A person is silhouetted in front of projected computer code. Generative artificial intelligence builds on similar software and is increasingly becoming a priority for lawmakers. Governments around the world have rigorously debated how to oversee its development.
California lawmakers have made great strides over the past year to regulate generative artificial intelligence, raising the bar in global efforts to harness this rapidly evolving technology.
At the end of 2025, Governor Newsom signed the Artificial Intelligence at the Border Transparency Actor SB 53, a pioneering state law requiring AI companies to disclose security protocols and potential risk mitigation. In addition, the legislation also established a system for users to report security issues.
This is just one of a comprehensive list of many AI laws passed by California, including requirements that popular AI systems provide tools to help users detect and identify content.
Jadie Sun, a computer science teacher at Carlmont High School, cites this as an important, albeit insufficient, step in the process of integrating AI into everyday life.
“It’s difficult because legislators, like everyone else, have biases, so sometimes things are not done for improvement and may be for profit,” Sun said.
Overall, the public believes that the laws established in California adequately account for the fact that Silicon Valley is home to many leading tech developers, but some concerns have been expressed that these companies’ competitiveness would be limited if additional legislation were added.
“I think it’s worth having laws and policies to prevent people from using generative AI to harm others,” said Melinda Nelson, a sophomore at Carlmont.
In the global context, California is a strong advocate for regulation. However, governments around the world are also taking their own initiative.
In South Korea, for example, lawmakers adopted an innovative measure:Basic Law of AI” which came into force in January 2026. This makes it one of the first to implement a comprehensive legal framework in the context of AI. The main requirements of the law are to have human oversight around the use of AI in areas like medicine, transportation and finance, as well as requiring labels for AI-generated content.
Unlike California’s detailed and sector-specific legislation, Korea has a more unified legal framework. The supporting legislation should reinforce the overall direction taken by the government.
Chenxi Lin, manager at Carlmont, expresses a different opinion on the strict restrictions imposed on AI companies.
“It is not practical to regulate the use of generative AI, as it should instead be something that organizations and platforms enforce. However, the development of generative AI might require some regulation,” Lin said.
Recent California legislation reflects this distinction, focusing on oversight of advanced AI companies rather than how consumers use the resulting tools.
Indonesian lawmakers have taken a different approach in the context of AI misuse.
Recent measures taken in January 2026 resulted in temporarily blocked access to Grokthe xAI chatbot, after it was used to create sexually explicit images in a way to circumvent national laws against obscene content.
This struggle is linked to the balancing act facing all the world’s governments: how to protect privacy and security without hindering innovation, and how to ensure accountability in a technology that can easily generate realistic content with little or no oversight.
Lin emphasizes that among the functions of exploiting this technology, it remains a useful tool.
“It’s been very helpful for writing, for proofreading and giving feedback, and generally for acting as a beta reader,” Lin said.
Such everyday applications help explain why regulation focuses on overseeing AI development rather than attempting to restrict individual users.
Lawmakers should keep this in mind going forward, continuing to combat a rapidly developing technology that has become ingrained in the lives of millions of users.
