AI焦虑冲击中期选举：就业、泡沫与安全成政治焦点

The AI anxiety that has been building all year has spilled, perhaps inevitably, into the midterm elections, even as the I trade boomed and created enormous wealth. Many Americans remain uneasy about where the technology is taking the economy and society. First, there was concern over jobs. A Center Square poll from June found roughly 70% of registered voters were concerned I could replace their livelihood, and there are already signs of disruption in some of the occupations most exposed to the technology.

Here's ADP chief economist Nila Richardson and Randstad CEO Sander Benno Ender. Since the rollout of ChatGPT in November 2022, there's been a 20% decline in early career, uh, software developers. Yes, I will have an impact on jobs and labor. What we see is an impact of 78% in the base case over the next 5 to 10 years. Then markets began focusing on another source of anxiety money, the industry's massive spending boom, hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into chips, data centers and infrastructure raise questions among investors about a potential AI bubble.

That circular financing narrative is out there. Every week you every day you wake up. And as those concerns converge with local worries about the community impact of the data centers powering AI. The debate moved beyond what I could do to jobs or markets, to what increasingly powerful I could do to humanity itself. That conversation exploded after an anthropic researcher resigned, warning in stark terms about where the technology could eventually lead.

Some, like Bridgewater associate CEO Greg Jensen, share that concern until the AI starts killing people. Unfortunately, history would suggest we're not going to do anything. Others, like deep Learning AI founder Andrew Ng said the rhetoric has gone too far. This recent startup fear about a leading human extinction, and so on, is much more science fiction than science. And that's where I anxiety has collided directly with politics.

Attorney general Tom branch argued the timing of the industry's warnings was political. To talk about the timing of this as being nothing but an effort to to influence the midterms. I shouldn't have to say that out loud. Of course. That's what it is. That's that's what it is. And that shouldn't be what drives the, the the decisions that we're making around AI. At the same time, some of the biggest names in AI are calling for more guardrails and in some cases, a slower pace at the technological frontier, which pits parts of Silicon Valley increasingly at odds with the white House.

His David Saxe, co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. We have plenty of regulations here. If a little Frontier Labs release products that are unsafe. And again, I would turn it back to them. It's on you guys to make sure your products are safe. We're leading China in AI with most sophisticated country in the world. And frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins, I wins.

And we get quick guardrails. We can do this and that. But I think you have a lot of negative voices in bringing it up that you shouldn't be bringing it up. Those warnings are still so new that they haven't become fodder for most political campaigns, but there are signs the issue could resonate with voters. A new Quinnipiac poll found 71% say they're more likely to vote for a candidate who supports stricter guardrails on AI development.

AI is no longer just a Silicon Valley story. Anxiety over jobs, money, and even the safety of the technology is increasingly colliding with a much bigger political question. How hard should Washington push the accelerator on AI, and how much should it hit the brakes? For Bloomberg News, I'm Ed Ludlow in San Francisco.