Medical and legal industries are both trying to apply AI to their administrative practices.

It’s absolutely awful but they’re so horny for profits they’re trying anyways.

Health insurance companies using it to approve/deny claims. The large ones are processing millions of claims a day.

That concept does not appear to be part of the bill, and was only mentioned in the quote from the governor.

Presumably someone somewhere has a variety of proposed definitions, but I don't see any mention of any particular ones.

Imagine the only thing you know about AI came from the opening voiceover of Terminator 2 and you are a state legislator. Now you understand the origin of this bill perfectly.

My guess is anything involving direct human safety - medicine, defense, police... but who knows.

It looks like it would cover an ordinary chatbot than can answer "how do I $THING" questions, where $THING is both very bad and is also beyond what a normal person could dig up with a search engine.

It's not based on any assumptions about the future models having any capabilities beyond providing information to a user.

Things you could dig up with a search engine are explicitly not covered, see my other comment quoting the bill (ctrl+f critical harm).

everyone in the safety space has realized that it is much easier to get legislators/the public to care if you say that it will be “bad actors using the AI for mass damage” as opposed to “AI does damage on its own” which triggers people’s “that’s sci-fi and i’m ignoring it” reflex.