In the past 72 hours, US federal and state heads of government have focused on AI national security natural resources policies. These actions minimize political distractions from a uselessly noisy AI ‘debate’ not intended to resolve much. The crux of this matter is a frank and comprehensive public discussion of tradeoffs.
I do not ignore the expanded role of politics in this space, rather, my point is voter sentiment hinges on both safety and resource scarcity policies. Secretary Bessent’s US-China AI dialogue would help manage away from geostrategic risks. Early this afternoon OpenAI embraced some form of third-party review of models. Pragmatic and political factors push the AI conversation into a new phase destined to involve more stakeholders. Over time, this direction could prove beneficial to companies and investors. If policy formulation is to facilitate marketplace and end-user wins, I doubt we get there absent a process rewarding fairness, transparency, and shared gains along with necessary scientific and public policy factors (HERE).
Developments continue to expand the gap between science and public policy, but voters and other citizens are unlikely to forgive the growing lag between governance and safety decisions and consequences. More likely, elected officials will fall further out of favor. Economic populism to varying degrees disfavored US political incumbents in every election since the GFC. All matters AI now fits into that political reaction function to economic conditions. A handful of House Democrats and Independents recently recommended using existing gov’t structures to develop and implement safety and governance protocols. Similar ideas find traction in the Senate and increasingly includes Republicans, including majority leader Thune. The smarter few would collaborate with industry to produce bipartisan initiatives the President would be hard pressed to resist. Sam Liccardo (I-CA) and a few co-sponsors are moving forward this Congress. I would guess this stuff ripens 1Q27 rather than in the Dec lame duck session (HERE).
Texas yesterday took another step in attempting to reconcile these pressures. Governor Abbott for the fourth time in a year ordered state policymakers to slow or stop new data center construction. His letter to the head of state environmental quality is the most urgent communication compared to previous missives to the utility regulator, grid operator, and the legislature. Hard not to see the last two as directly aimed at electoral politics, compared to the first and second which could be characterized as resource management (with some political overtones, no doubt) (HERE).
Maybe coincidentally, Texas Monthly, the noted state periodical, recently mailed a special edition examining dire the much-stressed 1900-mile Rio Grande River (HERE). Pressure to rationalize resources will not disappear after Nov 3, but a re-elected Abbott and allies can recalibrate 2026 policies. If Hinojosa and the Democratic slate prevail, Abbott’s increasingly restrictive moves beginning last Dec initially establish a policy floor. Even in this scenario, which is by no means a prediction, the new team will struggle to balance economic, environmental, and political pressures.
If Texas is considered the leading AI destination based on abundance (questionable) and business regulation (undoubtedly), California might be seen as the technological home. It would be naive to ignore the practical and political motives underpinning Governor Newsom’s executive order of last week (HERE). Even the US-China tech competition on display in New York City and Washington DC this week is framed by domestic and geopolitical tradeoffs (HERE). MIT Technology Review analysts also embrace the importance of getting past marketing and fearmongering to focus on policies designed to address national security and household concerns (HERE).
I reiterate a strong belief that only negotiation will maximize the potentially epic benefits of AGI. Those talks necessarily would require local, state, regional and national entities and of course to include Congress and the White House. Community equities led by public utility practices and prices, safety and governance regulation, safe harbor liability protection for labs and companies adhering to ‘common goods and national security protections, and transparent testing/disclosure rules are among those tough but required tradeoffs involved in broadly shared prosperity. This will be an arduous process given public and private stakes. But the alternative risks creating national security vulnerabilities and public disdain for innovation. None of these factors are advantageous for science, successful commercial competition, or constructive civics in domestic and international realms.
