/ai

Concerns over Leading the Future’s influence on AI legislation

A commentator argues that the prospect of seven- or eight-figure ad spending from Leading the Future discourages politicians from taking the lead on AI legislation.

NC

1 Source, 5h ago, first seen 5h ago

TLDR

One commentator urges OpenAI employees worried about AI risk to recognize what they call the company’s super PAC as a major barrier to action. A related critique argues that Leading the Future deters lawmakers from leading on AI policy because they fear seven- or eight-figure ad campaigns. That commentator also says an OpenAI executive has substantially funded the group and remains affiliated with it—ties they argue make OpenAI’s comments about a unique window for AI safety policy harder to take seriously.

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Combined views

2.4K

1 Source, first seen 5h ago

1 Source

@_NathanCalvinLeading the Future has gotten quieter and less cartoonishly malevolent as of late, but they still are a significant deterrent to politicians wanting to become legislative leaders on AI. Many legislators are still tempted to just keep their heads down, speak in generalities, and avoid the prospect of 7 or 8 figures in ad dollars crashing down on your race - which is of course why LTF came to exist in the first place. It's meaningfully harder to take the rest of OpenAI's comments seriously about the importance of this unique policy window for AI safety when one of their executives has very significantly funded and continues affiliating with LTF.

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Combined views

2.4K

1 Source, first seen 5h ago

41 likes

2 comments

5 saves

5 reposts

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

first seen 5h ago

TLDR

One commentator urges OpenAI employees worried about AI risk to recognize what they call the company’s super PAC as a major barrier to action. A related critique argues that Leading the Future deters lawmakers from leading on AI policy because they fear seven- or eight-figure ad campaigns. That commentator also says an OpenAI executive has substantially funded the group and remains affiliated with it—ties they argue make OpenAI’s comments about a unique window for AI safety policy harder to take seriously.

2 comments

5 saves

5 reposts

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

1 Source

@_NathanCalvinLeading the Future has gotten quieter and less cartoonishly malevolent as of late, but they still are a significant deterrent to politicians wanting to become legislative leaders on AI. Many legislators are still tempted to just keep their heads down, speak in generalities, and avoid the prospect of 7 or 8 figures in ad dollars crashing down on your race - which is of course why LTF came to exist in the first place. It's meaningfully harder to take the rest of OpenAI's comments seriously about the importance of this unique policy window for AI safety when one of their executives has very significantly funded and continues affiliating with LTF.

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet