This is a version of Atlantic Every day, a magazine that guides you through the top stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Register here.
The CEO of OpenAI signed a letter in 2023 admitting that AI could make humans extinct. Recently, the CEO of Anthropic said that AI will “test us as a species.” Most Americans seem to believe them: March opinion poll showed that the majority of voters think that the risks of technology are greater than the benefits. Now, as the midterm elections approach, top tech PACs are investing tens of millions of dollars to try to win that spirit.
To understand their strategy, consider the playbook developed by the cryptocurrency industry a few years ago. During the 2024 election cycle, crypto and venture capital firms poured money into a super PAC called Fairshake, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting pro-crypto candidates and trying to undercut anti-crypto candidates. The plan worked. Major politicians (Republicans and Democrats) supported by Fairshake and its affiliated PACs. failure their opponents; Congress has become less accepting of crypto; and the sector had a major policy breakthrough the following year.
AI-powered super-PACs now accept Fairshake examplebut under completely different conditions: About half of US adults say they use chatbots such as ChatGPT, but only slightly less one fifth say that they have used or invested in crypto. Both AIs are ubiquitous and a lot of mistrust. There are no major candidates advocating a ban. Instead, the question is how this industry should be regulated.
The two super-PAC groups offer two different answers. one, Leading the Futurewhich was co-founded by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, has adopted a light regulatory approach to AI, aimed at “identifying, maintaining, and promoting pro-AI candidates.” It has elevated over $140 million, receiving contributions from the VC firm’s founders as well as OpenAI President Greg Brockman. Guiding Future’s priorities seem to align with those of OpenAI. (The AI company recently released a statement break away from the main PAC.)
Meanwhile, OpenAI’s main rival, Anthropic, donated $20 million to the campaign: First Public Action, a nonprofit that works with super PACs to support candidates who focus on AI safety. (Anthropic has he said (that its contribution is earmarked for the group’s AI education initiatives and “cannot be used for federal election activities.”) The group touts its support for full control over a “move fast and break things” approach. It’s consistent with how Anthropic has described its priorities—the company has always positioned itself as a humane, security-focused alternative to the first and most recent OpenAI. is listed and Pete Hegseth’s Department of Defense after it refused to remove safeguards from its AI designs (the company is currently suing the government). One of the co-founders of Public First Action explained like ” anti-super PAC super PAC”—the perfect way to counter Future Leadership and its donors connected to Donald Trump.
A high-profile battle between the two has been going on in New York’s Twelfth District. Alex Bores, one of the leading candidates, is a former Palantir employee who left the company after renewing his contract with ICE; he has been running as a candidate who knows how to control Big Tech because it understands its potential. Leading the Future’s ads blown up to him for focusing on regulation, calling him a “hypocrite” who will suppress the development of AI. Politics calculates that groups associated with the technology industry have spent $26 million to ensure that Bores does not win. Meanwhile, Public First Action and other affiliated groups have spent $18 million to help him.
Political strategist Cooper Teboe told me that the New York race will “seem like the ultimate test” for this model of AI-powered political spending. If Leading the Future wins and Bores loses, the super PAC can double its sportsbook in future races. So far, the use of Leading the Future has undoubtedly given Bores more attention, and in some ways strengthened his appeal to critical AI voters. One of his campaign ads taunts an “AI super PAC” with an evil-sounding robot voice that tries to destroy him; The ad paints Bores as a standards-led alternative.
As the midterms approach, discussions about AI have intensified. Last month, when speakers at the University of Central Florida, the University of Arizona, and Middle Tennessee State University started talking about the importance of AI in the lives of graduates, they were met with a lot of noise. It’s worth watching video clip from events to get a sense of the surrounding feeling; these children hatred AI. People are especially suspicious of data centers: seven in 10 Americans they don’t want to see one built in their area. And the conversation has recently turned violent: Two months ago, an Indiana politician’s home was ransacked 13 times, and a handwritten note reading “No Data Centers” was left on his door.
The industry seems to be realizing that bigwigs like OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, who tend to talk about the potential of AI in the worst possible light, are incapable of representing the technology to a concerned electorate. The fight over control of AI could affect almost everyone in American society. Should AI processing power be taxed? Will data centers subsidize the restoration of the country’s power grid? Which cities should allow data centers to be built, and which should not? Voters will decide, but the industry—and its money—will be driving the conversation.
Related:
Here are three new stories from Atlantic:
Today’s news
- President Trump and Iranian officials offered conflicting accounts of what will happen to Iran’s nuclear sites; Trump said Iran had “fully and fully agreed” to allow nuclear inspections, which Tehran denied.
- France recorded it the hottest day in history today, as several European countries are also facing extreme temperatures.
- The The Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian man could not sue on religious grounds after a prison guard shaved off his dreadlocks.
Dispatches
Explore all our newsletters here.
Evening Read
Hero-Wizards of the Ukrainian Resistance
By Ken Harbaugh
For several months last year, the Ukrainian housewife, 35 and lonely in a marriage that was cold, exchanged WhatsApp messages with a Chechen commander, Achmad, stationed somewhere in southern Ukraine. They wrote about their days, their disappointments, what they hoped to do when the war ended. He asked about the front. He said to him.
“Send me a picture,” he said. “I want to see your life.”
One afternoon, he ordered—a photo taken inside the barracks, him and another soldier looking at the camera. Behind them, pinned to the wall, was a map of the compound showing the unit’s position.
More From Atlantic
Cultural Breakdown
Read on. Critics of the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy set up the American game: view the document dump. Kaitlyn Tiffany a new book it’s about women who went deep into investigating crimes.
Watch (or skip). Toy Story 5 (out now in theaters) confronts the nightmare of modern parenthoodDavid Sims writes.
Stephanie Bai go aheadis based on this journal.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for your support Atlantic.
