The AI Oligarchs Don't Want You Reading This

Key Takeaways

• AI oligarchs spend $10M to defeat Alex Bores.
• Bores authored NY's strongest AI safety law, the RAISE Act.
• 80% Americans support AI safety regulations despite slower development.
• Proposed federal rules include data privacy, deepfake labeling, grid upgrades.
• Bores seeks AI dividend and workforce upskilling incentives.

Summary

New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democratic candidate for NY‑12, is confronting a $10 million super‑PAC funded by AI industry leaders Greg Brockman, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. Bores, who authored the state’s RAISE Act—the nation’s toughest AI safety law—promises federal legislation covering child protection, data privacy, deep‑fake labeling, grid‑friendly data centers, workforce upskilling, and an AI dividend. He argues that without federal rules, AI benefits a handful of billionaires while exposing the public to risks. Polls show 80 % of Americans favor AI safety rules even if they slow progress.

Pulse Analysis

The United States faces a regulatory vacuum as generative AI tools proliferate across education, commerce, and media. While private firms race to deploy ever‑more powerful models, Washington has yet to establish clear accountability standards, leaving the technology vulnerable to misuse. Industry titans such as OpenAI’s Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz’s Marc Andreessen have poured resources into political channels, betting that a hands‑off approach will preserve their market dominance. This dynamic has drawn criticism from consumer advocates and lawmakers who warn that unchecked AI could amplify misinformation, privacy breaches, and systemic bias.

Bores’ policy platform tackles those concerns with a multi‑pronged blueprint. He proposes mandatory age‑verification for child‑focused chatbots, parental consent mechanisms, and criminal penalties for AI‑generated child sexual abuse material. A national data‑privacy framework would give individuals ownership of their personal information and require transparency about training datasets. To combat deepfakes, he backs open‑source metadata standards like C2PA, coupled with penalties for malicious synthetic media. Energy‑intensive data centers would be forced to fund grid upgrades and prioritize renewable power, while a proposed AI dividend would redistribute corporate profits to American households. Finally, tax incentives would encourage companies to upskill workers, and licensing requirements would prevent AI from unilaterally replacing credentialed professionals.

The political showdown underscores how AI’s future is being decided in the ballot box as much as in the lab. A $10 million super‑PAC, dubbed Leading the Future, is targeting Bores to protect the interests of a few billionaire investors. Yet the broader electorate, with 80 % favoring safety safeguards, may push Congress toward comprehensive oversight. If Bores wins, his federal version of the RAISE Act could set a precedent that balances innovation with public protection, reinforcing U.S. leadership in responsible AI development while curbing the power of oligarchic gatekeepers.