Update on WI AB377

This is the testimony that WAD gave at the Senate Public Hearing on AB377 about AI Interpreting on Tuesday, March 3rd.

Video description: White woman wearing black shirt.

Transcript:

Jenny: in this video I will sign in ASL what was shared in WAD’s testimony, opposing AB377 on AI Interpreting at the Senate Public Hearing on March 3rd.

Chair Feyen and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you for providing access for me and everyone in this room. I stand before you today asking you to consider what this bill would mean for the Deaf community—not in theory, but in real life.

Artificial intelligence has advanced rapidly. What Senator Jacque mentioned in response to Senator Spreitzer’s question earlier is a transcription of the same language, spoken English to English captions which is not the same thing as interpretation between two distinct languages. AI interpretation isn’t there yet, and even more so when it comes to sign language interpretation. Sign language is not simply a set of hand movements that can be translated word-for-word. It is complex, layered, and deeply tied to identity, culture, and lived experience.

Ninety percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not use sign language. From the very beginning, many of these children have limited access to fully accessible language. Families are often encouraged to focus immediately on listening and spoken language—through residual hearing, hearing aids, or cochlear implants. Some use manually coded English or cued speech alongside spoken communication.

Some children thrive with these approaches. Many do not.

Those who struggle are often moved from one system to another—Simultaneous Communication, Pidgin Signed English, Signed Exact English—depending on what resources a school can provide. During this time, their critical window for language acquisition does not pause. It narrows.

By the time some of these children reach middle school or high school, they may be years behind academically—not because they lack intelligence, but because they lack full access to language. Some eventually acquire some American Sign Language, ASL. Others are left navigating a mix of partial systems. They’re always trying to catch up.

Now consider what our interpreters do.

Highly skilled sign language interpreters—and Deaf interpreters—have spent years mastering not only ASL, but the ability to “code-switch.” They adapt in real time to the unique language background of each Deaf individual. They recognize subtle shifts in meaning, facial expression, body language, and intent. In medical settings. In courtrooms. In classrooms. In moments where accuracy is not just important—it is life-changing.

This is not a mechanical translation. It is human judgment. It is cultural competence. It is empathy built from understanding the oppression and history tied to our language.

AI does not have lived experience. It does not understand what it means to grow up language deprived. It does not recognize when someone’s signing reflects fragmented language development versus regional variation. It cannot ethically carry the weight of decisions that affect our health, our rights, and our education.

If AI interpreting is introduced into the state government, other institutions will follow quickly. Cost and convenience will take priority. If this becomes law, despite the ADA taking priority over this, many entities will interpret or misunderstand their responsibilities with the laws and proceed to use what they believe is considered a reasonable accommodation.

Over the last few years we have seen a tremendous increase in Video Remote Interpreting being the preferred modality for accommodations due to cost and convenience, AI Interpreting will quickly take over and supersede VRI and all other modalities including in-person interpreting. The Deaf community will once again be forced to accept something that is “good enough”, rather than what is equitable.

Our interpreters are not just service providers.

We respectfully ask you to vote against this bill.

Access to communication is not a convenience. It is a civil right.

Thank you.