The Pro-Human Assembly in Washington, DC on September 15th, a gathering of people alarmed by the rapid advance of artificial intelligence, brought together two unlikely bedfellows: Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon. Both men warned of the unchecked power of tech "oligarchs" and called for urgent legislation to slow down the technology.
The gathering came at a time when the debate over AI's risks had reached a fever pitch. Just days before, Jacob Coxon, a researcher at Anthropic, an AI firm, resigned publicly, warning that AI could "kill us all" by the end of the decade. Another top scientist at the firm put the probability of extinction at more than 10%.
The Pro-Human Assembly's mixed politics notwithstanding, a partisan divide remained. Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer called for urgent action, while Republican speaker Mike Johnson warned against hasty regulation, arguing that AI labs should "self-police".
Meanwhile, polls showed that Americans disagreed: eight in ten said they supported regulation, even if it slowed down innovation. The trickier question was what that regulation should be. To date, most activity has been in states. Last September, California's governor Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring AI firms to report safety incidents within 15 days, on pain of up to $1m in penalties. Three months later, New York's governor Kathy Hochul signed a law demanding faster disclosure and imposing larger fines.
The debate in Washington, however, has been marked by mixed messages and contradictions. On September 15th, Donald Trump tweeted that attempts to curb AI were a "SICK conspiracy", but J.D. Vance, the vice-president, said that AI firms "building Frankenstein...should stop" unilaterally. Firms would likely need an antitrust waiver to coordinate such a pause without fear of prosecution.
The Democrats' debate contains its own contradictions. Former president Barack Obama, former vice-president and presidential nominee Kamala Harris, and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi all endorsed Project Blueprint, an initiative to rebuild ties between the technology industry and Democrats, and to promote what Ms Harris called "sensible" oversight. However, the project is bankrolled by Ron Conway, a venture capitalist who has also supported Leading the Future, the super PAC which helped water down state regulations.
On paper, many AI firms back some sort of regulation. Anthropic has cited the Federal Aviation Administration and Food and Drug Administration as models; it has also said it would embed third-party evaluators in its lab, a practice that competitors claim they will follow. Google has suggested a body setting industry standards, modeled on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. But no lab has thrown its heft behind any of the big state or federal proposals in full, with the exception of Anthropic's support for California's law.
As the debate rages on, voters' patience for "sensible" regulation may wear thin. AI is already featuring heavily in the midterm elections this year. As the campaign for the presidency ramps up, after November, candidates' positions may harden. "I predict to you every single Democratic candidate who runs in 2028 is going to be for a pause of some kind," says Brad Carson, the co-founder of Public First Action, which advocates for AI regulation and is backed by Anthropic. However, the next president will not take office until 2029. Any rules in the interim would need to be agreed by Congress and Trump. While politicians debate, the models will evolve.
The question remains: what will it take for federal lawmakers to secure bipartisan support for regulation? The answer lies in compromise, particularly on two key areas: how easy it is for the government to shut down an errant model, and whether bills should cover only existential risks or also include issues such as liability and children's use of chatbots. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the stakes are too high to remain stuck in neutral.
Written by: Captain Rumfuzzle | The Citizen Edition
“Savvy's the new black”