Lock the White House Watch Newsletter for free
Your Guide to What Trump’s Second Season Means Washington, Business and World
The author is a fellow at Stanford University’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute and the Centre for Cyber Policy. She is the author of “The Tech Coup.”
Watch the news cycle. It’s like everyone is talking about AI and technology regulations. That’s certainly the case with my bubble. But despite its dominance of headlines, technology barely ranks as a voter’s top priority, and many politicians are reluctant to be involved in technology policy. The gap between the social impact of technology and the modest political attention it receives leaves behind important decisions made without democratic opinions.
That needs to be changed. After all, the outcome touches all of us. AI companies are driving increased efficiency, and reports from the World Bank and international labor organizations have warned of serious unemployment. There are few kitchen tables where children and parents do not discuss smartphone use, and there are no meeting rooms or war rooms where AI is not considered a threat or opportunity.
However, despite the widespread impact of technology, from national security to information access to public service delivery, it is often not considered a political issue. Voters prioritize economic growth, housing and migration. These issues are undoubtedly important, but the impact of technology is also important.
One of the reasons I heard from politicians around the world about why they hesitate to talk about technology is their own insecurity. They worry that without deep engineering knowledge, technical insufficiency might turn viral and say something that will drive laughs. This fear is not surprising. After Mark Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill hearing in 2018, media coverage focused more on lawmakers’ technical ignorance than Facebook’s data sharing practices. One of the CNN headlines read, “How Senate’s technological illiteracy saved Mark Zuckerberg.” At a critical moment for technical governance, Minor Corn made lawmakers TI-ill or blackmailed them.
Silicon Valley exploits this uncertainty and dismisses the lack of understanding as a basis for excludes politicians from the discussion. However, this logic is flawed. Most elected officials are not lawyers, but are commissioned to write and amend the law. We do not require you to obtain a Congressional degree before setting traffic rules, developing environmental policies, or proposing medical standards, scientific degrees, or mechanical expertise. Leaders make decisions based on their values and the needs of their constituents, not on technical moments.
What’s more, many questions considered technical are truly moral. Should AI systems be allowed to make medical decisions of life or death? How much surveillance should the government provide for citizens? What happens when social media algorithms radicalize teenagers? Should businesses be allowed to experiment with user responses without consent?
Technology that impacts all sectors and all people requires wider engagement than we see to this day. Technology policy should be a political priority. The argument should not be limited to computer scientists, and politicians should not feel stupid because they do not understand all the technical details.
Technology needs to be politicized. In a democratic sense, not in a partisan sense. We need elected officials who view technology policy as a central focus, rather than a specialized niche. Public discussion on AI governance is necessary. This goes beyond technical jargon to examine fundamental questions about power, justice and human institutions. Non-experts bring important perspectives. It brings the perspective of parents as workers facing digital lives, automation for their children, as patients who trust AI-powered healthcare systems, and as voters whose information environment is shaped by algorithmic feeds.
Technology is too important to leave it to corporate stakeholders. Should the future be shaped by the values of a few tech executives or the democratic will of people? The choice is ours, but only if we make it a political priority.
