Two AI industry PACs are spending millions to influence lawmakers writing AI regulation. Each PAC wants a different version of the rules. This is what happens when you let the inmates design the asylum.
The companies funding these PACs build the exact technology being regulated. They're paying politicians to write laws about AI while simultaneously claiming AI is too complex for anyone to understand. Pick a lane. Either the technology is incomprehensible godlike intelligence beyond human grasp, or you can explain it to a senator who still uses a Hotmail account.
Each PAC wants its own version of regulation. Translation: one group wants rules that f*ck over their competitors. The other group wants rules that f*ck over different competitors. Neither wants rules that actually limit what they can do. This is like asking tobacco companies in 1960 to write their own warning labels and being surprised when they submit "Cigarettes: Pretty Neat Actually."
Lawmakers are working on legislation. Past tense of work is worked, which is what these politicians are getting by corporate money. The bills will pass. The regulations will arrive. And somehow, magically, the companies spending millions will end up fine while smaller competitors who couldn't afford a PAC will drown in compliance costs.
Retail traders are watching this unfold and thinking it creates an investment opportunity. They're googling "which AI stock benefits from regulation" as if they're going to front-run Goldman Sachs on a regulatory arbitrage play. Bold strategy. These are the same people who bought GameStop at $400 because they saw a rocket emoji.
The real tell is that both PACs exist. If regulation was actually going to hurt these companies, there would be one PAC trying to kill it. Instead there are two PACs arguing over which flavor of fake oversight sounds most convincing. They're not fighting regulation. They're shopping for it.
Photo by Maxim Tolchinskiy on Unsplash
Leave a Comment