rgmwa

The leading AI companies in the US are currently spending a lot of money supporting pro-AI development political candidates while at the same time calling for a slowdown on development and more regulation. That seemed like a disconnect, so I asked AI what they were up to. It seems pretty clear that while they likely are concerned about what rogue AI agents could do, what they are really concerned about and what's driving their sudden socially responsible attitude is that they don't want to be sued if their AI models go rogue and cause some catastrophe. What they are aiming for is a light regulatory framework that allows them to claim they are being pro-active and responsible, but that still lets them develop their models unhindered and provides them with legal carve-outs that let them avoid liability when things go wrong. Obviously greed beats altruism every time, and it doesn't inspire much confidence that this will all end well. AI companies and tech executives are heavily funding political candidates, pouring at least $150 million into federal and state-level political campaigns through a complex network of newly established Super PACs and dark money groups. [1] However, their approach to funding candidates does not split neatly into simple "for" or "against" camps regarding AI limits. Instead, the industry is split internally, and their spending strategy reflects a sophisticated attempt to control the terms of regulation and carve out specific legal immunities. [1, 2, 3, 4] 1. Funding Candidates: For vs. Against Limits The AI industry is deploying distinct, contrasting funding strategies to influence lawmakers: [1, 2] Opposing Rigid Regulations: Major tech corporations like Meta, venture firms like Andreessen Horowitz, and executives tied to OpenAI have funded massive Super PACs (such as Leading the Future and the Meta California PAC) to aggressively oppose restrictive regulations. Their money targets both Democrats and Republicans to ensure candidates support rapid tech growth and push back against state-level safety limits or development bans. [1, 2] Advocating for Managed Regulations: Conversely, labs like Anthropic have donated tens of millions to groups like Public First Action, supporting "pro-regulation" political actions aimed at mitigating catastrophic AI risks. Even when AI companies support regulation, critics argue it is a strategy of "regulatory capture"—backing rules that only multi-billion-dollar companies can afford to comply with, thereby locking out smaller competitors. [1, 2, 3] 2. The Fight Over Liability for Rogue AI Actions Your second point touches on the core legal battleground. AI interests are intensely focused on shaping liability laws, specifically regarding unauthorized or harmful actions taken by their models. [1, 2] The Pursuit of Immunity: AI entities are actively lobbying for laws that shield developers from legal liability if an advanced model causes severe or unforeseen real-world harm. For example, reports have surfaced that OpenAI has pushed for legislative proposals granting AI developers immunity from liability under specific catastrophic scenarios, a move publicly opposed by rival Anthropic. [1] The Word Processor Defense: In current lawsuits, companies often argue that a generative AI model is akin to a "word processor"—a tool that generates text based on user input, meaning the developer should not be blamed for what the tool spits out. [1] Why PAC Funding Matters Here: Internet companies have long been protected from user-generated content lawsuits by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court and prominent legal experts agree that Section 230 does not cover AI-generated content because the AI itself is co-creating the speech. Because tech companies know they cannot rely on existing internet immunity laws, they are spending millions on political campaigns to get friendly lawmakers into office who will draft entirely new statutory exemptions explicitly protecting AI labs. [1, 2, 3] As state and federal lawmakers continue proposing criminal and civil penalties for "model misconduct," the millions flooding the midterms serve as a preemptive shield to dictate exactly who holds the financial and legal bag when an AI system goes rogue.

Maybe wobbly is a bit harsh. Optimistic may be a better description.

There's a lot of money riding on a pretty wobbly financial model, so you may well be right.

No, it could be used to develop a virus but releasing it would currently require human intervention, either deliberate or accidental. I suppose if laboratories start using humanoid robots as lab assistants, and the robots start collaborating with the AI agents, then anything could happen, but I don't think we're there yet.

They are vulnerable to most of those now, but I agree that an AI engineered virus could trigger a pandemic that would affect the whole human population.

Maybe, but that could equally be what keeps them relatively safe, or at least no worse off than they already are.

Ironically the humans most at risk are the ones who live in the most technologically advanced countries. If the worst comes to the worst, and that's by no means guaranteed, the ones who will survive an AI catastrophe best will be those who live in the least developed countries.

Just follow the money and you won't go far wrong.

And then you have Kushner saying that the war in Ukraine could end if Zelensky would just agree to move the border to where Moscow wants it. According to him Washington has already prepared most of the peace agreement, but its signing is being held up by Ukraine's unwillingness to make territorial concessions to Russia. If only they would agree to that, he claims it would be a win-win for everyone because the fighting would stop and Russia and Ukraine could look for business opportunities to work together.

There's still time for a few more wins this month. As I recall, he did promise the population at one point that there would be so much winning they would be begging him stop; "Sir, please stop all the winning". Now would seem like a good time.

And what's not wrong is a lie.

Provided you know where it's gone.

I don’t think that will get past Natalie.

True, but I was hoping for a more responsible group to manage it.