komorob
Comments2
I've worked in political offices before like these and I can confirm that politicians respond to constituent outreach. Most people don't care enough about most issues enough to call or email their representatives, so if the office gets a flood of communication on one issue it means something.
If you are a California resident, you should use the contact form the rep provides so you can provide your address (to prove you are a constituent and that they should care about your opinion).
The chair of the appropriations committee, Rep. Buffy Wicks, represents Berkeley, and thus actually cares about your opinion if you live in Berkeley. If you care about this bill, you should call her office at (916) 319-2014, email her, and use her contact form here: https://a14.asmdc.org/email-assemblymember-wicks
Another Rep. on the appropriations committee that is probably relevant to many people here is Rep. Matt Haney, who represents San Francisco. You can call his office at (916) 319-2017, email him at Assemblymember.haney@assembly.ca.gov or contact him here: https://a17.asmdc.org/contact
If you have friends in these districts who care about this issue, you should tell them to contact their reps as well.
You have a point, I think you're right that we cannot be sure what Harris's beliefs about AI and AI Safety truly are deep down. I myself am skeptical she deeply believes AI is a true existential risk. However, her personal views matter less than one might think. Politicians are constantly triangulating between their various political needs (their constituents, donors, domestic political allies, international allies, etc) and what they think is the best policy. Personal views often matter less than you might think, and typically only do so only on the margin.
When public officials issue statements on policy, this is the narrow window we get into their political views, and what we think they'll do. This is how the world of politics and policy works. For example, the US government listens when Chinese officials make diplomatic statements on various issues at the UN or elsewhere. Voters listen to the campaign's message. Politicians do lie and break promises, but they do so at some political cost. Actions speak much louder than words, but when it comes to the future, words are all we have.
Yes, she spoke at the AI Safety Summit, but she chose to speak there. She could have spoken at any number of events on other topics, whether it be trade, security, climate change, etc. The choice of venue demonstrates her (and the US's) commitment to that issue. Additionally, she could have not mentioned existential risk, and I agree it would've been weird, but hardly an international snub.
I agree with you that I think the quote is pretty weak evidence. And her focus on other AI issues outside of existence risk is sub-optimal, but ultimately I'm favor of regulating other issues like AI discrimination and AI bias, even if I think it's substantially less important. And is it really a negative? If she's really pro regulation on 'near-term' AI issues like AI bias, on the margin wouldn't that push her to be pro-regulation on AI? I do think it's mostly irrelevant.
I think the much stronger evidence to support Harris on the basis of AI policy is Biden's record on the issue. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I think that most Dem presidencies will continue policy making in a similar direction as previous Dem admins. I also think that we can trust a Dem admin to defer to experts on policy making
I also think the fact that the RNC platform explicitly states to roll back Biden's EO as strong evidence. See below:
Am I worried that Harris will cease to continue Biden approach? Yes. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that Harris is better than Trump on AI policy.