Can CA help its workers survive the AI disruption?
Scheduling note: WhatMatters is taking Memorial Day off and will return to your inboxes on Tuesday.
Is artificial intelligence here to save us or destroy us all?
Like you, we don’t yet. But we heard from some smart people at our Idea Festival Thursday in downtown Sacramento, where one AI proponent tried to assuage public anxiety, and a labor leader argued California isn’t doing enough to protect workers.
Cesar Fernandez, the head of state and local government relations for the AI company Anthropic, said that while AI’s potential to undermine “democratic values” is something the company takes seriously, it also can be useful when safely and responsibly employed.
Fernandez pointed to Anthropic’s engagement with policymakers to explore how “overworked and underpaid” state workers can use AI, citing how California’s Department of Tax and Fee Administration uses Anthropic’s AI tool, Claude, to answer tax questions.
- Fernandez: “This is an agency that receives more than 800,000 calls every single year. … By leveraging Claude in particular, the agency is seeing faster response times for residents seeking information, calls are even shorter, the quality of information is getting better. It’s enabling the same employees to do more.”
Anthropic is nearing a valuation of $1 trillion, according to the Financial Times.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state agencies to reexamine California’s workforce policies in anticipation of the technology eliminating more jobs. The order calls for agencies to review policies that assist laid-off workers, create a dashboard on AI-related job loss and examine how unions are addressing AI in their labor agreements.
But Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, at Ideas Fest called the order “lacking” because it makes no mention of guardrails to regulate AI’s effect on the workforce.
Gonzalez noted various bills the federation put forward that Newsom vetoed, and said that accepting mass AI-related job loss as inevitable is “a political decision.”
- Gonzalez: “Whether that’s in healthcare, behavioral health, journalism, teaching — there are some things we as a society can say we would never want those jobs replaced and done by a computer. … That’s not only an acceptable thing, that is something we should be doing for humanity.”
Overheard at Ideas Fest: Lincoln Project cofounder Mike Madrid made an election prediction: Democrats will pick up at least 25 seats in the U.S. House this fall and emerge with a Senate majority. By his read, the economy and President Donald Trump’s approval rating are insurmountable for the Republican party, even with all the gerrymandering unfolding across the country.
And former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sounded like she wanted to go to court in California’s various legal disputes with the Trump administration during her appearance with Attorney General Rob Bonta. Said Napolitano: “It’s a great time to be an attorney general. These are really, really important fights.”
We’re bringing our voter guide to life through VotingMatters events across California this month, in collaboration with on-the-ground partners: Local news organizations, colleges and nonprofits. Our next event is this evening in Davis and Tuesday in Merced and Fresno. Plus, we have a DIY kit to host your own event.
Other Stories You Should Know
Cheaper alternative fuel
The Assembly passed a bill Thursday that would lift some restrictions on devices that let conventional gasoline cars run on a cheaper, mostly ethanol fuel blend, write CalMatters’ Alejandro Lazo and Yue Stella Yu.
Lawmakers moved the bill forward in response to the state’s rising gas prices. The bill would exempt makers of these devices, known as E85 converter kits, from an approval process by state regulators. The bill does not affect a separate federal approval process.
About 1.3 million vehicles in California use the ethanol fuel blend. It is sold at about 640 stations across the state, or 3% of the more than 15,000 fuel pumps in all of California.
Though the fuel is rated environmentally cleaner than regular gas by California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, critics have said that its benefits are likely overstated.
The bill now heads to the state Senate.
Making it easier to block data brokers
Four data brokers are changing their data-collecting practices after an investigation from CalMatters and The Markup revealed that dozens of companies made it difficult for customers to request their data be deleted despite a state law, reports CalMatters’ Colin Lecher.
To help Californians protect their privacy, lawmakers in 2023 passed the Delete Act, requiring data brokers to allow customers a way to request their data be scrubbed. But 35 companies had code that hid their deletion instructions from appearing in Google searches.
The investigation prompted New Hampshire U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan, the top Democrat on the Senate Joint Economic Committee minority, to question five data brokers about their practices.
Four of those companies agreed to make their pages visible in search. A report from the Senate committee also estimated that data broker breaches are responsible for consumers losing more than $20 billion from fraud and identity theft.
California Voices
CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: California’s high-speed rail project is an example of the state’s managerial incompetence, and 18 years after voters approved the train, it is and will continue to be a mess for whoever is leading California.
CalPERS’ CEO is steering the pension fund for the state’s public employees into a high-stakes gamble on private equity that enriches Wall Street instead of Californians, writes Dev Berger, managing editor and director of public relations for the Retired Public Employees’ Association of California.
Other things worth your time:
Homeland Security asks CA to keep truck driver in fatal Highway 99 crash in jail // The Sacramento Bee
Newsom’s office warns Californians to avoid Chevron this holiday weekend, citing high gas prices // AP News
One of CA’s largest insurers will hike rates nearly 30% this fall // San Francisco Chronicle
Bay Area residents among hundreds detained on flotilla, deported to Istanbul // KQED
Sergey Brin pours $500K into SF campaign to kill CEO tax // San Francisco Chronicle
Trump signals support for Pratt in LA mayoral election // Los Angeles Times
In Shelltown, flood’s damage lives on inside survivors’ bodies // Voice of San Diego
As Islamic Center reopens after deadly attack, San Diego Muslims express uneasiness, defiance // The San Diego Union-Tribune
Moving to California with a gun? You might have to take a four-hour course
In summary
Want to buy a gun in California? Lawmakers may have you set aside four hours — and bring ammo for the range
Californians would have to take a four-hour course with live-fire training to buy a gun if a bill advancing through the Legislature gets signed into law.
Senate Bill 948, by Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín, also would require gun owners moving to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms within 180 days of their arrival. Beginning in 2028, obtaining that certificate would require completing the training.
It’s the latest effort by California Democrats to add more restrictions on firearm ownership in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. However, it’s hardly certain the bill will become law. A similar measure died in the Legislature last year.
This year’s proposal advanced from the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday on a party-line vote with Republicans opposed. Committee members offered no comment on the measure and did not take any public testimony, which is typical for that committee.
But in March, when an earlier version of the bill would have required eight hours of training, Arreguín told the Senate Public Safety Committee the proposed training requirements would reduce gun violence and prevent accidental shootings.
“Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm-related incidents, especially those involving children,” he said. “By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe.”
Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the Brady Campaign, told the committee there were more than 69,000 shootings resulting in death or requiring urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Around one in three of those shootings were accidental, she said. Many involved children.
Gun rights advocates said the bill would be challenged in court if it becomes law.
Adam Wilson of Gun Owners of California called the proposed requirements “an insurmountable barrier to exercising a constitutional right.”
Clay Kimberling, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said that’s especially true for the estimated 115,000 gun owners who move to California each year.
“Whether they move into the state on a new job, a new military assignment, or family obligations such as helping a sick or elderly family member, lawful firearm owners would now have to search out an instructor, pay for the class … and take eight hours out of their day … for simply wanting to continue to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a new state,” Kimberling said.
That original version of the bill also would have required new California arrivals to register firearms and take the course within 60 days.
Will the bill make it to Newsom?
Under current law, Californians are required to pass a written test and pay $25 to obtain a five-year firearm safety certificate to purchase a gun, but no formal training course is required.
Licensed hunters are required to take a mandatory hunting-safety course and aren’t required to get a certificate when buying rifles or shotguns. Also exempt are those who’ve obtained a concealed weapons permit, which is issued after 16 hours of mandatory training that includes live-fire at a gun range.
Those exemptions would still apply.
For everyone else, the proposed four hours of training would include coursework on state and federal gun laws, secure firearm storage, safe handling, the dangers of guns, use-of-force laws, how to sell firearms legally and conflict resolution. The live-fire portion of the course would need to last at least an hour.
Second Amendment groups say paying a Department of Justice-certified firearms instructor would add at least $400 to the cost of buying a firearm. Applicants also would have to pay for ammunition, gun rentals and range fees. Fees and firearms taxes already can add more than $100 to the cost of a firearm in California.
The training requirements would take effect July 1, 2028.
Until then, beginning on Jan. 1, gun owners moving to the state would be required to pass the current written test and register their firearms with the Department of Justice within 180 days.
Violating the proposed law would be a misdemeanor.
The bill now moves to the full Senate. It will then have to advance through the Assembly by this summer if Gov. Gavin Newsom is to sign it. He hasn’t taken a position on the legislation.
Last year, a bill with eight-hour training requirements died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
