As the societal implications of artificial intelligence become increasingly apparent, senior tech figures are publishing essays on the future of the technology. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, recently published a 6,500-word piece advocating a laissez-faire approach to AI development, arguing that excessive regulation could hinder US competitiveness. His essay, envisioning "invention superpowers" and "an abundance of jobs," reflects a tech-utopian perspective, but the lobbying is transparent. However, as midterm elections approach, Silicon Valley is employing more covert strategies to counter public concern over AI's impact on labor, child safety, the environment, and cybersecurity.
Silicon Valley's Super Pac Strategy
Replicating tactics used by cryptocurrency backers in the 2024 election cycle, tech companies are channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into Super Pacs—groups independent of political parties—to elect candidates sympathetic to their deregulatory AI agenda. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's co-founder and president, and Jo Lonsdale, Palantir's co-founder, have donated substantial sums to Leading the Future, an organization focused on "identifying, maintaining, and growing pro-AI candidates." These funds are being used to influence individual races, sometimes through deceptive means.
Earlier this summer, Leading the Future spent $6 million on ads attacking Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman and a pioneer in state-level AI regulation. The ads, rather than addressing his AI work, targeted his progressive credentials, alleging past tech work for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement—a claim Bores denies. Running for Congress in a Democratic stronghold, Bores lost a tight primary after battling what he described as a smear campaign.
Emerging Countervailing Forces
Opposition is emerging. Guardrails Alliance, a union-backed Super Pac, is attempting to counter Leading the Future's influence, while bipartisan resistance to datacentres is gaining electoral traction. However, as tech companies and their billionaire owners seek to shape and limit AI regulation, their influence is distorting debate in a political culture where money already holds significant power.
In his essay, Zuckerberg urges protecting AI's democratizing potential from those who believe "a small set of experts … should decide what is best for humanity." He misses the irony that an unelected tech oligarchy, including himself, is already performing that role. Their pressure helped persuade Donald Trump to cancel an executive order that would have allowed government review of new AI models. Their wealth is now used to attack and undermine dissenting voices in public discourse.
Resisting Covert Manipulation
If a democratic debate on AI's benefits and dangers is to occur, such presumption must be fiercely resisted in the US and elsewhere. The semi-covert manipulation of political discussion is no way to map out an inclusive future in challenging times.
