In the second installment of Puck’s conversation series about A.I., presented by Meta, Capitol Hill correspondent Abby Livingston weighed in on the myriad ways that A.I. is making waves in Congress. From fostering unexpected bipartisan alliances and shaping tech-driven policymaking to sparking skepticism surrounding national security, and more, Abby offers an insider’s perspective on the opportunities and challenges that A.I. brings on the legislative front. (This conversation has been slightly edited for clarity.)
Baratunde Thurston: Given your lens into Congress, I’m curious about some of the dynamics you’re seeing around the push—or lack thereof—for A.I. regulation from members.
Abby Livingston: I think the most interesting thing about A.I. is that it attracts bipartisan alliances, which can be said of very few things on Capitol Hill. I’ve seen a number of proposals that have bipartisan backing. In September, for example, Pennsylvania Republican Brian Fitzpatrick joined three other House members, including two Democrats—Derek Kilmer and Adam Schiff—to introduce legislation about A.I. in political ads that involved banning fraudulent characterizations of opponents. There’s also another interesting pairing—Democrat Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania and Republican Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida—who are working together on unauthorized deepfakes. And I think the most interesting player in A.I. on Capitol Hill next term is going to be the new Senate majority leader, John Thune, who partnered with Democrat Amy Klobuchar on an A.I. bill.
What would the Thune-Klobuchar bill do?
The bill is from 2023, and without getting too into the weeds, it would put some standards on how A.I. is used—everything from its deployment in infrastructure to transparency on what is and is not real online. But what’s also interesting here is that it gives us a sense of whom the new Senate majority leader will work with. Thune and Klobuchar are longtime members of the Senate Commerce Committee; other backers of the bill include Roger Wicker of Mississippi, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico.
What’s your assessment of why Congress hasn’t been able to pass meaningful rules for social media, an area that seems ripe for bipartisanship?
I think there are two things going on. For one, there’s such a profound paralysis when it comes to technology, and there’s been a history of bad faith, because people on either side think that social media is biased toward the other. The other issue is the age of Congress. It’s no secret; everyone who has seen hearings over the last 12 years knows what a gerontocracy this has been. A lot of members, especially on the Senate side, don’t even have Facebook accounts and don’t understand what Twitter is. So it’s a very abstract concept, and it can sometimes come out in hearings in really embarrassing ways.
How has the tech industry’s presence changed in D.C. over the past decade or so, and how do they tend to exert their influence?
Well, ground zero for influence will probably be the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over basically anything that crosses state lines. But it was around 2012 when you started to see Google, Facebook, Twitter, etcetera, everywhere in Washington, at White House Correspondents’ Dinner parties and such.
Silicon Valley was obviously a pivotal player in this year’s election. The fact that Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are close with Trump likely means that they will have a huge influence on the executive branch. But Congress is a different beast. When it comes to passing things into law, I think there’s going to be skepticism of the tech industry no matter what. It’s just too powerful of an industry with too many political consequences and implications.
How are our lawmakers imagining the role of A.I. in terms of national security and economic competitiveness on a global scale?
I think we’ll actually get some insight into that before the new Congress comes in. Sometime over the next month, Congress is going to address the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a sweeping, massive bill. The priorities in that bill are using A.I.-enabled applications for systems at the Department of Defense, and to develop pilot programs for A.I.-enabled software to optimize workflows, operations, department depots, etcetera.
There is also an agency called the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office, and Congress is moving toward expanding that office’s responsibilities. Their mission is to advance deterrence by ensuring our warfighters have the best digital capabilities—and also beating the bureaucracy, which means ensuring our critical business functions have the digital solutions to deliver for warfare, warfighters, and taxpayers. And the last thing they’re looking for in the N.D.A.A. is a bill that will establish a working group to develop and coordinate an A.I. initiative to share with our allies and partners.
Surveillance and privacy have also emerged as a priority on the Hill after a brief slumber, and there is skepticism from both sides of the aisle about government overreach. A.I., of course, presents entirely new capabilities for monitoring the public. What have you seen on this front?
There’s probably nothing more important than the attorney general appointment, because it’s illegal for intelligence agencies to spy on Americans unless there’s a court order allowing it. As an American, that’s something I care about and want to hear about in a confirmation hearing, and the conversation is suddenly being blown wide open. So we have to take this very, very seriously. These laws also impact how foreign intelligence agencies will go about surveillance, which is very important, even if the average American doesn’t think about it very much.
What should Americans be looking out for in terms of how A.I. is seeping into their lives, and how they might engage with the issue during this era in which so much of our relationship with new technology is being decided?
I’m surprised this campaign didn’t have more misrepresentations of false events. I think for the average person, it’s about the intake of what you’re seeing on the internet. If you get this feeling of, How was I fed this false piece of information?, it’s probably worth giving your congressperson a call.
What I’ve learned from studying this and making calls is that A.I. is everywhere. It pervades every single area of life. And all these creative legislative ideas that members of Congress are coming up with offer a glimmer of hope amid what looks to be a very gloomy Congress. In other words, there’s room for creativity and legislation here that we just don’t see very often.
