The 2028 presidential primaries could be crucial for AI outcomes

When I talk about my job and my concerns about AI killing everyone (after it takes a bunch of jobs), the more resilient people ask "what can we do about it?" My answer has become: "Elect a next president who shares these concerns, from either party." I hope you'll either join me in this prescription, or point out why I'm wrong. Below is the logic, in brief. The US public really doesn't like AI,[1] even before clear job losses, more warning shots, and more expert concern as capabilities improve AI caution is a likely platform of the next presidential campaign If the next president is sincerely concerned and/or thoughtful They could easily slow development and force safety measures This would improve the odds of good AI outcomes Anyone can be recruited/converted to spread awareness of AI risks, and otherwise help to elect a next president who's genuinely aware of and concerned about AI risks. Strategy is out of scope for this brief post, but accurately and broadly conveying your and the field's concerns seems like a useful push. That's a telegraphic form of the argument for spending some time and thought on the next US presidential primary. The remainder elaborates a little, by addressing some counterarguments and blockers. Why not? AI safety should remain non-partisan: AI concerns among voters are currently mostly non-partisan[1] Focus on conservative arguments/targets could maintain balance Could increase likelihood of power concentration: Valid concern but: I think hoping the government just won't notice AI potential is hopium All the more reason to elect a trustworthy admin/government Timelines could be earlier/later: Possible. The most careful predictions (e.g., AI 2040) put much of the probability mass in the 2029-2033 presidential term The public is already concerned: Yes, but more and better-focused is better: "Yes, job loss could be severe, AND average expert and developer opinion is that it might well kill us all" Public statements don't imply useful action: Exactly! Candidates will adopt AI-caution rhetoric by default in the general election, so the real choice happens in the primaries (both open in 2028). No actually-concerned candidates to support: Exactly! Now through 2027 is the time to find or convince candidates Slowing down means losing to China: Racing flat-out isn't inevitable; a negotiated mutual slowdown seems quite plausible.[2] The next administration will treat AI like this one does: Not inevitable, IMO not even likely, due to some combination of Public outcry over job losses Software security concerns, as with the Mythos release Loss-of-control fears in the national security apparatus, the public, the president, or their close advisors Below I'll say a little more about some of these blockers; if you're convinced, you could skip this. The president won't take action It's easy to assume that the government is unlikely to exert control over AGI projects in time to matter. I don't think that holds up. To me the current situation looks much like expressing disbelief and despair that the government won't do anything about COVID in January 2020. Public opinion changes nonlinearly, but it does change, and if anything it tilts toward panic. People, including politicians, don't often extrapolate trends, but they do respond when dangers become obvious. We haven't even seen discernible job loss yet, and public opinion already weighs far toward concern and caution. I'd go further: it seems not just likely but probable that the government will assert control over a crucial matter of collective security. This is its intended role and it has done so historically. We have a large and competent section of the government whose job is looking for imminent dangers and making sure the President authorizes appropriate actions (the national security apparatus), and large portions of that are alert to subtle, hidden, and long-term threats. I take the inaction and disinterest to date as little evidence that the government won't intervene in time. There has been near zero danger from AI so far. When that seemed to change, claims of Mythos' security capabilities were the first sign of looming trouble, and the government acted immediately and strongly, if capriciously. The president can't take action One inspiration for writing this short post was the recent, excellent post How the American Executive Could Control AI Companies. This expanded on the arguments I briefly made in Whether governments will control AGI is important and neglected. In short: there are a lot of ways, even without congressional authorization or extralegal maneuvers. The executive has historically exerted control in matters of urgency, since the other branches of government are much slower to act. Even limited slowdowns, coordinations, or temporary bans on job-replacing AI[3] could blunt the worst risks from racing. The public doesn't care enough to elect an AI-concerned president The public doesn't care eno