When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own. We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today? Democrats are putting AI executives on notice. Here’s an early look at their plans. You’ve probably been hearing a lot about data centers this week. Candidates in several races made regulating data centers a key part of their campaigns. Now, 40 ballot measures to slow or stop data centers have passed. And in an exit poll , when respondents were asked how important AI and data centers were in their vote for Congress, 56 percent answered that it was a “crucial or a major factor.” Data centers are the physical infrastructure that powers AI, and they’ve become deeply unpopular not just because of their noisiness, ugliness, or electricity demand , but because of what they symbolize: the acceleration of a technology that many Americans fear and that they feel Silicon Valley is foisting upon them. If you’re one of the Americans worried about AI — or just prefer a more serious regulatory approach over the hands-off, Trump White House approach — there’s a problem with confining your attention to data centers. Even a successful push against them won’t address the bigger issues around the technology. And picking off data center projects one by one will slow, but not stop, the buildout . AI companies will still find jurisdictions that are willing to let them build — it’ll just cost them more. The election outcome that matters far more, though it was far less trumpeted, is that voters just elected a new crop of leaders promising to actually push to regulate the tech itself. These are people who are concerned not just about AI’s physical infrastructure, but about AI regulation and safety. And they’ve signaled that they’ll push for laws that address the full spectrum of risks from AI — from cyber hacks and job losses all the way to bioweapons, power concentration, and even the possibility of human extinction. In fact, for AI watchers, one of the most striking things about this election cycle is how safety-pilled many candidates have become since the major AI hacks this summer. “If you go back before the summer, most conversations from policymakers around AI were at a very, very high level of abstraction. Few of them were focused on how these AI models may be highly capable and may pose rather unique risks,” Mackenzie Arnold, an analyst at the Institute for Law & AI, told me. “But there’s been a big shift.” The midterm results — and the Democrats’ stunning takeover of Congress — improve the odds of reining in AI. But now, the big question is: Can the new victors use the momentum they built up around data centers — the kitchen-table issue that initially brought many voters into the tent — and broaden out beyond that to mobilize for greater AI safety? They may have a lot of ideas, but are they any good? Among the newly elected Democrats, a striking number are very vocal about AI risks. And a few have clearly taken the time to educate themselves on the finer points. So before considering what concrete changes they can actually implement, it’s worth getting to know what they’ve proposed. Abdul El-Sayed , who won the Michigan Senate race, said that we need a “full-on pause” on frontier AI research. He’s also advocated for global coordination on a slowdown, including a treaty with China aimed at avoiding an arms race dynamic. He supports a ban on recursive self-improvement, where AI models build the next, even smarter AI models. He also wants a new federal safety agency that would inspect companies and block releases if necessary. Even if not all his ideas resonate with experts (like the simplistic idea of a “kill switch” for dangerous models), having him in the Senate means that AI safety advocates will have an easier time arguing for a pau
También lo cubren: vox.com - Vox (Estados Unidos).
Ver más en News Today