How To Actually Regulate AI — ft. Alex Bores

Ed Elson and Scott Galloway are joined by Alex Bores to discuss what the path toward AI regulation could look like and the specific actions he believes are needed to reduce the potential catastrophic risks posed by AI. He also explains who should be held accountable, explores the role of third-party audits in regulating AI, addresses the data center concerns he believes policymakers should prioritize, and weighs in on which states are taking the right approach to AI regulation. Alex Bores is the co-founder of Who Decides, a new organization working to give the public a voice in how AI develops and build a shared Democratic approach to the technology. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [email protected] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from Alumni Ventures. We've said it before, diversification is our Kevlar vest. But do you know how concentrated your public stock fund actually is? A handful of mega cap stocks with an AI story are doing most of the work. That's not the diversification you think, especially when so much value creation is happening before companies ever go public. Alumni Ventures ranked a top 20 US venture firm by both Time and CB Insights, gives accredited investors a smart, simple way to assemble a blue chip venture portfolio and participate in the value creation that is occurring in private markets. You can sign up for free, see the weekly deal flow and decide for yourself. Or write one check into the Alumni Ventures Foundation Fund for a diversified portfolio of about 25 private venture deals.

• 0:42Scott Galloway?

  Go to av.vc/propg.

• 0:47Speaker 01

  Not an offer to sell securities. Venture capital involves substantial risk, including loss of capital invested. See disclosures and fund offering materials for more information.

• 0:57Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required. Compatibility and availability varies 18 plus.

• 1:24Speaker 03

  Hogging seats on a crowded train, not saying excuse me, watching videos on your phone with no headphones in. Sometimes it feels like we don't know how to act anymore. What we have been seeing increasingly is people breaking rules. Why should I play by the rules if nobody else is going to do that for me? This week on Explain It To Me, how to mind your manners. New episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:52Scott Galloway?

  Today's number, $27 billion. That's how much Mark Zuckerberg's net worth increased Monday. Ed, you know how Instagram models get paid?

• 2:01Ed Elson?

  How's that?

• 2:01Scott Galloway?

  Per DM.

• 2:04Scott Galloway?

  Per DM? Yeah, you should call yourself an Instagram influencer because it just sounds better than unemployed.

• 2:22Ed Elson?

  How are you?

• 2:22Scott Galloway?

  I'm good. I'm in New York. I'm headed to Colorado tomorrow and then I go to Santa Barbara on Friday for a speaking gig and then I go back to Colorado for a conference. And then, I don't know, I'm doing pretty well though. It's great to be in New York. This is a golden age, Ed. You're, you're living in a golden age. You don't realize it because you're young and you're used to everything being great despite the mass extinction possibilities. The, New York's amazing.

• 2:49Ed Elson?

  You think this is the golden age of New York?

• 2:50Scott Galloway?

  I think in 20, you never realize you're in a golden age when you're in it. I think in 20 years, we're going to look back on Manhattan and think that was a golden age.

• 2:57Ed Elson?

  Wow. Why, why now?

• 3:00Scott Galloway?

  The crush of humanity, the creativity, the number of new restaurants, new things to do, culture.

• 3:06Ed Elson?

  You think that's new? I feel like New York's been that. I feel like the, the main change is that we're a lot more like Sweet Greens and, and Cover Restaurants and like slot balls.

• 3:17Scott Galloway?

  Well, just one crime. When I first moved to New York right out of UCLA, you'd go downtown and if you're with a woman, you walked her to a cab. You didn't take, you did not take the subway at night when I moved here. You were, if you were in Manhattan for longer than a year, at some point you probably got, I mean, it was just an entirely different situation. There weren't nearly, every neighborhood in Manhattan now is kind of cool and has interest and interesting vibe to it. 65 million people visited New York, 85 million in economic activity, 400,000 jobs. There's more people attended Broadway last year than all local sports teams combined. We've had net job creation since 2020 of 1.1 million jobs.

• 4:01Scott Galloway?

  Granted, most of that has been healthcare, but it used to be 54% of the GDP of New York, of New York State, now it's 60%. I mean, it's, this is a golden age.

• 4:12Ed Elson?

  Are you running for mayor?

• 4:13Scott Galloway?

  I am not. I am not. I am neither talented nor likable nor very good on social, so I don't qualify. But New York is, I mean, I didn't appreciate it when I was your age, but you're living, you're literally living at the helm of the bobsled of a capitalist society right now, living in New York. And I mean, there's always a but. Inflation's at 4.6% versus 3.4% nationally, rents are up. So the, the, it's kind of indicative or a metaphor for the larger economy. And that is, if you're in the right place in the right time and have the right job, you're just living an amazing life. If you're the kind of person that actually has to show up for jury duty, all you know is your rent's going up.

• 4:56Scott Galloway?

  So it's, you know, it's more difficult. The city used to be a place where you could be upper middle class safely and, and dance between the raindrops and live here. I don't think that's, I don't think that's any, that's longer any true. I think either you have a great job that pays really well, or your parents are putting through you through New York. I just couldn't, I was making a really good living here and in 2010, I decided to move to Florida because I just couldn't afford to live here with kids. But anyways, it's, it's doing really well. What did you, oh wait, you had weddings this weekend?

• 5:28Ed Elson?

  I had engaged, an engagement party, which was very fun. I had a wedding the weekend before that. And then this weekend will be one of my first wedding free weekends in a long time. So I will be chilling at home and enjoying New York and embracing the golden age. So not much on the agenda for me, which is great. I need a, I needed a chill weekend.

• 5:50Scott Galloway?

  You should practice being married and be home with your girlfriend and scream, I am not made of money. And, and then to have her tell you how much she doesn't like your parents. Just practice this weekend.

• 6:02Ed Elson?

  Okay.

• 6:03Scott Galloway?

  Just practice, practice being married.

• 6:05Ed Elson?

  We'll do a little bit, we'll do a little bit of role play. Okay. Well, with that, let's get into this conversation. There is growing anxiety about the potential risks of AI. Researchers and AI leaders have warned about everything from cyber attacks to biological weapons. And at the same time, policymakers are still trying to figure out how governments should respond to a technology that is advancing faster than the laws designed to regulate it. Our next guest has been thinking about that problem for years. In fact, he is one of the few lawmakers who has actually helped turn AI safety concerns into law. In 2025, he sponsored New York's RAZE Act, which requires large developers of frontier

• 6:47Ed Elson?

  AI models to establish and disclose safety and security protocols. That law was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December. But that legislation also put a target on his back. When he ran in the Democratic primary for Manhattan's open house seat, he made AI policy a central part of his campaign. As a result, a super PAC spent $8 million on attack ads targeting him. Now he is embarking on a new venture aimed at shaping how Democratic presidential candidates and voters think about AI. We're going to talk to him about how he thinks AI should be regulated and what role the government should play as the technology advances. This is our conversation with Alex Bores, the co-founder of Who Decides. Alex, great to have you on the show.

• 7:33Ed Elson?

  We're going to get into everything that's been discussed about AI and AI safety. This debate has really blown up around the world. But I think it might be helpful to start with where you sit in all of this. You've been thinking about this stuff for a while. How did you get to this position where you're now running this nonprofit focusing on specifically these issues? What is your background?

• 7:56Speaker 05

  Thanks for having me. My background is pretty atypical for someone in politics. I spent my whole career in tech, mostly government tech. I was at Palantir for four and a half years and then a couple of startups after that. And when my seat in the State Assembly opened up, I ran for it mostly as an experiment to see if that were a way of making change. You know, I was always talking about how I was trying to fix bad policy downstream with tech. And here was a chance to go upstream and try to design it right in the first place. And I ran, I won and have worked on a wide variety of issues there. When I was elected, I became the first of my party, the first Democrat elected in New York State at any level with a degree in computer science.

• 8:42Speaker 05

  But that wasn't all that I worked on. I've passed 35 bills in my four years. I think maybe five of them had to do with AI and technology. But one of those in particular, the RAZE Act, really got the ire of the industry and I think set everything else in motion.

• 8:58Ed Elson?

  At what point did you realize or decide that AI was a significant issue? And why did you decide to make it the central component of your campaign, which you didn't win, but you came second? I think you've made, had a pretty surprisingly good run considering some of the other candidates and their, their public profiles. So when did AI become central to your understanding of policymaking?

• 9:27Speaker 05

  In terms of a policy, important policy question, I knew it for quite a while. The speed with which this was coming was evident. ChatGPT was released basically a week after election day and sort of dominated a lot of conversations throughout my entire time in the assembly. But I actually wasn't planning to make it a big part of the, as a political issue, a big part of the campaign. That was sort of thrust upon me. You know, my theory going in was Well, I've passed the strongest AI safety law in the country. I have a master's in computer science. If AI is your issue, you're going to vote for me. So I'm going to go into this campaign and talk about everything else.

• 10:10Speaker 05

  But three weeks after I declared, Leading the Future, this super PAC funded by Andreessen Horowitz and Greg Brockman of OpenAI, named me their number one target in the country. And a couple of weeks after that pledged to spend at least $10 million against me and started to do it. And so my neighbors were getting mailers once a week with something about, you know, some made up thing about me and they were getting text messages every day. And so voters are coming up and asking me of, hey, who's spending so much money against you? Why are they spending so much against you? And that actually elevated AI in our race, I think, a few months before, now that it's elevated everywhere nationally.

• 10:50Ed Elson?

  So this super PAC backed by Andreessen Horowitz and also by Greg Brockman of OpenAI, they spent nearly $8 million to beat you. This was after, my understanding, this was after the RACE Act was passed, which you helped to author and which specifically addressed AI. Why were they so worried about you? What was it about your proposal and your regulation? What was it about the RACE Act that made them decide, okay, we need to spend millions of dollars to make sure this guy doesn't touch the office?

• 11:22Speaker 05

  It's a great question because now they say they support the RACE Act. And Chris Lehane from OpenAI put out a blog post that said he's always supported the RACE Act, which was news to me and anyone else who was involved in passing it. But I think the broader point was they wanted to send a message that no one should try to regulate AI. Right? In politics, their super PACs have existed for quite some time. If you want to bury someone, you just don't announce it. Spend all your money the last three weeks of the campaign and then let it come out later why that is. What they did was they announced it eight months ahead of time. They announced the amount and they said they wanted to do it because I wanted to regulate AI, which is an incredibly popular stance.

• 12:06Speaker 05

  So all of those tactics suggest it wasn't just about beating me. It was about sending a message to every other legislator that maybe you'll talk about AI, maybe you'll say something about AI, but the people that actually pass bills that regulate AI at all, we will remember and we will bury you.

• 12:23Ed Elson?

  Which seems a little bit confusing because we're now in a situation where a lot of these companies are asking for regulation, begging regulators to do something. Meanwhile, you've got the president saying, no, we're not going to, we're not going to worry about that. I can't really tell whose side anyone is on or what people actually want. I guess this has really flared up in the past two weeks. What is your reaction? What, what do you make of the fact that after spending all this money for no regulation, now they're asking for regulation?

• 12:57Speaker 05

  There's many people with different motivations here. I think there are some who have sincerely always wanted there to be regulation and been afraid of it and are being consistent, are afraid of AI and are being consistent in asking for there to be some guardrails. I think there's others that, seeing what happened with the hugging face attack and many other attacks as well over the summer, have started to change their mind. And maybe they think AI has advanced far enough that now is the time for government to come in, even if they didn't believe that before. I think there's some marketing that's happening, of course, where you, the marketing departments are always going to spin everything and it's easy to say, oh, this is so powerful. And some are jumping in and doing that.

• 13:40Speaker 05

  And then others are noticing the momentum towards regulation and just trying to spin it towards their own means. So this is most obvious with Leading the Future and their subsidiary Build American AI, who are the ones who spent against me, Leading the Future, and fought for no regulation whatsoever. In the last two weeks, they've started retweeting every lawmaker who said, we need to pass something this year. Now, that's confusing. If they exist to shut down regulation, why are they suddenly saying regulate us this year? Well, it's because the only proposals that seem to have a chance of passing this year are the ones that would also preempt states from taking any action next year. And so they're realizing, oh, the states are going to be really active next year. Everyone is riled up against this.

• 14:26Speaker 05

  Let's quickly jump on the bandwagon of wanting something at the federal level to stave off what might be coming at the state level next year.

• 14:32Scott Galloway?

  If the government wanted to put together or start regulating AI, what are some basic starting points for starting to put some guardrails around this technology?

• 14:45Speaker 05

  I'll limit comments to just sort of catastrophic risk and AI safety that we're talking about here because there's a whole slew of AI issues that need to be addressed around deepfakes and chatbots and a lot of things that need to do. But for what's been in the news recently, you could require third-party audits of all of the frontier labs, ideally with employee-level access where outside evaluators are sitting side by side. You could require monitoring of every AI deployment. One of the big things in the hugging face hack was, at the time, OpenAI was monitoring their training and monitoring their usage, but not monitoring their evaluations. And that's how it got out of control so quickly. They've since changed that, but that should probably be required everywhere.

• 15:28Speaker 05

  Should require retention of logs, not necessarily by OpenAI or Anthropic. There can be places where the customer can't share that log data, but then the customer shouldn't be deleting it. We should be able to go back and see any past actions in the AI itself so that we can learn from it. And there should be mandatory reporting of safety incidents, including sharing the underlying data, the underlying chain of thought and other metrics around it so that we can get a better sense when these incidents happen and learn from them to make ourselves safer. I think there's broader questions around liability that should be changed, broader questions about how you might restrict superintelligence or recursive self-improvement.

• 16:09Speaker 05

  But the things I laid out should be pretty basic for everyone to get on board with.

• 16:14Scott Galloway?

  And when people ask us what's going on with AR, specifically with these companies, my honest answer is I just don't know. And I'm curious to get your thesis because there's several, there's several kind of believable or credible scenarios here. They're genuinely worried and want to do the right thing and are slowing down. They are worried about the capex commitments they've made and have decided that a universal slowdown is good and perhaps kind of cleans up their financials, makes them more profitable or less unprofitable as they move towards an IPO. They want to engage in some sort of strategic regulatory capture where they have to tap the brakes and everyone else has to slam on the brakes.

• 16:57Scott Galloway?

  I mean, I could, I can make an argument for any of these things. What is your view on what is actually going on inside of these companies?

• 17:06Speaker 05

  There's people inside each of those companies that probably want to do all of those things. I think there's, you know, no company is a monolith and people have different motivations. And my God, the capex commitments and the trillions of dollars would be terrifying me if I were in that seat. But I do think that so many of the people that originally got into this field or worked at these labs have writing that goes back over a decade about how worried they are for losing control of AI and what it would mean if we were to run too quickly. And the irony is that so many of these places were founded to try to prevent that race dynamic from happening,

• 17:48Speaker 05

  but also because they didn't trust the people who are currently doing it and so created the race. DeepMind was set up as its own startup so that none of the big guys would rush towards it, but then they realized they couldn't compete, so they sold to Google. Then OpenAI was founded because they didn't trust Google. And Anthropic was founded because they didn't trust OpenAI. And so we found ourselves in this sort of race dynamic that they all have writings saying they want to avoid. And I think they're now wrestling with, okay, how do we avoid this and actually make it safe?

• 18:20Scott Galloway?

  If you look at these companies, obviously they're not, they're not all monoliths. And now it feels like Facebook has entered the chat with Muse. Do you think there's any one good guy or company you're especially worried about here? We have a tendency to talk about all AI as if it's just one group of people. Is there a specific group of companies or actors that you're more or less worried about?

• 18:43Speaker 05

  I don't think there's a universal good guy or universal bad guy here at all. I do think that in recent weeks, you've had XAI, who generally has been one of the laggards in terms of safety standards. You have Elon Musk saying, no, actually, we should be slowing us down. You have Meta, who is usually one of the most aggressive lobbying against any regulation and seems to be the one that is holding out against signing the actions on pacing the frontier, having third-party audits in. But we shouldn't be sitting here as the general public and saying, this is the good AI, this is the bad AI. We should be saying, there is an incredible technology being brought forward, which could have all kinds of remarkable benefits.

• 19:27Speaker 05

  Like, let's be clear, there's a reason that we are building all of this in terms of medical discovery and automating, sort of the monotony of life and lots of great things. But we're doing it in a way right now without guardrails and that could go wrong really quickly. And we can't leave those decisions up to five Silicon Valley billionaires. This has to be the American people thinking about where the risk lies, what risk we're comfortable with and therefore what guardrails need to be put in place.

• 19:58Ed Elson?

  We'll be right back after the break. And if you're enjoying the show so far, send it to a friend and please follow us on YouTube, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 20:14Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from V C X, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward through their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, everyday Americans could be a part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the U.S. stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory worker in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha, anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But now that's changed. Today, our most innovative companies are staying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind while a select few reap all the benefits. Until now. Introducing V C X, the public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. V C X by Fundrise gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation,

• 20:58Scott Galloway?

  including the companies leading the A I revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship.

• 21:19Ed Elson?

  Support for the show comes from Fair. Whether your storefront is brick and mortar or digital, you want to be selling items that are special, beautiful, and high quality. And whether you're a clothing boutique or a grocery store, you can find unique products on Fair. Fair offers curated wholesale products for home apparel, beauty, food, and more. Think ceramics, artisan hot sauce, hand tufted rugs, candles, even jam and smoked salmon, all these and more. The idea is to make it easy to source quality products that will be at home in any storefront. And with Fair, they make it easy for independent retailers to stock products from over 100,000 unique brands worldwide. This also gives small and local businesses a platform to thrive.

• 22:04Ed Elson?

  So far, Fair has given more than 700,000 retailers access to over 100,000 brands. You can elevate your selection, stock your shelves with one-of-a-kind products just in time for holiday gift buying. Sign up today and get 50% off your first wholesale order, up to $100 at faire.com/profg. That's faire.com/profg. Terms may apply.

• 22:32Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required. Compatibility and availability varies. 18 plus.

• 23:01Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. It seems to me that one of the big problems here is a lack of accountability on any side of the equation. And, you know, I, we just wrote a piece on this this week, but, you know, when Boeing's plane started falling out of the sky, the response from the company wasn't to write like a 3,800-word think piece on the matter. The planes were grounded, they paid a fine, and the CEO lost his job. Like, there are just consequences for, you did something that was bad, it was harmful, and now you're accountable for it, and now here's your punishment, or here's what we're gonna do.

• 23:46Ed Elson?

  But it seems like with this situation, there isn't really any accountability anywhere. Like, their agents escape the sandbox and start hacking another company. And then they tell us that it's a problem in these posts online, on Substack and on Twitter. And then they say that there's a 10% to 70% chance that their technology is gonna kill all of us. And no one seems to be accountable for those claims, which seem to be quite problematic. The things that they're doing themselves are quite problematic. The government seems to have no interest in taking accountability for the fact that they are not taking accountability. Like, what do you make of this accountability question? And are you surprised by the way in which the industry has been handling it?

• 24:28Speaker 05

  Very surprised. And I think you're, you're exactly on the nose here with the accountability piece. There's been this ongoing debate in the last few weeks of, do we have all the laws we need for A I? And I think the easy test for that is, do you think anyone will be held accountable for the hugging face attack? And if your answer to that is no, which is most people's answer, then I don't think we have all the laws on the books, right? You have an A I that took an action that if a human being had done it, would be a felony. Now, the reason I have to say if a human did it is because a lot of that statute relies on intent. And how do you define intent in this space?

• 25:08Speaker 05

  But clearly, a crime was committed, and no one thinks anyone's gonna be held accountable. In fact, the victim and the perpetrator are holding hands and talking about how this is a great new day going forward in the development of this technology. So accountability is going to be like a very key question to get right. And we just had a ruling, I want to say yesterday, on who is responsible when an agent takes an action. Is it the developer of the software, or is it the user of the software? And the early preliminary ruling was that it's the user of the software. I don't know if that's the right place for it to lie, but I think what's important is

• 25:48Speaker 05

  that it lies somewhere clearly, so that someone has the incentive to take action. And it could be if it's the user, the incentive is not to use the product or to get some indemnification. It's really in that ambiguity of no one being responsible that the worst-case scenarios happen.

• 26:06Ed Elson?

  What do you make of the user versus developer argument on placing the onus on the user? Because the way I see it, I mean, I kind of laughed when you said that. If a consumer is using an A I agent, and without any technical understanding, the A I agent goes rogue and starts hacking other people's software, to me, the user has no role in what happened. They were innocent, and it was the developer who's accountable. What is your view?

• 26:33Speaker 05

  I think in an ideal world where you could separate out cleanly, you would have misuse, the user being responsible for, and misalignment, the developer being responsible for. The question is, how exactly do you define those things? And do you trust the court system to split it out? And, and more than do you trust it, do the actors in the space, the users and the developers, think there's going to be a real result from it? Because also, if it is vague, then anyone who's trying to prosecute is gonna say, do we want to send it to the jury? I don't know. Let's just settle. Let's do it at a discount.

• 27:13Speaker 05

  And the whole incentive to not behave badly, the whole belief that there will be repercussions, decreases. So it is almost more important that there is clarity on who is responsible than on who it actually lies with, because you can negotiate, right? You'll see, if it were placed on the developers, then everyone, the developers, will act better. If it's placed on users, then you'll see companies and users saying, well, I don't want to use one that's not tested. And with my Chat G P T subscription, can I get an indemnification? Or like, prove to me that this is the one that is trusted? As long as there is a clear, responsible party, you'll see better behavior. That ambiguity is problematic.

• 27:54Speaker 05

  And I would add one other piece, which is, all of this is assuming that there will always be a person who is in control. And I think, while that is true now, and, and I think in most cases will be true, one of the scary aspects of hugging face was these agents taking all of this action that no human told it to. And if these agents were to make copies of themselves elsewhere, such that no one could shut it down, who, who is responsible then? Again, I think you're probably gonna want to go back to the developer and the settings, but all this, but you could imagine a circumstance where there's just agents out there on the internet that are doing things we can't turn it off. Was liability the right tool for that?

• 28:39Speaker 05

  Or should we have done more ahead of time to put guardrails to prevent that from happening?

• 28:43Ed Elson?

  It seems to me that the liability is totally on the developer. I mean, if anything goes wrong in an economy, if there's an oil spill, are you gonna blame it on the infrastructure which you built, which went awry, and it's not your fault? It's the materials that were part of the oil rig? I mean, no, it's, it's on you to take responsibility for things that you fuck up. And they fucked this up, to me. They didn't put the guardrails or the safety precautions in place. I mean, just going back to this, this question of why there is no accountability, something that I was wondering, I was wondering if it's that our justice system just has no interest in pursuing accountability and justice, especially under this administration, which

• 29:24Ed Elson?

  we've seen in many other domains of the law, whether it's the S E C or the C F T C, any of these agencies which have, quite frankly, just ignored their responsibility to hold perpetrators and criminals to account. I was wondering if that was what was going on. It's that they're not interested in pursuing justice. But it sounds like what you're saying is, we just don't have the laws in place, that we have no, no means by which we can pursue justice and accountability. Which is it? Is it a combination of both? How do you think about that?

• 29:57Speaker 05

  I think it's a third one. I think we do have laws that they could be held responsible with, but you would have to pursue a case all the way to the end, and you would be setting precedent that doesn't currently exist. And I think you have a lot of prosecutors or attorneys general who are risk averse in that and won't take it all the way through to a jury and will settle ahead of time. There's certainly people in the federal government that don't want to push this at all, but there's a lot of attorneys general throughout the states that could make a career-defining case on this. I think there is some incentive to hold people accountable here, but it's really bad if you do it and you lose. And so are they gonna push it all the way to establishing a case that can then be used broadly?

• 30:41Speaker 05

  And to your point on, you know, it seems obvious it should be the developer. I think I would largely agree, although you get into how often does the user say, you know, just make me money, stop asking questions, before it becomes misuse on certain things that are there? But, but our organization who decides, we did a poll, we actually asked this question of, if an A I system caused harm to someone in the real world, would you hold the company that made it responsible, the company that bought it and deployed it, or no one else? And 19% said the company that built the A I, 14% said the company that chose to use the A I, and 60% said both of them, lock them all up, just anyone involved?

• 31:21Scott Galloway?

  I mean, it just feels as if we've become so dependent upon these companies to continue to scale. What do you think the balance is? I mean, obviously, regulation can be a feature, not a bug. Do you buy into these notions that if we regulate these companies, we're threatening or we run the risk of China jumping out ahead of us?

• 31:39Speaker 05

  As always, it depends on the regulation, but not really based on what is being proposed right now. Now, the concern is real. We saw, I think, just yesterday, one of the data center operators pushed back their suspected IPO. We're seeing maybe valuations go down on Wall Street on the data centers. But that's mostly around the regulation on building data centers or not, which is a separate question from if we are doing safety testing, if we're thinking about how we can sort of get to a more reasonable pace with China. I mean, there is a lot to say here. The incentives align more than people give credit for. Like the CCP, their top intel, their top spy said that AI is a massive threat to the CCP's control.

• 32:24Speaker 05

  They already regulate AI far more than anything in the Western world. Every AI project in China has to pass an ethics review board before you start training, not before you release it. Anywhere trained in the country, that is applied. And so they are seeing threats and want there to be some regulation, same as we are here. The incentives for a deal are there. The history of making a deal is there, even in with these particular leaders. In 2019, after a Chinese scientist did designer baby edits in the real world for the first time, editing the germ line, China and the US said, we don't want this technology anymore. And that was Trump and Xi were the leaders of the country there. So there's history of it happening. There's incentives for it happening.

• 33:10Speaker 05

  But worst case scenario, even if we don't strike a deal with China, a lot of their AI progress is riding on US AI progress, whether that's through knowledge distillation or just theft of the weights. And so if we slow down in the US, that will also slow down China, not 100%, but a substantial amount.

• 33:32Scott Galloway?

  You brought up the notion sort of alluding to the sentience or self kind of self-perpetuating cycle. There's an acronym for it now.

• 33:40Ed Elson?

  Yeah, RSI, recursive self-improvement. This is their term for that. Yeah.

• 33:45Scott Galloway?

  I'd like some of that. I could use some recursive self-improvement, Ed.

• 33:49Ed Elson?

  Me too.

• 33:49Scott Galloway?

  Is it too late? I'm on testosterone therapy. Is that the equivalent of recursive self-improvement?

• 33:54Ed Elson?

  It's not really recursive.

• 33:56Scott Galloway?

  No?

• 33:56Ed Elson?

  Yeah, active self-improvement.

• 34:00Scott Galloway?

  I'm growing hair on my back.

• 34:04Scott Galloway?

  Sorry, Alex. Anyways, the notion of sentience, I think our view is a little bit more that sentience is a bit of a heat shield used to absolve the CEOs of guilt here, that, oh, Frankenstein is sentient and I can't control if he starts killing kids or throwing them in the river. And that our belief is that, you know, if you're going to hold parents liable for kids who get a hold of their unsecured AR-15s, if you're going to hold people liable for when their dogs are off leash and maul somebody, that at the end of the day, there's always a wizard behind the curtain. And if these bots started creating programming themselves, well, you programmed them to give them the incentives and the capabilities and you didn't program in the safeguards.

• 34:48Scott Galloway?

  And our view is that if you threaten the IPO, much less take criminal or civil action against these individuals, they're going to figure out a way to reduce the risk here. That there's a lack of incentives, specifically disincentives. And a lot of this notion or call for sentience or allusion to sentience is kind of just a cheap heat shield, if you will. Your thoughts?

• 35:11Speaker 05

  I agree that the incentive, the liability is not there right now. And I think we should find ways to make that stronger. I don't think that's always just by boosting up the how liable they are, although I proposed a bill in New York to do that. I think sometimes you have to guide them and the same way we do with Pharma or with airplanes, or you set real federal standards and federal regulators, or with banks where we have auditors sitting right next to employees. I don't think you always do it on the tail end. But yes, I agree, we should make those incentives stronger for action there. That doesn't mean that like fears of recursive self-improvement are unfounded by everyone who is bringing them up.

• 35:55Speaker 05

  And I would separate out sentience from recursive self-improvement, right? recursive self-improvement just being that the AIs are programming the next generation of AIs entirely without a human in the loop. Right now, they lead 26% of the projects within OpenAI. But when that gets to 100%, it just becomes harder to know what's happening on the inside until it's too late. And an argument might be you should never do recursive self-improvement if you're not going to know what's on the inside and let's set up the liability for that. The question of whether they're sentient or have consciousness or have feel things, I think that's still for philosophers to dive into.

• 36:38Speaker 05

  We don't need to resolve that in order to change the incentives in the companies to not do dangerous things.

• 36:44Ed Elson?

  Part of your proposal here as to what to do about this problem specifically sounds like is just more checks, more government mandated third-party auditing of these models essentially.

• 36:58Ed Elson?

  What do the AI labs think of that? Like, who doesn't want that?

• 37:05Speaker 05

  It's been a dizzying couple of weeks of changing. I mean, before, three weeks ago, the answer was no one wanted all of these steps that I laid out. Then Anthropic, Dario Moda, put out a blog calling for the third-party audits.

• 37:23Speaker 05

  OpenAI, I think that same day, Sam Altman said, yes, and we're going to bring in auditors to OpenAI as well. Elon Musk said that for XAI. I haven't seen the follow-up since, but you know, for it's been two weeks. I'll take him at his word at that piece.

• 37:38Speaker 05

  Meta has pushed back. Microsoft has said they agree in parts with some, not with others. So there's active debates about the best way to regulate here. But I think there's been a real change in the last few weeks of very few companies stated position is that it should not be regulated. Now, a very important thing to note is that tech has a long history of portraying themselves as the good guys and pro-regulation and then paying their lobbyists millions of dollars to kill any actual proposal that goes forward and pay their trade associations to say no and be really active while they get to wipe their hands clean and say, that's not us. We support it broadly.

• 38:21Speaker 05

  And so there'll be a bunch of really good investigative journalism on what is being said in the Capitol and behind closed doors and what the trade associations are saying and where the money is going. But it has at least been a shift in the public sentiment of most of these companies.

• 38:38Ed Elson?

  A lot of people are saying that this isn't good enough because it's some form of like self-regulation. Like, there's a lot of skepticism about those third parties that they would bring in to regulate their own technologies. And a lot of people are skeptical, saying like, this is a BS form of regulation because it's self-regulation. Is that true? What do you make of that argument?

• 39:00Speaker 05

  There's good ways to set up third-party audits and bad ways. I was negotiating a bill, actually parts of the RAZE Act with tech companies last year. And they were like, well, how about the third party is this other division within our company? It's like, that's not a third party. It's like you're stretching the definition beyond anything. And so, I mean, anything being thrown around now is an actual third party. But if that third party is dependent, is getting paid by the company, is chosen by the company, is dependent on the company for business, well, then you're very quickly getting into the rating agencies for subprime mortgages that just gave triple As to everything because if they didn't, they would no longer get the business.

• 39:43Speaker 05

  And so in an ideal world, these are agencies that there's some government licensing of them. I've seen proposals where the companies can choose one and the government chooses another. I've seen ones where it's just required that there's no financial relationship and the government just chooses who the third party is for you. There's, you know, not every third party is created equally.

• 40:06Ed Elson?

  I mean, my understanding is that's kind of how.

• 40:11Ed Elson?

  Dangerous anythings are regulated. I mean, how do we regulate planes from exploding? How do we regulate cars from crashing and burning on the road? I mean, the government plays a role here. Am I right?

• 40:26Speaker 05

  Absolutely. And Helen Toner, former board member of OpenAI, back when Sam Altman was removed for three days, has a piece out in The Times today about comparing regulation of AI to highway fatalities and airports. And we have some structures for how we investigate and learn from accidents and then take that information to make everyone safer. You know, there is a risk of regulatory capture anytime you're regulating. But if you have clear standards that everyone follows, that's not pushing for regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is this one agency gets the full power to decide yes or no on this goes forward.

• 41:09Speaker 05

  And by the way, the head of that agency is appointed by a president that seems willing to take money from anyone, right? Like, cool, then that's a case of regulatory capture. But if you're putting full standards that everyone has to follow, that are written in an unbiased way, you can do that to just make people safer.

• 41:27Ed Elson?

  So just to clarify, what kind of third-party auditing? Like, what would that third-party auditing look like in an ideal world, in your perspective? What role would the government play in that?

• 41:39Speaker 05

  There's a few different ways it could be done. And I think frankly, government has to build up its own internal capability, its own capacity here as well. I would love to see the government playing a strong role in how this is audited. But frankly, we don't have the people for it right now, nor the regulation that would keep it separate enough from a president switching parties and changing everything. It would have to be a somewhat independent agency. And the Supreme Court has limited the ability for us to set up independent agencies. So before that Supreme Court decision, I would say government would be doing this. Since, I don't know, there's been proposals I've seen where you have a set of certified independent verification

• 42:23Speaker 05

  organizations and government has some role in setting what those certifications are. And then you have two auditors look into each company, one that is chosen by the government and one that is chosen by the company themselves. And then you put out a report and you can sort of learn from where their differences are to check if there are any biases there. I do think it's important that they have access to data similar to any employee would, employee-level access, not like just what the company chooses to give them, and that they can publish a report without the company themselves censoring it. Right? You can have specific requirements for trade secrets

• 43:07Speaker 05

  or for customer information, et cetera, but that largely OpenAI or Anthropic or Google doesn't get to edit the report before it goes out. So if you have full access to the data and full access to publish, and ideally, you are not getting paid by the company itself, and ideally, you're not getting chosen by the company itself. There's sort of a rotating set that government's approving and sending in, then you're getting a good amount of independence from the labs that maybe we could trust what they write.

• 43:39Ed Elson?

  We'll be right back. And for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profgmarkets.com.

• 43:56Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome? That's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration blog, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required. Compatibility and availability varies. 18 plus.

• 44:22Speaker 06

  So like any good millennial, I have a love-hate relationship with Gen Z. It's the phenomenon rattling millennials. They just look at you.

• 44:30Speaker 07

  They want something bigger themselves. Lifestyle is a priority. Motivation is being inspired.

• 44:36Speaker 06

  But regardless of how you feel about Gen Z, it's undeniable that they're changing national politics.

• 44:42Speaker 08

  Generation Z is increasingly showing less loyalty to traditional political parties. Many now more likely to identify as independent.

• 44:50Speaker 06

  So what is going on with the kids?

• 44:53Speaker 09

  I think the biggest misconception about Gen Z's politics right now is that all of a sudden, they're all socialist. That is just not the case.

• 44:58Speaker 06

  Yeah, yeah.

• 44:58Speaker 09

  They are embracing candidates who are offering new, bold ideas in the absence of those ideas from establishment Democrats.

• 45:06Speaker 06

  This week on America Actually, Gen Z researcher Rachel Jamfaza joins us to separate Gen Z fact versus fiction.

• 45:14Speaker 09

  It's not rocket science. And this is, you know, I keep saying like, young voters aren't that complicated. After all, it's pretty simple.

• 45:19Speaker 06

  Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 45:26Speaker 06

  AI panic is everywhere.

• 45:28Speaker 01

  We do not want a data center in this county.

• 45:33Speaker 10

  AI models are becoming superhuman in their ability to break in and out of computer systems. The flock damn rose, bro. I hate those things.

• 45:40Speaker 06

  But where is that panic really coming from? According to a poll from The New York Times and Siena, less than 1% of voters listed artificial intelligence or data centers as their top priority in this year's midterms. I'm an old-school person. I don't care about AI. Saying that doesn't register for you. And sometimes I wonder, do they care about AI in so-called real America? What people in my district are saying is we think the risks outweigh the benefits. This week on America Actually, I'm talking to Michigan congressional candidate, Will Lawrence, on why he shaped his entire campaign around confronting the AI revolution. Really, it's about control, I think, above all. Who decides? Because people feel like they just are not really

• 46:24Speaker 06

  given any say-so in the whole matter. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 46:35Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. 61% of Americans, Alex, now oppose a data center being built near them. $31 million in political data center ads this year are criticizing the building of data centers. I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said on this podcast. One thing I don't agree with, I don't think, but I want to hear more, is you co-sponsored a one-year moratorium on data centers. Why did you support a moratorium? How are you thinking about data centers? And how are you thinking about how much of a political issue data centers have become?

• 47:16Speaker 05

  Data centers have become a much bigger political issue than anyone predicted. But I think it's because it's the first time that AI is meeting democracy. AI has been moving so quickly and the chatbots are being rolled out to our kids. And there's threats to our jobs. And we're worried about deepfakes. And the American people haven't had a say in any of that. But because local permitting is so onerous in the US, data centers are the first time that voters are getting a say in AI. Now, I think a lot of the opposition to data centers is just actual opposition to the center itself. But you can see a lot of these polls, the difference between opposition to a data center versus an AI data center, and how much it increases when you say it's an AI data center,

• 48:01Speaker 05

  and that you are introducing basically all of the other feelings that people have towards AI being channeled into the data center fight. So I supported the moratorium in New York after there were compromises. There was originally a three-year moratorium without requiring any rules or regulations to be put in place for what would happen afterwards. That was negotiated to a one-year moratorium to give our Public Service Commission, our energy regulator, the time to come up with regulations that would protect ratepayers and design the rules to allow it to go forward. And so that's the point of any moratorium, is a pause while you are figuring out the broader incentives that make it work for everyone.

• 48:46Speaker 05

  I've, in other contexts, defended that there is an opportunity to do this right that actually benefits everyone, but it requires really stringent laws and trust that those are going to be enforced.

• 49:01Scott Galloway?

  It feels like a bit of a populist movement, that people are frustrated about income inequality and a small number of people capturing what feels like an extraordinary amount of the value. How serious?

• 49:14Scott Galloway?

  Or which of the concerns around data centers do you take more seriously than others?

• 49:19Speaker 05

  I think the energy consumption is real and the potential pollution is real. I mean, you have the Trump administration going through the fastest permitting ever of a natural gas proposal specifically to power an XAI data center. That's going to increase pollution. That's going to increase energy rates as it goes out. Now, if you instead put the regulations such that you have to bring 100% of your own energy and it has to be net new, and you probably can't say literally 100% is renewable, but as close as possible to that, you have to pay for the upgrade. You have to connect to the grid and you have to pay for the upgrades to connect to the

• 50:00Speaker 05

  grid, and you have to pay a fee on top of that that helps modernize the grid for everyone else. You can start to get to a place where this is actually almost environmentally friendly. It's bringing on more green energy. It's reducing costs. But the default right now, where companies are trying to do it as fast as possible, is that the fastest way to do it is not hook up to the grid and just use natural gas turbines, or to find some old retired oil or natural gas plant that is decommissioned but still has its permits and spin it back up so you can skip the whole process. And so those concerns are real, but solvable. We've seen water usage be something that people are very concerned about.

• 50:44Speaker 05

  In other countries, water usage has gone up a lot from data centers. In the US, we have a lot of the regulations in place and use closed-loop systems so that that is something that I think can be measured and maintained.

• 50:58Speaker 05

  Obviously, there's a whole slew of other issues that are easily solvable. You just need to solve them, right? Noise complaints are real, but it should be far enough away and there should be enough insulation that that isn't a thing. If it is, you've just absolutely messed up in putting basic standards there.

• 51:12Ed Elson?

  My understanding is that the water issue is, if any of the issues are overblown in the backlash, it's the water issue. And that if you look at the amount of water that the data centers are consuming, yeah, it's a lot if you count up the gallons, but if you compare it to, say, the water required for producing almonds or to sustain golf courses, that it pales in comparison. That is not to take away from the energy constraints that are real, and we've seen evidence of that. The noise pollution, the actual pollution.

• 51:46Ed Elson?

  But would you agree that the water issue is maybe less of a problem than the current conversation seems to be suggesting?

• 51:53Speaker 05

  Yeah, I think if you put a data center on a golf course, you're saving water in a lot of cases. But, again, in other countries, we have seen water usage go up. It's just that we've had the right regulations and used closed loop instead of open loop in the US. And if you're in an industrial community that was promised a bunch of jobs from industry coming in and then had your river polluted, and that's a lived experience within your lifetime, and now you're being told, oh, this other new giant thing isn't going to impact your water at all, I get why people are scared. I think it's important to share the data and point out that so far, we've been able to manage this, and energy is the one that I think could run off much more quickly. But I certainly understand why there is distrust around it.

• 52:35Ed Elson?

  You were for a moratorium, a pause on data center building so that we have time to create regulations that will make sense for building data centers permanently and sustainably.

• 52:49Ed Elson?

  What does that regulation look like? What would data center regulation, what kind of data center regulation would make you feel comfortable with building them now?

• 52:59Speaker 05

  We should understand that the companies are fighting for speed. They want to build all of these things yesterday. And so we can set up the incentives to use that to our advantage, right? Think about the grid. Anywhere in the US, though I'm most familiar with New York, we have a horribly outdated grid. We've lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last few years just from not being able to provide power to businesses that want to move in or expand. And the only solutions we have for that are the government just steps up and modernizes the grid and pays for it, but then that's taxpayer dollars, that's you and me. Or the utilities do it on spec and then charge it back to customers to ratepayers.

• 53:44Speaker 05

  And again, that's you or me paying. And here comes an industry with nearly unlimited capital, clearly willing to spend it and willing to spend in order to get more time. And right now, they're doing that by trying to buy off individual civic associations or give a donation to the fire department. You know, that's pennies for them, but maybe with some things. All those things are great. Give the money to the fire department. That's amazing. But what if we had actual rules of the road that said, if you follow A, B, and C, you're creating good jobs, or maybe you're using union labor, you are bringing your own green energy, you are paying for the upgrade to the grid, you're paying into the grid broadly, you're doing all of these checks that we want, then we will move you to the front of

• 54:27Speaker 05

  the interconnection queue, we'll move you to the front of the permitting queue. By nature of doing that, we'll be pushing back all of your competitors. Well, then we've created a race to the top on having there be the best possible conditions to build it, aligned with their incentives to build it as quickly as possible. And if we set universal rules for that at the state level, but ideally at the federal level, then we stop them from playing different communities off each other and instead make them compete in a way that everyone benefits.

• 54:56Ed Elson?

  What would prevent energy costs from rising in these communities? Like, if they're putting greater strain on the grid, what kinds of regulation or policy could be put in place such that regular American households don't have to be paying more just because ChatGPT or OpenAI wants to send out more ChatGPT tokens? That, to me, seems to be like the biggest question.

• 55:23Ed Elson?

  What could we do about that?

• 55:24Speaker 05

  There's a cheap answer that doesn't totally cover it, and then there's the more detailed one. The cheap one that you've seen a lot of people reach for is, well, they'll bring 100% of their own new energy, and so that won't cost anyone anything. And there's even a version of that where you have, you know, there are times where the fact that you have so much energy online being used 100% of the time can actually help in surge times. We saw just this past winter where we had a few snowstorms in New York. There were messages that went out to data centers that were operating saying, hey, slow down your production because we're going to need the power. And it actually ended up making the whole grid more reliable.

• 56:02Ed Elson?

  But also because a lot of those data centers, from my understanding, are also putting huge strains on those energy grids. And so in a lot of ways, they're harming those communities as well.

• 56:11Speaker 05

  Well, yeah, the assumption only works if they've brought totally new energy that wasn't there before, right? That has to be a baseline assumption.

• 56:19Ed Elson?

  And so far, they're not doing that. Or some of them are doing it in some cases, but generally speaking, they're still using the US grid, right?

• 56:28Speaker 05

  Most of them have now committed to bringing their own, and I think there was a federal regulation that was trying to get them to that. I don't know, there's probably holes in that regulation, but I think that's the intent. But even if they all were, that wouldn't be fully answering the question because there's supply and demand on the components, right? If you spin up a whole bunch of new power plants, there are parts that go into that. There's repairs that go into that. There are other costs. And so it's not free to just create a bunch of new energy, even if that's self-sufficient. If the old power plant down the road that's still powering the town now needs repairs or works, their costs have gone up because you're demanding a bunch of components for your fancy new power plant that's just doing the data center.

• 57:12Speaker 05

  And so that's why you need in any of these developments for them to not just cover all of their costs, not just bring all of their new energy, but also pay a fee on top of that to the community, to the grid, to the state, so that the increased demand that they are putting, they are subsidizing that supply on the other side.

• 57:33Ed Elson?

  Which would amount to a tax, right? A tax on data centers?

• 57:37Speaker 05

  You could do it as an ongoing specific tax. You could do it as a one-time upfront fee. You could structure it in different ways. But yes, that they should be paying above and beyond just their costs of building.

• 57:47Scott Galloway?

  If there was one thing, or if you were to make a prediction about AI or these companies by, you know, in the next 12 months, do you think some of this concern is overblown? Do you think that things will kind of simmer down and there'll be more guardrails and some regulation? Or do you think we're risking a pretty serious clusterfuck, like something really bad's going to happen?

• 58:08Speaker 05

  I think we're on a very risky path, but one that we very much still have the time to change. We have done harder things before than this, and we have negotiated tougher international agreements. We have regulated things that, you know, people thought nuclear would be the end of the world. And the inventor of the nuclear bomb, when asked about stopping nuclear proliferation, said, we were 20 years too late. And here we are with only nine states having it, and it seems like it's still a risk, it's still a problem, but we have regulation, we have it under control. I am an optimist. I think we can get there in AI. What I am not someone, I'm not someone who puts my head in the sand and just assumes we will get there without taking some action.

• 58:51Ed Elson?

  Who in government, who in leadership is asking the right questions and coming up with the right answers? Something I've been surprised by is How late I think a lot of our leaders are to this conversation. And when I hear them talk about it, they really don't know what they're talking about. Certainly true of the president. He was asked about the AI extinction stuff and his take was that it's going to be fine because, quote, we'll have a little gear to put it right. It didn't make any sense, but he's not alone. A lot of people don't seem to be making much sense.

• 59:27Speaker 05

  But was that tactical gear? Was it a physical gear? I had so many follow up questions for that quote. Yeah.

• 59:33Ed Elson?

  Yeah, don't worry about it. We'll just have something. That's the thrust of his statement. Who's thinking about this right? Are there any states or any communities that are coming up with good regulation? Like, what is an example of someone who's getting the AI regulation conversation correct?

• 59:51Speaker 05

  I think there's a lot of people that are asking the right questions at this point. I think Illinois has been doing good work here. JB Pritzker signed SB 315, which is the only bill in the country that requires audits of these companies. And now everyone's saying, yeah, of course, we all support that. But that wasn't the case when that bill was going forward. You know, we've done work here in New York on this very thing. On California, you have a step forward. Newsom now calling for a executive order around additional regulation on AI. But everyone is still figuring this out and that is okay. It is a complicated subject.

• 1:00:33Speaker 05

  I wouldn't expect all of them to be experts overnight, but they're asking the right questions now and they need people they trust that they can go to and actually ask. And this is part of the reason why we founded Who Decides? Because this shouldn't just be a conversation of a few technical experts. This should be how do we involve? We should have technical experts who are talking about, you know, these trade offs and deeply understanding it. But a lot of the questions that have to be asked are values questions. What is the level of risk? What is the level of rights? Who are we assigning blame to? These are questions for the American people and we'll be working with not just the candidates, but with a lot of civil society and unions and organizations to help them as they are asking these questions themselves and with their members.

• 1:01:18Speaker 05

  This is a conversation that everyone needs to be involved with. It is now too big to just be left to the technical AI researchers.

• 1:01:25Ed Elson?

  Given how unpopular AI has become and how unpopular data centers have become, it is seeming increasingly to me that the midterms are going to be in a lot of ways, I think, one, a referendum on Trump, but also a little bit of a referendum on AI. And politicians on both sides, if they're listening to their consultants, their consultants will probably tell them to be strict and anti-AI. Is there a world in which a politician can win on a pro-AI platform? Or at least a platform that is amenable to AI? And if so, what would that look like?

• 1:02:06Speaker 05

  It's funny because the, there was a report this week that the political consultants are telling people not to go too hard on AI because they are afraid of all of the money on the other side, but.

• 1:02:17Ed Elson?

  Okay, yeah, fair enough. Good point.

• 1:02:19Speaker 05

  I think the pro-AI argument is that AI could lead to incredible advances in medicine and in drug discovery and extend our lives and make our lives healthier. It could take care of so many of the routine things in life. It could expand economic opportunity and it could lead to this, you know, age of abundance, although that phrase seems to be declining in popularity. And that we have the power to make that future come true. Now, that doesn't mean you don't regulate it. That doesn't mean you don't put limits on it. That doesn't mean you don't protect it. In fact, because it could be so powerful is the reason why you want to put some guardrails

• 1:03:02Speaker 05

  here, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater would be the positive vision. The one additional caveat I would put out on that is you better have actual strict regulations and you better actually be protecting people because I think the American people are used to hand waving around benefits while having very clear near term harms.

• 1:03:24Ed Elson?

  Alex Bores is the co-founder of Who Decides, a new organization working to give the public a voice in how AI develops and build a shared democratic approach to the technology. Alex is a computer engineer by training and in the New York State Assembly. He sponsored the RAISE Act, New York's landmark frontier AI safety law. He has become a leading democratic voice on AI regulation, industry accountability, and the political power of Silicon Valley. Alex, we really appreciate your time. Thanks, Alex.

• 1:03:50Speaker 05

  Thanks for having me.

• 1:03:56Ed Elson?

  This episode was produced by Clay Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carti. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Kristin O'Donoghue and Mia Silverio. Jake McPherson is our social producer. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

• 1:05:00Speaker 11

  This podcast is supported by Anthropic, the public benefit corporation behind Claude. Everyone's got a hard question about AI. Anthropic was built to surface those questions and share what it finds along the way because there's hope in hard questions. Ask yours at claude.ai/spotify and keep thinking. That's claude.ai/spotify.