AI provides a structural advantage to those in power by automating government systems. This allows leaders to bypass the traditional unwieldiness of human bureaucracy, making it trivial for an executive to change AI parameters and instantly exert their will across all levels of government, thereby concentrating power.

The FCC, under Chairman Carr, is arguing for new authority to preempt state AI laws, a direct contradiction of its recent argument that it lacked authority over broadband in order to dismantle net neutrality. This reveals a strategy of adopting whatever legal philosophy is convenient to achieve a specific political outcome.

A new populist coalition is emerging to counter Big Tech's influence, uniting politicians from opposite ends of the spectrum like Senator Ed Markey and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. This alliance successfully defeated an industry-backed provision to block state-level AI regulation, signaling a significant political realignment.

The idea of individual states creating their own AI regulations is fundamentally flawed. AI operates across state lines, making it a clear case of interstate commerce that demands a unified federal approach. A 50-state regulatory framework would create chaos and hinder the country's ability to compete globally in AI development.

The political battle over AI is not a standard partisan fight. Factions within both Democratic and Republican parties are forming around pro-regulation, pro-acceleration, and job-protection stances, creating complex, cross-aisle coalitions and conflicts.

The economic and societal impact of AI is forcing politicians across the aisle to collaborate. From co-sponsoring legislation on AI-driven job loss to debating state vs. federal regulation, AI is creating common ground for lawmakers who would otherwise rarely work together.

The existence of internal teams like Anthropic's "Societal Impacts Team" serves a dual purpose. Beyond their stated mission, they function as a strategic tool for AI companies to demonstrate self-regulation, thereby creating a political argument that stringent government oversight is unnecessary.

Laws like California's SB243, allowing lawsuits for "emotional harm" from chatbots, create an impossible compliance maze for startups. This fragmented regulation, while well-intentioned, benefits incumbents who can afford massive legal teams, thus stifling innovation and competition from smaller players.

Geopolitical competition with China has forced the U.S. government to treat AI development as a national security priority, similar to the Manhattan Project. This means the massive AI CapEx buildout will be implicitly backstopped to prevent an economic downturn, effectively turning the sector into a regulated utility.