Two Former US Congressmen Announce Fundraising for Candidates Supporting AI Regulation (yahoo.com)
- Reference: 0180247879
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/01/0418205/two-former-us-congressmen-announce-fundraising-for-candidates-supporting-ai-regulation
- Source link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/former-congressmen-launch-super-pacs-221950834.html
> Former Representatives Chris Stewart (Republican-Utah) and Brad Carson (Democrat-Oklahoma) plan to create separate Republican and Democratic super PACs and raise $50 million to elect candidates "committed to defending the public interest against those who aim to buy their way out of sensible AI regulation," according to a press release...
>
> The pair is also launching a nonprofit called Public First to advocate for AI policy. Carson underscored that polling "shows significant public concern about AI and overwhelming voter support for guardrails that protect people from harm and mitigate major risks." Their efforts are meant to counter "anti-safeguard super PACs" that they argue are attempting to "kill commonsense guardrails around AI," the press release noted...
>
> The super PAC is reportedly targeting a Democratic congressional candidate, New York state Assemblymember Alex Bores, who co-sponsored AI legislation in the Albany statehouse.
"This isn't a partisan issue — it's about whether we'll have meaningful oversight of the most powerful technology ever created," Chris Stewart [2]says in their press release .
"We've seen what happens when government fails to act on other emerging technologies. With AI, the stakes are enormous, and we can't afford to make the same missteps."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/former-congressmen-launch-super-pacs-221950834.html
[2] https://www.publicfirst.us/news/chris-stewart-brad-carson-announce-new-organization-and-bipartisan-super-pacs-to-support-ai-safeguards
Dummy bidding (Score:2)
I believe this is what they call "dummy bidding".
They don't care which way the issue goes, they just want there to be a way for money in on both sides, so that no side gets its way too cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
> because data centers run 24/7 they need electricity sources that run 24/7. There's only two options for electricity production that runs 24/7, coal and nuclear fission. While natural gas can technically be a 24/7 source of electricity there's more value in using natural gas for load following.
You just made a statement and then immediately contradicted it.
Of course natural gas power plants can produce 24/7 electricity. The fact that natural gas has the advantage of being well adapted for load-following does not mean that it does not also have value for baseline power, and the natural gas companies will be happy to sell you natural gas for both applications. And natural gas plants are cheap and fast to build compared to nuclear.
Also, solar plus batteries is a strong contender in locations with a
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but all *what* manufacturing being brought back to the US? The current economy - if you exclude datacenter build-outs, the GDP went up... what was it, 0.1%, or 0.01%
What problem are we trying to solve here? (Score:3)
The congressmen are quoted as favoring "commonsense guardrails" and "sensible AI legislation". It sounds pretty ominous if you describe AI as "unregulated". On the other hand, regulation for the sake of regulation isn't a very well-defined goal.
Guardrails to accomplish what? How about if we start with stating the specific problem we want to solve?
Is it about the concern that AI might increase unemployment by replacing human workers? Is this about intellectual property rights on the training data? Is it about students turning in papers written by AI? Is it about a concern that the Terminator movies will come true?
Once you've clarified what you're trying to do, then we can discuss whether a proposed piece of legislation is a good way to achieve that goal.
You can never be sure something isn't partisan (Score:2)
> This isn't a partisan issue
Sorry, but no one can ever really say something like that these days, and be believable. While it's true there's no classical left/right split on this issue, our classical left/right days are long over.
If Trump decides he opposes this, then you're going to see 90% of Republicans suddenly oppose it, and it'll become partisan.
So, before you tell me this is non-partisan, please explain how regulating AI will help criminals steal, preferably from the US Treasury. Because if this does
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the money coming from? That would show you what groups the partisans come from.
97% of americans agree with us? (Score:2)
I've never seen polling to this effect. The best I've been able to find was a pew poll from early last year which stated 58% of government regulation does not go far enough WRT AI. The lack of useful specificity on what they mean by common sense is concerning. People should know what they are supporting beyond nebulous slogans especially in this space.
If AI ever really starts getting real it won't just be AI companies pushing for regulation to protect their own market share it will be industry generally
They've got an uphill battle to fight (Score:3)
There's going to be tons of money dumped into the race by corporate PACs to ensure that hate government extremist right MAGA Republicans, and center-right pro-Corporation Democratic, candidates win the primaries and/or elections.
I suggest volunteering locally to make sure people who do get elected are left of center in either party... not that there's many (any?) left of center Republicans left at all to oppose corporate overreach.