- The third article in a 4-part series on AI in Mississippi shows the legislative complexities concerning vendors.
With state lawmakers starting with a blank slate regarding AI legislation, vendors have special considerations moving forward.
“Vendors are looking for clear guidelines so they can innovate within a known framework,” said Rep. Jill Ford (R-Madison), Chair of the House Technology Committee. “They want legislation that fosters innovation but doesn’t stifle growth with excessive red tape. We need to work closely with vendors to create rules that encourage responsible development without sacrificing the safety and privacy of our citizens.”
Sen. Bart Williams (R-Starkville), chair of the Senate Technology Committee, agreed.
“There are so many facets to consider; that’s why I wanted us to hold technology hearings last month, to hear from different vendors,” he said.
Technology hearings were held Sept. 11-12 at the Capitol, with eight speakers representing various AI roles, sharing unique perspectives.
Jeff Nuckolls, director of Azure Data and AI at Microsoft; Lauren Powalisz, Mississippi account leader for Deloitte; Gabe Grab, Mississippi AI practice leader for state government for Deloitte; and Erin McKinney, public policy counsel for Amazon Web Services (AWS), were among them. As was Dr. Kollin Napier, director of the Mississippi Artificial Intelligence Network (MAIN), the nation’s first statewide AI initiative formed to address the rapid emergence of AI and its impact on various workforce sectors.
Napier covered most aspects of AI legislation vendors seek, beginning with the need for legislation “that provides clarity, consistency, and support to effectively develop and market their products and services.”
“Regulatory clarity is paramount; clear definitions and guidelines on AI-related regulations help vendors understand their legal obligations and reduce compliance costs, allowing them to focus on innovation rather than navigating ambiguous legal landscapes,” he said.
The protection of intellectual property is also critical, said Napier, pointing to the desire for “strong laws that safeguard proprietary algorithms, models, and data sets to ensure that vendors can benefit from their investments in research and development, thus encouraging ongoing innovation.”
Additionally, tort considerations should address potential legal liabilities, such as harm caused by AI products or services, to ensure both accountability and protection for vendors, said Napier.
“Legislation should balance data access and usage rights with privacy concerns by outlining permissible data collection and usage practices,” he said. “Clear rules help vendors avoid legal pitfalls related to data misuse and build consumer trust. Understanding liability and having risk management frameworks in place is crucial; clear provisions regarding legal responsibilities, if AI systems cause harm, enable vendors to assess risks accurately and obtain appropriate insurance coverage. Establishing industry standards and certification processes ensures that AI products meet quality and safety benchmarks, enhancing consumer trust and facilitating market acceptance.”
Napier emphasized support for innovation through financial incentives, like grants or tax breaks, which reduce the financial burden of research and development.
“This encourages vendors to bring new and improved AI solutions to market more rapidly, fostering a vibrant AI ecosystem in Mississippi,” he said. “Fair competition laws prevent market monopolization, ensuring that new and smaller vendors have a fair chance to compete, fostering a dynamic market environment that encourages innovation and benefits consumers. Flexibility in legislation to adapt to rapid technological advances is necessary; adaptable laws prevent hindering innovation due to outdated regulations.”
Providing transparent and accessible public procurement opportunities enables vendors to supply AI solutions for government needs, expanding their market opportunities, said Napier.
“MAIN can play a key role in facilitating discussions among state agencies, vendors, and other stakeholders,” he said. “MAIN’s collaboration with state agencies, local governments, educational institutions, and industry leaders creates a platform for vendors to engage with policymakers and contribute to the development of legislation that reflects the practical needs of the AI industry.”
Alignment with federal and international laws reduces complexity for vendors operating in multiple jurisdictions, facilitating interstate and international commerce, Napier said.
“By addressing these needs in AI legislation and involving organizations like MAIN in dialogues between state agencies and vendors, Mississippi can create an environment where vendors thrive,” he explained. “MAIN’s efforts in fostering collaboration and promoting best practices contribute to an ecosystem aligned with the state’s economic and societal goals.”
Napier said this comprehensive approach “ensures that vendors have the resources, clarity, and support necessary to advance AI technology responsibly, contributing positively to Mississippi’s economy and society.”
The last article in a 4-part series on AI in Mississippi will run October 27 and will cover possible AI legislative action for Mississippi in 2025.
