Many more current and former U.S. policymakers have come off the sidelines in the last 48 hours to weigh in on the AI crisis. With the big names in particular, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, these figures bring a lot of clout. On the other hand, their very names carry a partisan charge that could make it hard for people to reason about the topic clearly.
The latest discourse has me worried that AI policy responses will fall into the characteristic failure modes of the sponsoring parties. I’m loath to mention these failure modes for fear of making this discussion more political than it already is, but getting AI policy right is a matter of life or death. I’ll do my best to be evenhanded, which shouldn’t be too hard because I’m genuinely unsure which party would be less likely to botch AI governance if fully empowered and motivated to tackle it.
Democratic failure modes to watch out for:
Putting platitudes where policy needs to go.
Punting on necessary choices that might upset someone.
Sluggishness and scope creep from governance-by-committee.
Some big-name Democrats weighing in:
Barack Obama
According to the New York Times and others, the former President, at a private fund-raiser, urged Democrats to urgently develop an AI policy agenda, then, on social media platforms, told his followers... well, I’m still not sure. He says, “I’m not an AI accelerationist who believes it will lead to some techno-utopia, and I’m not a doomer who thinks it will inevitably lead to humanity’s destruction.” He says we need frameworks and governance. But he avoids mentioning any specific dangers or remedies.
Kamala Harris
She’s a little more detailed than Obama. In a tweet of her own, the former VP said:
A slowdown is critical in order to ensure AI serves the public interest. Pacing AI development does not mean giving up on this technology’s potential to produce life-saving benefits in fields like medicine — some of which we are already seeing. Rather, it is about setting up sensible guardrails so that AI does not completely escape human control and endanger our safety and collective future.
There’s a bunch of vague stuff next, but then there’s this:
the president must do his job to protect America’s interests by pursuing a treaty with countries like China to stop dangerous uses of AI, limit the speed of its development, and adopt global standards for testing.
Chuck Schumer
As reported in The Hill, the Senate Democratic Leader asked the Trump administration yesterday to provide a classified briefing to all senators on AI dangers.
The American people deserve better from their government at such a consequential moment. I have long argued that we must keep the U.S. as the global leader in AI innovation and security. But that innovation must be coupled with serious guardrails that earn the trust of the American public. [...] And if Trump does not act, Congress must.
He’s also asking for transparency about the secret “voluntary” framework the White House said it recently adopted to evaluate frontier models before release.
Hakeem Jeffries
Per Politico yesterday, the House Minority Leader basically echoed Schumer. Adding a rebuke of President Trump’s recent comments, he said:
The explosive growth of artificial intelligence and the challenges that are therein presented — that’s not a hoax.
He also urged the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, to keep Congress in session “until something is done decisively to protect the safety and the well-being of the American people, in the face of growing concerns being raised by experts within the artificial intelligence industry itself.”
Republican failure modes to watch out for:
Denialism (see Trump yesterday)
Overreliance on “light touch” regulation and industry self-regulation
Blind hawkishness
Some big-name Republicans weighing in:
Mike Johnson
The House Speaker recently said he doesn’t think Congress should “lead the charge” but wants to “summon” AI leaders to “one big meeting” to agree on their needs so legislation can benefit from their expertise.
John Thune
The Senate Majority Leader says a “light touch” is needed, but also talks up guardrails and competition with China:
There is a way in which Congress can put guardrails around those types of more consequential threats, without in any way harming our ability to stay ahead in the AI race, which I think is also very important.
He also implies that action this year is unlikely:
There are going to continue to be a lot of conversations about potential paths forward, but getting anything done in the near term is going to be challenging given the other stuff we’re dealing with.
Ron DeSantis
Yesterday, the outgoing Florida governor reiterated his repeated warnings to his party that opposing AI guardrails will be a “losing position” in the midterm election. But he’s mostly still focused on an “AI bill of rights” to preserve privacy, hold companies liable for harms, and protect local control over data center construction.
I don’t want to see four or five companies basically controlling our lives through the guise of artificial intelligence or whatever technology comes down.
The analyses and opinions expressed on AI StopWatch reflect the views of the individual contributors and the sources they cover, and should not be taken as official positions of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute.