Taxing corporations to fund programs is usually controversial and partisan - but when it comes to AI job displacement voters are shockingly left wing.
It's genuinely exciting that we are entering the AI transition with some level of broad bipartisan consensus on what to do
@deanwball Ultimately, I think taking any electoral learnings from a 9way primary in Upper Manhattan is fucking nuts.
As always, I'll let @Rob_Flaherty have the last word: https://t.co/6ScTTxv1wa
The Pro-AI superpac:
1. Spent $8 million to oppose a candidate who sponsored an AI safety law
2. Raised his profile and made AI the core issue of the race
3. Endorsed the AI safety law anyway
4. Watched another candidate who also supported the AI safety law win
A quick thread as this seems to be the time for #takes on #NY12.
LTF tried the crypto/Fairshake playbook: "Be afraid – if you talk about AI, we’re going to spend a shit ton of money trying to defeat you."
1/?
Leading the Future, the super PAC that spent $8 million against Alex Bores, is declining to spike the football after his loss tonight.
Asked for comment, they're only giving their general statement about LTF's goals.
“Leading the Future is a cross-partisan, national organization dedicated to supporting a thoughtful and substantive dialogue and policy process around AI. We are building a broad coalition at the federal and state levels, and will continue to support policymakers who will work together to pass a national regulatory framework with strong and smart guardrails that protect the safety of kids, users, and communities, ensures America wins the race against China, and creates good jobs for all Americans."
The trouble with talking up these longshot candidates as a bellwether for “who is winning” is that it can backfire badly in the (likely) event that your side loses. This race was something of an obsession for many AI safety advocates on this site, and perhaps a distraction.
More broadly, I expect these PACs to engage in an involutionary race with one another to see who can ignite dollars more rapidly. Unlike crypto, AI is a high-salience issue, and it’s harder to purchase influence on an issue that many voters care about in many different ways (jobs, data centers, kid safety, Terminator fears, etc).
$20m in PAC money, and both sides can go back to their donors and spin a story that they won. The AI safety PAC will say “look how close he got!” and LTF will say “look at the final result.” In the end it’s a wash, or at best a modest LTF win just because of how much AI safety advocates talked this race up on X.
One of the common principal-agent problems with PACs and similar orgs is that often, because causation in the political outcomes is so often murky, the orgs’ KPI becomes *the money being spent* as opposed to the outcome achieved. Donors can see the ads their money bought and everyone can count the money being spent. “We spent X, but our competitors spent Y! We have to spend more!”
So in the end $20m was burned, largely on expensive NYC media market ads (during the Knicks swing through the NBA playoffs!, all to achieve the a priori likeliest outcome in this race (a win by Lasher). This is an industry, and plenty of people made good money! And perhaps on average awareness of AI issues was raised.
But one wonders how, um, effective, shall we say, such spending is, compared to other options. Newly wealthy AI people ask me about political spending all the time. I’m not an expert, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, but if you want to do it well, it’s best to be aware of the dynamics above. It’s much easier to light money on fire in this field than it is to spend it wisely. Perhaps the ignition is just the cost of doing business; I don’t pretend to know.
The Pro-AI superpac:
1. Spent $8 million to oppose a candidate who sponsored an AI safety law
2. Raised his profile and made AI the core issue of the race
3. Endorsed the AI safety law anyway
4. Watched another candidate who also supported the AI safety law win
Late to this, but @FareedZakaria proposes a "Federal Reserve, but for AI".
Curious for #takes on whether "Nerds for Good are the only people who can stop the Evil Nerds" could be persuasive. @ewarren + CFPB vs. banker d'bags was a good talking point for Obama for a while.
Team USA is coming to the San Francisco Bay Area on July 1 for the Round of 32! Our city has been alive with energy for the World Cup, and we’re just getting started. Let’s go, USA. Let’s go, San Francisco!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸
The biggest political mistake the AI industry could make is assuming public trust can be bought.
Appreciate @johnofa using Blue Rose Research's recent AI polling and the Center for Shared AI Prosperity's work here.
https://t.co/6nJTUbre7W
Retiring Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) says his Trump +14 district "isn't a Republican guarantee" in November after his preferred candidate lost Tuesday's primary:
This is so essential American.
"I don't know a single thing about Algeria, I cannot find it on a map, but you showed me a modicum of kindness and I am now ride or die for every single Algerian for the rest of my natural life."
I've lived in the Inner Sunset for 7 years. I love the west side. I love the Park, I love the beach, I love the food and the views. I love the N-Judah and golden hour at Lands End.
I just it to be affordable for my friends to live here too.
https://t.co/3TZPIfovor
Our highest and most urgent national priority should be AI safeguards. The risks of AI weapons, pathogens, mass unemployment, surveillance, and even extinction must not continue to be largely ignored.
The Obernolte-Trahan AI bill confirms the worst fears I outlined in my recent op-ed with NewsOne: the ability to advance the agenda of the Trump Administration and threaten civil rights protections for all of us is not exclusive to the Right...
The most important race update we’ll get today.
Steyer benefits from a very favorable LA drop of 78,142 new votes counted, improving his margin by 15.2% more than Hilton, right on target.