The landscape of AI politics is becoming complex for Democrats. President Biden’s executive order aims to provide a compromise that caters to various factions within the party.
President Joe Biden’s executive order on artificial intelligence, signed Monday at a White House ceremony, has something to address nearly every concern about the fast-moving technology — cybersecurity, global competition, discrimination and technical oversight of advanced AI systems.
The 111-page laundry list of priorities has drawn immediate support from both the tech industry and its critics. But the vast scale of the order also suggests an effort by the White House to paper over the growing tension between Washington’s rival AI factions — including some with significant pull inside the Democratic Party.
The realm of AI policy is influenced by three major groups with differing concerns. Firstly, there are progressives who perceive AI as a threat to Americans, particularly in terms of job security, civil rights, and issues related to racial bias. Then, there are the “longtermists” who focus on the technology’s potential to create dangerous bioweapons or even pose existential risks to humanity. Lastly, there are the AI hawks who worry about AI’s potential to undermine U.S. national security and geopolitical dominance.
These groups often find themselves in conflict, vying for attention and funding as Washington addresses AI more seriously. However, President Biden’s executive order on AI manages to appeal to all these factions, aiming to address multiple facets of AI policy. According to Bruce Schneier, a security technologist and Harvard Kennedy School lecturer, the executive order attempts to advance various aspects of AI policy.
Yet, the White House’s comprehensive approach to AI may also reflect a desire to avoid alienating different constituencies in the complex landscape of AI governance. This includes progressive voters and organizations crucial to the Democratic base, as well as major tech companies like OpenAI and influential figures like Senate Intelligence Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) and former Google executive Eric Schmidt, who hold hawkish positions on AI.
The debate on AI has largely unfolded within policy circles but has unfortunately become politicized, as Nathan Sanders, a data scientist associated with the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, noted. This politicization can be attributed in part to the involvement of polarizing figures like Elon Musk in AI debates. Additionally, there are clear political implications as the various factions, including progressives, hawks, and tech industry supporters concerned about long-term risks, vie for influence in Washington.