The Algorithm Is Not A Defense

Connecticut's Public Act 26-15 takes effect today. Three sections reach ordinary companies: employers filing a federal layoff notice must tell the state whether the layoffs relate to their use of artificial intelligence; using an automated employment decision tool "shall not be a defense" against a discrimination complaint, though evidence of anti-bias testing may be weighed; and anyone selling an AI subscription to a Connecticut resident needs written notice of the terms and written acceptance before charging a fee. The heavier developer and deployer duties do not start until October 2027. Last night California's governor signed 13 AI bills before the deadline, including SB 947 (no relying only on AI to discipline or fire, a near-identical bill was vetoed last year) and SB 951 (layoff notices must say whether an AI system caused the cuts), plus an executive order that state agencies will keep calling artificial intelligence "Artificial Intelligence," the day after Washington's order renaming it "Super Intelligence." The regulator's question is no longer whether you use AI. It is who decided, and can you show it. In this episode, Stephen Forte covers: - **Who this reaches.** The rules follow the worker and the customer, not the head office. - **Connecticut's layoff question.** The new disclosure on federal layoff notices, the act's broad definition of AI, and why the hard part is knowing the answer. - **The no-defense rule.** What counts as an automated employment decision tool, what is excluded, and the credit Hartford earns for saying in advance what good anti-bias evidence looks like. - **AI subscriptions.** Written terms, written acceptance, disclosed limits and discretion, renewals, and attorney general enforcement only. - **What does not start today.** Developer and deployer duties (October 2027), companion chatbots (January), youth social media (2028). - **California's thirteen.** SB 947 and SB 951 in plain words, and one breath each for surveillance, doctors, watermarks, digital replicas, lawyers and the rest. - **Two orders on a name.** Washington's "Super Intelligence" order and Sacramento's reply, "further informed by common sense." - **The close.** Could the person who signs your layoff notice and the person who approved your last hiring tool both say whether a machine made the call? Would their answers match? **Sources:** - Connecticut Public Act 26-15 (Substitute Senate Bill 5), approved 27 May 2026, enrolled text: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/ACT/PA/PDF/2026PA-00015-R00SB-00005-PA.PDF - Governor of California, signing release of 30 September 2026 (13 bills, listed by number): https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/30/californias-nation-leading-ai-framework-just-got-stronger-governor-newsom-signs-more-first-in-the-nation-worker-protections-and-more/ ; Executive Order N-10-26: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/SIGNED\_EO-N-10-26\_9.30.26.pdf - Associated Press, "California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs laws to protect workers from AI risks," 30 September 2026 - The White House, "Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence," 29 September 2026: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/inaugurating-the-era-of-super-intelligence/ *The AI Brief from the YPO Technology Network is a daily executive briefing on the AI developments that matter to business leaders. Hosted by Stephen Forte.*