Kevin T. Frazier
Many New Yorkers are struggling to access needed resources because of a shortage of available and affordable mental health treatment, legal services, and other professional resources. A failure to connect more residents with such support and guidance comes at a high cost. AI can help address that problem.
More than 300,000 New Yorkers live in areas with a severe lack of mental health officials and are often left struggling for support. Similarly, in the legal profession, as reported by the New York County Lawyers Association, there’s a “justice chasm” in the state due to too few affordable and accessible attorneys, which may leave residents unable to resolve even simple legal matters, from landlord-tenant disputes to launching a small business.
You should expect that public officials would not want to make life even harder for those New Yorkers.
But state lawmakers may inadvertently do just that by focusing on regulating AI—the very tool with tremendous potential to address the aforementioned concerns—rather than allowing it to help resolve these disparities. The New York State Legislature is weighing SB 7263, which would prohibit AI tools from offering “substantive information” related to several licensed professional domains, including but not limited to law, mental health, engineering, psychology, and dentistry. Violations of the law would be treated as unauthorized practice in those fields.
The supposed rationale for this sweeping law is that AI may produce false, misleading, or even harmful information to New Yorkers in dire straits and, therefore, in need of expert information. If that’s indeed the case, why stop with AI?
Libraries are full of books with outdated case law that, in untrained hands, may lead a New Yorker to assert frivolous legal claims. The internet is home to blogs, essays, and papers that advance mental health tips with little empirical grounding. Podcasts include guests who feign expertise in myriad areas despite having little or no training. Some community groups in the state even allow speakers to share their controversial, unfounded, and deeply problematic ideas—some of those speakers are charismatic and manage to capture the attention, hearts, and minds of attendees.
Needless to say, such actions would undoubtedly be seen as an attack on free expression and access to information. AI should not be treated differently in that regard.
Laws that interfere with our ability to access information, express our views, and seek out new information are typically subject to strict scrutiny. Such laws will only be upheld if they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to that interest, and were selected after considering less burdensome alternatives.
Legislators truly concerned about the aforementioned crises should instead resist the temptation to make AI the evil behind every problem, especially those problems that were pervasive well before the age of generative AI. The best path forward is to address the underlying problem as effectively as possible.
In the context of mental health care, New York can start by adopting a universal licensing regime so that out-of-state practitioners can more easily have their credentials recognized by the state and begin offering their services. This would allow more New Yorkers to receive care from a wider range of practitioners, likely at a lower cost due to increased competition.
In the context of the legal deserts that exist around the state, lawmakers can weigh the merits of allowing for diploma privilege and ditching a bar exam, which tends to assess whether a student had the time and resources to spend six weeks doing nothing other than studying, rather than their legal acumen. This approach would allow graduates of all accredited law schools to start practicing upon graduation, increasing the supply of attorneys and likely leading them to move to one of the several New York counties where there are currently fewer than one attorney for every 1,000 residents.
Both of these recommendations will fall short of making sure New Yorkers can access the care they need and the legal guidance they require. Yet, unlike SB 7263, neither would actively subvert New Yorkers’ ability to exercise agency by using all the tools at their disposal.
By foreclosing New Yorkers from using AI to address issues that otherwise will require an arm and a leg (and perhaps a tooth for those with dentistry inquiries), such a policy exacerbates the existing disparities in a world in which expertise is reserved only to those who can pay for it. There’s nothing smart, fair, just, or democratic about such an approach.
Both of these recommendations will fall short of making sure New Yorkers can access the care they need and the legal guidance they require. Yet, unlike SB 7263, neither would actively subvert the ability of New Yorkers to exercise agency by making use of all the tools at their disposal.