AI is California’s next Big One. The future governor must prepare accordingly.

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION — No one knows when California’s next major earthquake will hit, but the state prepares for it anyway. We are now facing something even more seismic and unpredictable in artificial intelligence, and we are woefully unprepared. 

The next governor will tackle a long list of problems, but an AI agenda must be top priority because it touches nearly everything else and the pace of change is too fast for individual Californians to weather on their own. That agenda must urgently answer three questions.

First, what systems need reform in the age of AI? The state’s workforce system was built for a time when technology moved slower and a labor market that no longer exists. In a recent poll, 68% of workers said they are navigating the AI shift largely on their own and 46% said they sometimes feel they are training the tool that will replace them. The next governor must prioritize training programs that help people continually build skills while on the job and create pipelines into AI-resistant careers that are facing shortages in California, like health care and the skilled trades. 

California’s support systems are in worse shape. Unemployment insurance is capped at 26 weeks, which labor experts warn is a poor fit for workers at high risk of AI displacement. California’s maximum weekly benefit ($450) hasn’t budged since 2005, all while costs have gone up. The governor needs to invest in tools that help people weather abrupt economic transitions, such as direct cash, which has proven effective in pilots across California and the country. 

Every one of these necessary reforms costs money, which raises perhaps the most important question for our next governor: Who pays for a just AI transition? Anthropic is valued at $965 billion; OpenAI at $852 billion. This wealth, derived from humanity’s collective labor, must help underwrite the transition costs.

So far, the two companies have pledged $450 million to help workers navigate AI, which is one-fourtieth of 1% of their total value. The OpenAI Foundation holds the largest pool of charitable wealth in the country, yet faces no requirement to meet the 5% payout rule that governs private foundations. The nearly complete overlap between their nonprofit and for-profit boards means they have no incentive to fund efforts that might challenge their corporate interests. 

It is fair and appropriate for AI companies and investors to shoulder the financial burden here, as they are the ones upending the economy and they have the means to do so. At the same time, the state’s government must drive the response to ensure that AI advances the public good. Philanthropic organizations should continue to support groups that engage workers, advocate for guardrails and support those who are displaced. But the cost cannot land on Californians who are already struggling to cover their own bills. 

The next governor must carefully decide how California captures a fair share of AI wealth. Income tax from the largest tech companies is increasing, but that cuts both ways: A government whose budget rests on an industry’s boom loses its appetite to regulate it. What’s clear is that money coming in from these companies should be earmarked to address the economic changes they’re causing. Otherwise, the public will be left asking for scraps from companies that have grown too big to check.

The final question the governor must answer: Will CEOs or the public decide how AI shapes our future? 

AI was trained on the collective output of humanity: our writing, art, ideas, labor. Yet, it’s the AI companies that are currently driving our collective future. Half of U.S. adults say AI’s growing presence makes them more concerned than excited and 57% would like more control over AI use in their lives. And across the country, massive opposition to AI data centers has mobilized discontent with this technology. 

The governor must respond to his constituents, and right now those constituents are speaking loud and clear about AI. He should double down on the office’s bully pulpit and convening power to advance an agenda that aligns with public sentiment, not just a wishlist from AI CEOs. A robust network of organizations has their ear to the ground on these issues and can share actionable input. 

For better or worse, the precedent set here in California becomes the template for the nation. California can be both the epicenter of AI development and the model for AI accountability, but only if the next governor treats this as the emergency it already is. 

This is a time for bold leadership — Californians are asking for action across party lines and even the companies building this technology say the pace needs to slow. We hope the incoming governor acts while that alignment holds. We stand ready to help. 

Teri Olle is Vice President of State Strategy at Economic Security Project, and Don Howard is President and CEO of The James Irvine Foundation.