Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateNew YorkReferred
S 10692: Relates to the disclosure of artificial intelligence use in floor statements and debate by members of the legislature
Steve Chan
S 10692 status: Referred — REFERRED TO RULES (updated Sep 9, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
75OUT OF 100
Score:75/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Low Impact 25/100
Constitutionality85%
Bipartisan40%
Public opinion70%
Bill summary
Enacts the "compulsory artificial narrative disclosure for official rhetoric (CANDOR) act" in relation to requiring any member of the senate or assembly that rises to speak, read a statement, or enter comments into the official legislative record to verbally state a standard disclosure prior to delivering such remarks if such remarks were drafted in whole or in part by artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Society
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
75%
Benefits
- Enhances legislative transparency by requiring disclosure of machine-generated speech.
- Allows constituents to distinguish between original human rhetoric and AI-assisted content.
- Establishes a mandatory record for the use of artificial intelligence in debate.
Risks
- The mandatory language and 'percentage' estimate requirement lack clear verification standards.
- The punitive watermark language ('Automated Plagiarism') creates a biased record of legislative proceedings.
- The term 'organic intellect' is ill-defined and could lead to subjective disputes in the chamber.
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The punitive digital watermark ('Automated Plagiarism') introduces potentially derogatory, subjective framing into the permanent legislative record.
Analysis scope
The bill lacks a clear methodology for members to calculate the percentage of AI-generated content in a speech.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeCurrent
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.