South Carolina Senate Begins a Long Review of AI Rules and Government Use

South Carolina’s Senate has begun a multiyear review of artificial intelligence that could shape how the state uses and regulates the technology across public services. The committee has no rule ready to enact; its first task is to define the problem it intends to govern.

The Senate Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence held its first meeting September 16 in Columbia’s Gressette Building. Its nine members are expected to study AI’s uses and risks in state government, education, law enforcement and other public sectors, while taking input from experts and community members.

The panel’s stated mission contains two possible directions for the state: recommend AI regulations or broaden the technology’s use in government operations. That makes the exercise more than a risk review. It is also a decision about where state agencies should rely on AI, and under what statewide framework.

The first question is definitional

South Carolina does not currently have a legal definition of artificial intelligence, legislative staff told the committee. That gap matters because lawmakers cannot easily decide which systems or uses a future policy should cover until they settle on a boundary. Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina professor who addressed the panel, described AI as a term that can refer to underlying technologies, implementations such as chatbots, or uses such as medical advice.

33States with AI statutes

Legislative staff said 33 states have adopted AI definitions in law.

17States without AI statutes

South Carolina is among 17 states that have not, according to the information presented at the meeting.

The state has passed few AI-specific laws and lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework, according to the reporting. At the hearing, lawmakers raised questions about bias, autonomy and potential harms. Senator Matt Leber asked whether the state may need a new body of law for harmful actions by machines that were not anticipated.

What the committee has put on its agenda

• How AI affects government agencies, schools, law enforcement and other public services.
• Whether statewide policies, guardrails and a broader AI framework are needed.
• How expert testimony and public concerns should inform recommendations.

Adoption is part of the argument

The hearing did not frame AI solely as a threat requiring restraint. Homayoun Valafar, director of the University of South Carolina’s AI Institute, urged lawmakers to consider broader adoption in government, arguing it could reduce costs and improve efficiency. His recommendation puts an operational case for AI alongside senators’ concerns about responsible use.

A long runway, with an uncertain destination

The committee plans to meet again in the coming weeks and aims to deliver a report of recommendations by September 2028, although members hope to finish sooner. Chair Tom Young said future rules are not expected to apply to the private sector. That leaves the committee’s immediate challenge unusually concrete: determine what AI is, where the state should use it and what protections public-sector deployment should carry before proposing a statewide approach.