| It's no secret that AI is going to eat the world. It's just a matter of how quickly, and whether humans are guests at the table or the main course. |
| Spend even a few seconds on white-rights advocate Elon Musk's social media platform (or don't, for your own sanity), and you'll see that in recent days the debate over the looming outcomes of our artificial intelligence era has gained steam as the technology advances at a rapid pace. |
| It's all very complicated and hard to tell because, well, the folks creating AI large language models (the fancy name for what average people like us might call super-machines like ChatGPT or Claude) don't know how they work. These creations are doing things their makers can't explain, including blackmailing, lying, refusing to shut down and telling kids how to commit suicide. One even convinced a guy to try to kill Queen Elizabeth with a crossbow a few years ago. |
| And those are some of the problems we know about. Since there's exceedingly little transparency at most of these companies, who really knows what LLMs do in their spare time? |
| Republicans from President Trump on down have made it clear they have almost no interest in creating federal regulations that may provide safety or oversight of AI, because that could slow down the technology — by which they mean putting brakes on the the greed and arrogance of billionaires demanding they be allowed to reshape the world for profit without interference. |
| |
| If the Epstein files have taught us anything, it's that holding the powerful to account is deeply unpopular with the powerful, and most Republicans (though I'm still having trouble processing that Marjorie Taylor Greene is on the right side of history). |
| Which — if we manage to keep free and fair elections — means AI regulation is a Democratic problem. As much as little-d democracy is dominating this election cycle, the equally important issue of AI regulation is about to pop as a huge issue for the 2028 big-D presidential primary, including for our own California hopeful, Gov. Gavin Newsom. |
Human counter-punch |
| The AI reckoning came into focus recently when Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO, which represents more than 15 million American workers, made a rare appearance in Sacramento. |
| Shuler was lending support to Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Labor Federation, as Gonzalez accused Newsom of failing to include labor unions in discussions about AI regulation, especially around issues such as automation that will devastate human jobs. |
| "It's an issue that's been simmering under the surface, because it's technology, and people feel ill equipped to really understand it, but it is going to be hitting us hard and fast," Shuler warned. "Today is the wakeup call." |
| |
| While First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom has been an outspoken advocate for AI regulation especially around safety for kids, her husband — with long-standing ties to the tech industry — has trod a much more cautious line. California legislators have enacted some AI regulation, but with heavy involvement from Newsom and more than passing courtesy to the concerns of the industry's elite. |
| But the unified appearance of American labor in Sacramento (leaders from other states were also present) was a shot across the bow to let Newsom and other politicians know that unions want action on the issue — or else. |
| Winning elections requires two things — money, and humans to campaign. Unions have historically been those humans for Democrats, knocking on doors, making phone calls, getting voters to come to the polls. |
| While the general election in 2028 might be too consequential for unions to withhold support from a Democratic candidate, the primary is wide open, and where we can expect to see unions flex their might. |
| As Gonzalez pointed out, it would be hard to convince those millions of union-member volunteers to support a candidate who didn't care about their economic well-being; whether their jobs are replaced by AI; and whether their children and families are safe from its dangers. |
| Keep up with California | Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times. | | | | | |
| "I don't think you're going to have a lot of motivation to walk a lot of precincts for somebody who won't engage working-class voters on the very things that are taking away their jobs," Gonzalez warned. "It's an issue for every person who wants to run for president." |
Meet the moment with money |
| We're already seeing that pressure mount. The titans of the industry have started investing heavily in purchasing elections through massive influxes of cash. Remember Musk and his $250-million-plus investment in the Trump campaign? That was a test run for these guys. |
| The companies opposed to regulation are now targeting state-level campaigns in the hopes of not just blocking new laws but knocking out legislators who may propose them. One of those efforts, the super PAC Leading the Future, has already raised $125 million from sources including the backers of Palantir and OpenAI for the midterms — huge sums of money for races that were once often sleepy. |
| Meanwhile, some Democratic contenders for president and lesser offices are making artificial intelligence regulation key parts of their platforms — because voters do actually care about the issue. |
| A notable example of the building storm around Democrats is New York congressional hopeful Alex Bores, who has put out a comprehensive AI policy that covers the workforce, children's safety, data protection, deepfakes and more. |
| Bores, once an engineer at Palantir (the AI company involved in helping ICE), has earned the ire of his former bosses, and other tech bro heavyweights, by forcefully campaigning on regulation. |
| Leading the Future has made defeating him a priority. |
| Not to be outdone, Meta, fighting a pivotal lawsuit about its culpability with teens and social media addiction, also started multiple super PACs recently, dumping in tens of millions to support candidates — Republican or Democrat — who are against AI regulation (or at least any laws with teeth). |
| And though we're focusing on AI, let's not forget the crypto billionaires who are throwing millions of their own dollars at elections in the hopes of doing away with regulations in that industry, and potentially dissolving financial systems as we know them — another development certain to not harm average humans. |
| Despite all that cash, AI still can't ring a doorbell. Union members can, which means they aren't obsolete yet — and candidates including Newsom will need to at least hear them out. |
| And that means that 2026 will indeed be a showdown between the people who do the work — including around elections — and the billionaires who are outraged that those average Americans would want a say in their future. |
What else you should be reading |
| The must-read: Republicans, Braced for Losses, Push More Voting Restrictions in Congress
The deep dive: The 'Enigma': Why JD Vance Befuddles the World
The L.A. Times Special: Stephen Colbert escalates dispute with CBS over Talarico interview ban
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria |
| P.S. In my recurring effort to scare everyone into actively supporting secular democracy, here is our Defense secretary praying at the Pentagon with a guy who calls himself a theocrat and would like America to be ruled according to his interpretation of the Bible — which includes outlawing homosexuality and curtailing the vote to one per patriarchally ruled household. |
| —
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox. |
