Title: Navigating AI’s Future in Washington: Lessons from Crypto’s Regulatory Journey”

In a significant development, top executives from leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies convened with a bipartisan group of senior U.S. Senators. This meeting served as a compelling indicator that Washington is now turning its full focus toward AI technology. Notably, AI has risen to the level of being a subject of a presidential address and has even prompted a voluntary agreement between the government and tech companies to address potential risks. Furthermore, the chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), one of the most influential regulatory bodies, has initiated inquiries into the implications of AI.

John Rizzo, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs at Clyde Group, who recently held the position of Senior Spokesperson at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, provides valuable insights into the confluence of political, legal, and regulatory scrutiny. As the AI industry peers into its future, it can draw essential lessons and strategies from the federal government’s approach to crypto assets in recent years.

AI vs. Crypto: Differences and Similarities

While some might question the inclusion of AI and crypto in the same conversation, it is essential to acknowledge that they share both differences and similarities. AI’s applications are significantly broader than those of crypto, which often revolves around tokens as stores of value or means of exchange. AI’s use cases are tangible and diverse, while debates around crypto frequently center on the necessity of private forms of currency. Moreover, culturally, AI projects a more conservative image, while crypto is often associated with a more unbridled ethos.

Nevertheless, for the AI industry to understand how Washington will approach its emerging technology, it must reflect on the government’s handling of crypto’s emergence. By doing so, the AI sector can extract core lessons and strategies for its own journey forward.

Changing Technology Politics

The landscape of technology politics in the United States has evolved since the advent of the internet. Populist tendencies on both sides of the political spectrum have led to a highly skeptical Congress, which questions the core outputs and motives of the AI industry. While AI will not face the same need to prove its legitimacy as crypto did, there will be no presumption of innocence. Key lawmakers from both parties will harbor suspicions about AI unless it demonstrates its positive intentions.

Media and Disinformation

Today, media gatekeepers wield less influence than ever before, leaving the public susceptible to rumors and misinformation. In the past, traditional media sources played a significant role in shaping public opinion. However, in the digital age, more Americans rely on social media apps for news, where content often prioritizes engagement and sensationalism over education. When constituents are swayed by trending topics and viral posts, lawmakers have less leeway to craft balanced policies. In a parallel to crypto’s challenges, the AI industry may find itself politically liable when machine learning produces suboptimal outcomes, despite the statistical superiority of machine learning over human-managed processes.

Unique Challenges for AI

While the AI industry can learn from crypto’s challenges in Washington, it must confront its distinct obstacles. Crypto market participants primarily aimed to disrupt the highly regulated financial services sector. However, they struggled to convert the popularity of their assets into a cohesive regulatory framework.

In contrast, the AI industry seeks to infiltrate various sectors, some of which have less-established regulation. This flexibility allows AI to outflank policymakers in specific domains. Nonetheless, AI will face substantial financial policy challenges that surpass what the crypto industry encountered. For example, SEC Chair Gary Gensler recently raised concerns about AI’s potential to heighten systemic risks in the financial system. If prominent market participants use machine learning to trigger specific financial transactions during a crisis, the cumulative effect could lead to systemic risk.

Charting a Course for AI’s Regulatory Future

As the AI industry contemplates Washington’s approach to crypto and anticipates its own political risks and policy battles, it must leverage its unique advantages. A pivotal advantage is the unsettled policy conversation surrounding AI. Unlike crypto, AI has not been assigned hardened policy positions by either political party. This provides a window of opportunity for the AI industry to act before policy positions become entrenched, as they have in the crypto space.

Additionally, the AI industry possesses substantial capital resources, which should be channeled into an extensive public affairs campaign. This campaign should integrate AI technology into the broader American narrative, emphasizing its benefits to everyday citizens and making a compelling case for nurturing innovation domestically. Unlike crypto, which struggled to communicate its value to the American public, the AI industry should focus on winning the favor of lawmakers at home. This can be achieved through campaigns in crucial congressional districts and states that showcase AI’s positive impact and potential.

As key executives in the AI industry return from their engagements in Washington, they find themselves at a crossroads in the realm of artificial intelligence. They have the choice to follow in the footsteps of crypto market participants or embark on a new journey—one that could significantly impact AI’s future within the political landscape. This pivotal decision could make all the difference in shaping AI’s path to success in the city.