By November 30, 2025, there is no evidence that state-level “algorithmic discrimination” laws like Colorado’s SB 24-205 have resulted in AI models being legally required to embed DEI-style ideological constraints or “bias layers” in the way the prediction describes.

What these laws actually do so far:

• Colorado’s AI law (SB 24-205 / Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act) creates a duty of reasonable care for developers and deployers of high‑risk AI systems to avoid “algorithmic discrimination,” and requires risk management programs, impact assessments, notices, and disclosures. It treats violations as deceptive trade practices, but it does not prescribe specific ideological content or DEI-style balancing rules inside models. (linklaters.com)
• The law’s compliance date has been delayed from February 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026, giving more time for possible amendments; its framework remains focused on discrimination risk, not mandated DEI ideology. (linkedin.com)
• The statute explicitly targets high‑risk decision systems (employment, credit, housing, etc.), and commentary notes that general-purpose conversational AI used mainly to provide information with a policy against discriminatory content can fall outside the “high‑risk” scope. (americanbar.org)
• Other emerging state efforts (e.g., California AB 2930 on automated decision tools) similarly focus on preventing discriminatory outcomes and requiring assessments and transparency, not on embedding DEI ideological layers in mainstream foundation models. (employmentlawwatch.com)

On the federal side, there have been proposals to preempt state AI laws for a decade, and separate California laws addressing catastrophic AI risk and transparency for frontier models, but again, these do not mandate DEI-style ideological constraints in models. (washingtonpost.com)

Because:

1. The key state laws are not yet in force (Colorado’s core regime starts mid‑2026),
2. No law currently requires mainstream AI systems to hard‑code DEI-style ideological constraints as a condition of legality, and
3. The prediction is explicitly about where things will ultimately lead “if it’s not stopped,” with no clear time horizon,

there is not enough elapsed time or concrete regulatory outcome to say the prediction is either right or wrong. It remains a speculative, long‑term causal claim about regulatory drift, so the proper judgment as of now is inconclusive.