under TX Senate Bill 1188 regarding AI in medicine?

Answer 9

Must disclose AI use before patient interaction, human oversight on all AI records

This ensures transparency and accountability in medical AI applications.

Question 10

What do TX SB 441 & HB 3133 address?

Answer 10

Deepfakes are illegal, establishes a deepfake reporting system

This legislation aims to combat misinformation and protect individuals from deepfake technology.

Question 11

What does TX HB 2060 establish?

Answer 11

Creates an AI Advisory Council

This council is responsible for overseeing AI governance in Texas.

Question 12

What does Colorado (SB 205) require for consumer protection?

Answer 12

• Automated statistical bias tests
• Documentation
• Provide rejected job candidates with a reason code and an appeal

This legislation sets a high standard for consumer protection in AI.

Question 13

What is the stance on disparate impact under Colorado (SB 205)?

Answer 13

Disparate impact is a violation, must prevent it regardless of intent

This requires mandatory impact assessments and bias testing.

Question 14

What does UTAH (UAIPA) mandate for consumer disclosure?

Answer 14

Mandatory for regulated occupations and general AI interactions

The deployer is liable, unlike Texas where intent is needed.

Question 15

What is the purpose of the Executive Order regarding AI?

Answer 15

Ensuring a National Policy Framework for AI

This order aims to establish a cohesive strategy for AI governance at the national level.

Question 16

Comparison: The “Starting Point” (Initiation Phase)

Answer 16

Traditional: “Requirements-First.” Relies on a static “Requirements Traceability Matrix” (RTM) or a PDF of “Shall” statements. The goal is to build exactly what is written.

Steampunk: “Problem-First.” Relies on Discovery Workshops. These are collaborative sessions used to challenge the initial requirements and ask, “Is this actually the problem we need to solve?” before any work begins.

Question 17

Comparison: User Involvement Mechanisms

Answer 17

Traditional: User Acceptance Testing (UAT). Users are invited only at the very end to “check” the product. Feedback here is often ignored because it is too expensive to fix core issues this late.

Steampunk: Co-Creation Sessions. Users differ from “testers.” Stakeholders sketch, wireframe, and prototype alongside developers in real-time before code is written, ensuring the design matches the workflow.

Question 18

Comparison: The Definition of Success (The Output)

Answer 18

Traditional: Compliance. Success is checking off every box in the contract to ensure payment and avoid liability. (Focus on Output).

Steampunk: Adoption. Success is “Mission Impact.” It is measured by whether the user actually uses the system to improve their work. (Focus on Outcome).

Question 19

Comparison: Change Management & Culture

Answer 19

Traditional: Afterthought. Usually consists of handing over a PDF manual or a generic training video after launch.

Steampunk: Disruption Design. A dedicated stream of work where designers treat “user anxiety” and “cultural resistance” as design constraints. They prepare the environment for the tool while the tool is being built.

Question 20

What is the specific role of a “Disruption Designer”?

Answer 20

Unlike a UX Designer (who focuses on the screen), a Disruption Designer focuses on the environment. Their job is to identify cultural friction, fear of replacement, or workflow resistance and design interventions to ensure the technology is actually adopted.

Question 21

What is the “Design Intelligence” formula?

Answer 21

People + Technology + Data.

Key Concept: The order matters. “People” (the user/mission) must always drive the “Technology” and “Data,” not the other way around.

Question 22

What is the difference between “Design-Bid-Build” vs “Design-Build-Adopt”?

Answer 22

Design-Bid-Build (Traditional): A linear, siloed process where specs are handed off between disconnected teams (Government -> Contractor -> Developer).

Design-Build-Adopt (Steampunk): An iterative process where the Adoption of the tool is considered during the Design phase, using Discovery Workshops to bridge the gap between requirements and reality.