Photo is of Copenhagen’s harbor bus, which is part of the public transportation system. I love it but it’s full of pensioners with small children because most people (my son!) won’t wake up a half hour early to get to work extremely slowly on an electric boat when he could take the Metro or his bike and be at work in 5 minutes. Me and my grandaughter, however, enjoy a majestic, silent cruise nearly daily (electric boats are so quiet) but I see that it isn’t the most practical way to get…anywhere.

The Copenhagen public transport system, including my lovely boats, is privatized. Privatization works in Denmark (the least corrupt country on the world) because Denmark actually regulates their contractors and demands they deliver for the public. The idea is it’s a privilege to get a public contract and you have to earn it, every day, or they fire the contractor and get a better one. We could have that in the US too.

Instead we get shit like this:

❝

The tech billionaires who spent more than $8 million to sink a Democratic House candidate in New York wanted to fire a warning at other would-be lawmakers who support tougher rules on artificial intelligence.

But Tuesday’s loss by tech critic Alex Bores left the AI advocates with little to say the next day — and little appetite for other titanic matchups this year, a person familiar with the leading anti-Bores group told POLITICO.

Meanwhile, supporters of stricter AI regulations saw the outcome as just the latest sign of public opinion shifting in their direction.

Not only did Bores score a close second in the five-person race to replace outgoing Manhattan Rep. Jerry Nadler, but the contest drew tons of attention — and Silicon Valley money on both sides — to the debate about AI’s impact on jobs, electricity costs and public safety. And Tuesday’s winner, Assemblymember Micah Lasher, is a fellow tech industry critic who favors AI regulations and a data center moratorium.

Most of all, regulation supporters say the backlash against the gusher of pro-AI spending should embolden other candidates to take on the industry. They called that a strategic loss for Leading the Future, the pro-AI super PAC that had spearheaded the push for Bores’ defeat.

“[Leading the Future] went into this race as a genuinely frightening force that seemed potentially positioned to fundamentally reshape the incentives of politicians in Congress and their willingness to touch AI,” said Nathan Calvin, general counsel and vice president of state affairs at the pro-regulation group Encode AI. “And they left the race not a particularly imposing force that politicians don’t seem particularly afraid of.”

Bores, a former data scientist at Palantir, had his own base of support in Silicon Valley, including pro-regulation super PACs backed by tech dollars that spent $18 million on his behalf. Tuesday’s primary was seen nationally as part of a bitter power struggle within the tech industry on how aggressively the government should police AI safety, a fight typified by the feud between industry giants OpenAI and Anthropic.

Both sides may end up disappointed, Lasher said in his victory speech: “I won’t be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs and our families.”

When Leading the Future leaders Josh Vlasto and Zac Moffatt announced their campaign to take down Bores in November, they promised to “aggressively oppose policymakers and candidates in states across the country who play political games with the future of American leadership.” Bores, a member of the New York Assembly, had drawn the group’s ire for his authorship of the RAISE Act, the state’s landmark AI safety law.

Leading the Future did not endorse any of the candidates running to succeed Nadler. But it was adamant that Bores should lose.

The pro-AI group was following on the heels of the cryptocurrency industry’s success in targeting critics and bolstering allies during the 2024 election — a fight that has left crypto with unaccustomed clout in Washington during Donald Trump’s second presidency. Leading the Future’s Vlasto is also a top adviser at Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency group that spent more than $40 million to help defeat then-Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) two years ago.

But this year’s House election in New York has turned out differently.

For one thing, the Democratic primary quickly became part of a bitter conflict within the AI industry — particularly between OpenAI and Anthropic. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and other executives split off from OpenAI in 2021 due to concerns that it was developing advanced AI in a reckless manner, and the two sides have sparred ever since about the need for new safety regulations.

Each side was flush with cash: Leading the Future had at least $75 million from OpenAI President Greg Brockman, venture capitalist firm Andreessen Horowitz and others. It ultimately spent $8 million against Bores.

It faced off against an Anthropic-linked super PAC network spearheaded by Public First Action, an organization led by former Democratic Rep. Brad Carson of Oklahoma and former Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah. A super PAC affiliated with Public First called Jobs and Democracy funneled $12 million to Bores, roughly two-thirds of the total spending made on his behalf.

OpenAI and Anthropic both declined to comment on Tuesday’s election. But OpenAI has begun supporting more aggressive AI safety measures in the states, as well as mandatory federal reviews of cutting-edge AI models.

Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the tech industry group Chamber of Progress, said Leading the Future’s aggressive efforts to defeat Bores were unusual for the super PAC network, which has predominantly moved to boost pro-AI candidates. Those candidates include a number of Republicans, whose voters in recent polls have been less skeptical of the technology compared with Democrats.

Unfortunately, what we end up with is… the AI industry writing their own regulations so the public still lost in this battle of billionaires. This is a time-honored approach to managing regulation. An industry will see the way the wind is blowing and “offer” fake regulation in an effort to head off real regulation with teeth and consequences.

The US will not fix our corruption problem unless we re-regulate campaign finance. This country cannot continue to take orders from lobbyists, whether those lobbyists are lobbying for the far Right government in Israel or AI or crypto or Roundup or Medicare Advantage. It’s corruption and it’s destroying quality of life in the US.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Marmot Pimpernel 4 months ago

Unfortunately, what we end up with is… the AI industry writing their own regulations so the public still lost in this battle of billionaires.

Hang on—didn’t the stronger AI opponent win? I mean, I get the broader point, but what we have here is a chink in Smaug’s armor.

AI is incredibly unpopular, likely more so than the numbers cited here—there’s a recent Pew poll (if I remember right) with majorities of Dems and Reps. AI industry support could be a major liability for a candidate.

Avatar

Scott H4 months ago

There have been a slew of polls on this dating back 18 months and you can see the amazing growth of virulent hatred across party, class and racial lines on AI and data centers.

And yet, we have a massive part of the Dem party that not only refuses to acknowledge that but embrace them and their backers.

It's such a political hanging curve across the plate and we as a party are whiffing.

This is my shocked face.

Avatar

Marmot Pimpernel 4 months ago

Nothing to add, just additional agreement.

Avatar

John S.4 months ago

Wow, does Jared Polis look like a complete fucking moron for pardoning Tina Peters — bonus edition! Courtesy of Kyle Clark.

Peters: I do show remorse. The remorse is that people that should be in prison are not. That's my remorse.

Peters was speaking with MAGA podcaster Joe Oltmann, who has called for the execution by hanging of Polis and other “Synagogue of Satan Jews” that Oltmann claims control Colorado.

https://bsky.app/profile/kylec.bsky.social/post/3mp5zosdwgs2n

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

I wish I was her parole officer.

Avatar

John S.4 months ago(edited)

AI is yet another area where the Chinese are eating our lunch.

Yesterday they released GLM 5.2, which seems to be on par with some of the best models OpenAI and others have. Except for a few major differences:

  • It’s open source and can run locally (it doesn’t need a big data center)
  • It’s cheap to run because you don’t have to pay for tokens
  • It doesn’t require the same level of hardware as cloud-based LLMs
  • It basically democratizes frontier AI. You no longer need access to a multibillion-dollar hyperscale data center to deploy a state-of-the-art model. Which means no fights over giant data centers with their excessive water and electricity consumption.

    So while the techbros are scrambling to figure out who can build the biggest data center, the Chinese are trying to make AI efficient enough to run with a very tiny footprint.

    Avatar

    mister mixAuthor4 months ago

    Yes -- every computer technology ends up being massively optimized. A year or two ago, there was an announcement that the Chinese also came up with a chip that's more powerful for AI yet much cheaper/easier to manufacture than the Nvidia chips. I don't know what happened with that, but it's got to be coming.

    Avatar

    Busted Knee4 months ago

    That article is misleading. I've seen a few of them. There are all sorts of AI chips that work at different parts of the pipeline and are more optomized for it. However for the stage nvidias hardware is used nothing beats it. They are light years ahead of everyone else.

    Open source models exist outside of China and can be run locally. I have a few machines doing this. But they cannot handle the large scale compute where AI is actually useful.

    You can buy an AMD for open source or nvidia if you want the high end AI machine the size of a mac mini now.

    Avatar

    C P4 months ago

    America is falling apart because literally nothing is allowed to happen anymore unless some rich guy somewhere is making a mountain of dough off of it. Increasingly every corner of the economy is Little Italy from The Godfather, except it's not even the semi-competently managed Little Italy of the Corleones, it's Little Italy in the age of Don Fanucci "wetting his beak" everywhere without providing a cent of value to anyone or anything.

    Avatar

    C P4 months ago

    Privatization works in Denmark (the least corrupt country on the world) because Denmark actually regulates their contractors and demands they deliver for the public. The idea is it’s a privilege to get a public contract and you have to earn it, every day, or they fire the contractor and get a better one.

    The reason I tend to support fully government-provided services instead (at least in vital services like health insurance) is that I simply don't trust U.S. corporations with this. Their entire mentality is so rooted in cheating that it would be like letting the Mafia run anything; yes, you could theoretically do that and regulate them closely enough to keep their noses clean, but why on earth would you? It's a ridiculous amount of effort to monitor people you already know are crooks. If the feds are going to put that much work into making sure the service providers are straight, they might as well provide the service themselves.

    Avatar

    Scott H4 months ago(edited)

    A thousand times this.

    American neoliberalism in all it's names and forms is essentially about privatization, deregulation and gentrification as a public good. And it all comes from a refusal to have increases in taxes to pay for stuff.

    The outsourcing of governmental services is the road to tyranny. It's about blatantly drumming up (creating an environment) of public frustration to push for further cuts and eventual privatization.

    Avatar

    TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

    Like putting BP in charge of cleaning up Deepwater Horizon. For fuck's sake.

    Avatar

    C P4 months ago

    The outsourcing of governmental services is the road to tyranny.

    One of my pet wonk topics is that for all the "it's a republic not a democracy" spiel Republicans bleat, they're very much anti-republican, too. "Republic" doesn't mean much (they can be liberal, or socialist, or Islamic), but literally the one thing it does mean is "the public thing" (res publica) - it means that the state belongs to the public, however you conceive of it, and not to a private individual. In other words, it means "not monarchy."

    "Monarchy" = "privatization." It's the logical endpoint of privatizing public goods: the entire state is now the property of one individual, who can pass it down in the family like a private heirloom, with everyone else locked out of the loop. Trump and Musk made it especially blatant, but it's been cooking since 1980 at least.

    Avatar

    Scott H4 months ago

    Just more neoliberal, Reaganomic crap. They lead off with "it saves money" when outsourcing services like this always costs the governmental entity more than if they simply staffed up internally.

    Outsourcing in general is like this. If you go into thinking “I don’t have to worry about this, vendor X will solve this problem for me” you’re almost certainly going to get screwed. You need to get every detail into the contract, and spend almost as many hours riding them to deliver on everything to your substantive satisfaction.

    Outsourcing firms throw (relatively) cheap bodies at tasks, they deploy resources stupidly and haphazardly according to their profit motive, and they live in a world where running up the bill, not delivering a working system, is the end goal.

    Avatar

    C P4 months ago

    Somebody did a study on the wave of privatizations back in the nineties in former communist or similarly statist economic systems. The justification behind it was "the government is inefficient and the private sector will run it better."

    But as it turned out, the private sector wasn't actually interested in buying any government agencies, except in one of two cases:

  • they were planning to break it up and sell it off for parts.

  • it was already running a profit.

  • In other words, only when the stated rationale didn't apply.

    Avatar

    TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

    Doctorow new book discussed (AI Enshittifies Everything)

    https://bsky.app/profile/lizzieohreally.bsky.social/post/3mp6xc3jppc27

    Avatar

    TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

    I'm stuck using hubby's laptop today, which is so infested by AI that it makes me want to scream. Gah

    Avatar

    TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

    I would wake up early to ride that slow bus!

    Avatar

    TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

    I prefer to call him a court jester because he's just another fucking clown.

    Avatar

    mister mixAuthor4 months ago

    Apple just announced big price hikes due to the skyrocketing cost of memory, which is all being gobbled up by AI. A base iPad went from $350 to $450, for example. Another reason for voters to hate AI. It’s grossly unpopular and being on the wrong side of that issue will hurt Democrats no matter how many ads AI pays for.

    Avatar

    TBone Dinosaur4 months ago

    Schadenfreude is delicious.

    Avatar

    Scott H4 months ago

    And yet, one of the Electricity Uber Alles people in my neighborhood, the one always railing about about fossil fuels are evil and everybody should be all electric all the time, but can never come back with a coherent thought about where that power's gonna come from, the growing demands for it ("Xcel is building battery storage now!" -- they're experimenting with it), actually told me earlier this week that he's not at all worried about AI and data centers.

    Why?

    Because our government leaders are gonna regulate it so that said facilities will only be powered by renewables, blah, blah, blah.

    He's a clueless idiot on all of this. Considers himself Progressive! and a loud climate change activist and yet, has been dead silent about the data center issue here in Denver.

    Avatar

    Marmot Pimpernel 4 months ago

    There’s an argument where the grid is already high-capacity—or a datacenter pays more beforehand to build it out—that the price of electricity goes down because the overall supply becomes greater. The big-ticket item in electricity is grid infrastructure, not generation, and for its faults, the US grid is pretty high-capacity.

    But is your neighbor actually aware of how and when renewable sources are gonna click in? Obviously not! ($10 says he loves David Roberts’s Volts, which is good but requires a lot of effort to listen to.) Are datacenters gonna pay their fair share? Ha.

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to opposing AI build-outs: land use, noise pollution, enshittification, local tax deals, corruption of local government—no real additional local jobs—all make the list.

    Avatar

    Scott H4 months ago

    You are preaching to the choir.

    You also talk nuance and as I've learned around here, so many of these people simply don't do nuance.