Interestingly, Nate Silver's latest newsletter seems to already assume that AI is polarized along left-right lines with the left being against it, and the right and the center being for it:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/its-time-to-come-to-grips-with-ai

In her endorsement for the Democratic candidate, Taylor Swift mentions her fear of AI. Signal to supporters to adopt the cause.

reasons why the left might want to crack down on AI:

1. it's used to run twitterbots that spread misinformation

2. it's going to take all our jobs, but it'll take the lefty wordcels' jobs first (already a large reduction in traffic to news outlets and publishers because of AI)

3. "Algorithmic bias" aka accurate predictions have disparate impacts (if the loss function you're optimizing has a term for avoiding disparate impact, then reducing disparate impact by X compensates for reducing accuracy of predictions by Y. If accuracy is not the only thing in your loss function then you are making predictions less accurate to serve some other purpose, which is a form of lying)

4.being pro-regulation in general

5. distrusting silicon valley elites in general just because they're rich, and Sam Altman in particular because he runs OpenAI in an authoritarian/vindictive way. (95% of employees signing the letter to retain him was reminiscent of the fake elections in Russia, says my wife. I think my wife thinks that Altman basically blackmailed employees into signing -- if they didn't sign, they'd be at risk of getting fired when Altman returned, so they all signed)

reasons why the right might want to crack down on AI:

1. They took our jobs!

2. all the revenue goes to Big Business on the Left Coast.

3. all the LLMs have been RLHFed to be 2024 democrats

The White House under Biden is claiming videos of the President looking lost and freezing up are AI deepfakes.

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4726190-white-house-videos-biden-confused/

Jean-Pierre referenced a Washington Post article that called the footage “cheap fake” videos and said they were being spread in bad faith by “right-wing critics of the president.”

“It tells you everything that we need to know about how desperate Republicans are here,” she said.

“And instead of talking about the president’s performance in office, and what I mean by that is his legislative wins, what he’s been able to do for the American people across the country, we’re seeing these deepfakes, these manipulated videos,” she continued. “And it is, again, done in bad faith.”

it feels like it will be complicated, the left will want more control over ai, the right will want it pushed out of places

AI will become the leading edge tool of the culture war, which is I guess no clear polarization but due to possibility of bias in practice just makes it a bad idea to bet on this market

Hahahahaha

1. Put protections in place for people whose jobs that are affected by AI
2. Support people who are nonetheless affected by AI
3. Legislate against the interests of big businesses who have adopted AI
4. Don't weaponize AI for political and propaganda purposes
What's hilarious is that, though I don't think it's super likely, if the republican party does become the tough on AI party, I could still see them avoiding actually doing all four of these things in any meaningful way.
The democratic party... Well, it probably will fail just as hard at 3 and 4, but I can't imagine them just turning a blind eye. Especially as AI comes for more jobs and people start to complain.

I see dems adopting the AI safety cause, taking a strong intellectual integrity stance against misinformation and misuse as well as protecting from AI job loss and loss of labor value eg SAG AFTRA strike, artists and AI art etc

Yes some Republicans may have had odd reactions initially to AI but in the end the growth of AI for the stock market, U.S. semiconductor industry in a race against Taiwan and China, and as a job creation machine will ultimately garner support

Since Laura Ingraham et al. are already making a stir about AI being "woke" and "liberal', I doubt the Republican Party can pivot from that public stance now, even if some individual prominent Republicans try to. Besides when has anyone ever called the Democratic party "tough on" anything?

@ClubmasterTransparent i think if this had been the "who is the tough on guns party" people would obviously say Democrats, even if they don't always pursue a maximal restrictions agenda.

@ClubmasterTransparent Tough on guns, tough of Covid, tough on ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation’, tough on ‘harmful speech’, tough on corruption, tough on intolerance, … They pride themselves on being tough on many things even when that’s not the language they use.

@NicoDelon good point. But whether they are perceived as "tough on" x not always aligned with whether they ARE tough on x or whether they call themselves tough on it.

I guess both parties could vie to be perceived as "The Toughest On AI."

@NicoDelon if they are still vying by market close, that would resolve as "no clear polarization" - as i said this is not a policy analysis market.

E.g. Rs and Ds both agree that Rs think it should be easier to get and keep a gun, and Ds think it should be harder - they just disagree on which of these things is good. What this market is trying to get at is, if AI ends up like guns in this regard, who will be on which side?

Given that right-coded techno-libertarians like Musk support both AI progress and AI safety, I expect that will be the right's stance. At least partly because of this moderate stance, I expect the left to also have a moderate sense.

@nathanwei Do you not recognize a distinction between what Musk says and what his actual stance is?

@JessicaEvans I do but they are certainly related. I don’t see much evidence his actual stance is so different.

If one of the parties changes it's name, that will count as that party, not as a new third party.

@MattLashofSullivan such an insightful comment, thank you for bringing that up