The most immediate danger of AI is its potential for governmental abuse. Concerns focus on embedding political ideology into models and porting social media's censorship apparatus to AI, enabling unprecedented surveillance and social control.

By framing competition with China as an existential threat, tech leaders create urgency and justification for government intervention like subsidies or favorable trade policies. This transforms a commercial request for financial support into a matter of national security, making it more compelling for policymakers.

The US President's move to centralize AI regulation over individual states is likely a response to lobbying from major tech companies. They need a stable, nationwide framework to protect their massive capital expenditures on data centers. A patchwork of state laws creates uncertainty and the risk of being forced into costly relocations.

Companies like Google were so cash-rich they didn't need Wall Street or other powerful trading partners. This financial independence meant that when they faced political threats, they lacked a coalition of powerful allies whose own financial interests were tied to their survival, making them politically vulnerable.

The controversy around David Sacks's government role highlights a key governance dilemma. While experts are needed to regulate complex industries like AI, their industry ties inevitably raise concerns about conflicts of interest and preferential treatment, creating a difficult balance for any administration.

When the U.S. government becomes a major shareholder, it can create significant challenges for a company's international operations. Foreign governments and customers may view the company with suspicion, raising concerns about data privacy, security, and its role as a potential tool of U.S. policy.

Despite populist rhetoric, the administration needs the economic stimulus and stock market rally driven by AI capital expenditures. In return, tech CEOs gain political favor and a permissive environment, creating a symbiotic relationship where power politics override public concerns about the technology.

Leading AI companies allegedly stoke fears of existential risk not for safety, but as a deliberate strategy to achieve regulatory capture. By promoting scary narratives, they advocate for complex pre-approval systems that would create insurmountable barriers for new startups, cementing their own market dominance.

The administration's executive order to block state-level AI laws is not about creating a unified federal policy. Instead, it's a strategic move to eliminate all regulation entirely, providing a free pass for major tech companies to operate without oversight under the guise of promoting U.S. innovation and dominance.