How Kamala Harris' dim-witted AI policies have harmed Americans

Kamala Harris probably knows little — or nothing — about AI policy. “AI is kind of a fancy thing. First of all, it's two letters. It means 'artificial intelligence,’” Vice President Kamala Harris explained to labor and civil rights leaders last year.

But if Harris pulls off a victory in November, she would hold a massive influence over America’s AI regulatory approach.

As Biden’s AI czar, Harris has advocated for woke and globalist AI regulations that promote left-wing social causes, curb free speech and stifle innovation, and limit competition — a stark contrast to Trump’s and the RNC’s laissez-faire, conservative, pro-tech AI platform. Though she didn't have much experience on AI policy, Biden still decided that Harris would be the right pick to lead the country’s AI policy — an issue that could give the American economy an edge over China’s.

Last year, Harris held an AI roundtable where she promised civil rights leaders to implement AI policies that address the “legitimate concern…about how racial bias and other types of biases will impact the lives of people because of AI” by “establishing protections knowing that certain people will be targeted based on their socioeconomic status, based on their race, based upon their disability status.”

And this year, Harris announced the creation of a Council of Chief AI Officers, in which left-wing bureaucrats would be appointed in every federal agency to “address the climate crisis” and “advance equitable outcomes.” Even though these AI officers will also be tasked with protecting Americans’ privacy and security, the Biden administration has made it clear that “protecting Americans” includes protecting minority groups from “oppression.” So don’t be surprised when this council converts into another government propaganda arm to implement progressive cultural ideology.

Curbing free speech

ARTIFICIAL EXPLANATION? Kamala Harris struggles to explain what AI is www.youtube.com

Not only is Harris concerned with AI’s racial biases, but she is also concerned with AI’s ability to spread information quickly — “threats which to many people feel existential,” she told a London audience before the Global Summit of AI Safety. "Consider, for example … when people around the world cannot discern fact from fiction because of a flood of AI-enabled misinformation and disinformation.”

It’s obvious that Harris and other globalist progressives don’t actually care about misinformation. The World Economic Forum calls for AI regulation since “manipulated and falsified information is now the most severe short-term risk the world faces,” echoing Harris’ anti-free-speech language.

Meanwhile, leftists spread misinformation about Trump and allied groups all the time. Their worry is that AI could expand the influence of conservative and right-wing movements in ways they can’t control. Their pre-emptive solution is AI regulations to limit free speech for conservatives and any other group they deem a rival or problem.

Without such tools, as the WEF warns, free speech online “could trigger civil unrest and confrontation. It will also lead to growing distrust of media and government sources.” Misinformation and disinformation, they insist, will “deepen polarized views in societies where political opinion is already entrenched.”

Of course, the globalist elites consider themselves the only proper arbiter of what counts as misinformation. In their minds, they hold a monopoly on truth and Americans are incapable of independently discerning right from wrong. Voting for a Republican can only mean they were deceived by “misinformation.”

Combatting misinformation is just code for censoring speech. Many Chinese AI chatbots don’t answer questions about Tiananmen Square. Now American search engines refuse to autocomplete queries about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. What’s to say that a Kamala Harris-regulated chatbot won’t answer questions about Fauci’s COVID lies or will block all information concerning the assassination attempt?

Expanding monopolies

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Regulations are typically associated with antitrust and breaking up monopolies in order to ensure a fair market. And some in the Biden/Harris administration have aggressively pushed to regulate AI in hopes of creating a competitive market.

Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, wrote a pro-AI-regulation New York Times op-ed in which she argues that “public officials have a responsibility to ensure this hard-learned history doesn’t repeat itself,” alluding to big tech’s giant monopolies that have dominated the tech sector.

“As companies race to deploy and monetize A.I., the Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at how we can best achieve our dual mandate to promote fair competition and to protect Americans from unfair or deceptive practices,” Khan wrote. She continued, urging regulators to be “vigilant,” warning that without regulating AI, “dominant firms could use their control over these key inputs to exclude or discriminate against downstream rivals, picking winners and losers in ways that further entrench their dominance.”

Harris’ regulatory approach, however, while heavy in regulations, will only expand the monopolies Khan wants to break up.

As AI czar, Harris worked with big tech elites, including the CEOs of Google and Microsoft, to regulate AI and crush competition. Last summer, Harris convened with Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI to discuss the “safe, secure, and transparent development of AI technology.” President Biden also met with industry leaders to discuss AI regulation, an effort widely criticized as cronyism. Federalist editor Emily Jashinsky likened the meeting to assembling “a bunch of Railway Barons and saying, ‘I'm really curious. I want you to tell us what we need to do to protect the people from this.’”

If Harris were serious about protecting Americans from big tech and AI abuses, why would she meet with the very people she claims need to be regulated and ask them which regulations they want or don’t want?

Obviously, big tech wants regulations that will limit competition and increase its market power while scaremongering about how other regulations or the lack of its preferred regulations will stifle innovation. Big tech companies, like Google, want regulations to make it harder for startups to enter the market but oppose regulations that cap their own market share.

Under an administration led by Kamala Harris, we’d only see more unnecessary red tape for AI development. For Harris, AI policy is just another weapon to achieve progressive ends. In her eyes, equitable outcomes, not increased innovation and productivity, are the primary benchmark of a successful AI policy. And for establishment liberals, whom Harris now leads, doing the bidding of big tech is just an added bonus that will help garner popularity among the elites.