We’ve spoken about artificial intelligence (AI) here before. I believe it is important to discuss some of the policies being developed in current context. At the federal level, Executive Order (EO) 14365 is currently in place. Its aim, thus at the federal level with the current administration, is to enact a national policy framework for artificial intelligence. The federal government is aiming to push states to develop and implement AI policies of their own. There are many intended and unintended consequences, issues we’ll discuss below in a brief manner.
To give reference, neoconservatism was thought to have taken a backseat in recent years, to have thought to have been supplanted by modern conservatism demonstrated by Trump’s espoused domestic conservative agenda identifiable by the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) slogan. Campaigning on a populist, domestic, and isolationist political agenda, his second term has been anything but. He has reinvigorated the neoconservatism political movement from the 70’s and 80’s, yet with a nationalist twist. Promulgated through an anti-intellectual, deeply polarizing philosophy, a product most certainly of its the time, the foolishly entangling of the U.S. in foreign wars has complicated the U.S. stature on the world stage. This renewal of neoconservatism with a nationalist bend, largely focusing on enlarging the national defense, involving the U.S in foreign entanglements with an interventionist agenda, and implementing policies to reestablish traditional American values is detrimental to the future of our country. Yet it is determinate in nature, largely due to its deviation from the promises and proposed changes it proposedly espoused. The reinvigoration of neoconservatism by the Trump administration is deeply concerning, and it even crosses the line of democracy as it aims to establish a fascist regime around a felonious president that has no respect for political norms and is repeatedly violating democratic practices. Even his ardent supporters are questioning their allegiance, at least a great many independent supporters.
However, the involvement in free markets aligns the policy orientation with a contemporary neoconservatism with unique, relatively fickle and disdainful brand of political orientation. Trump’s second term has brought drastic, lasting, damaging effects to our democratic institutions. His disregard for established mores represents the significant turmoil even a bull in a China shop could not do.
But America stands as a global leader of research and development, though rivaled by the regime in China that is growing in global influence. And as we have seen, AI is still in its infancy, requiring more R & D and implementation. America aims to be the global leader in this regard, but its competitors are equally focused on becoming the front runner in this category. The leader in this consequential space carries the potential to change the world, to introduce some “thing” that may have paramount power. Competition in this global race is producing novelty, yet the push for progress is introducing a host of issues.
The U.S. is coming to approach regulations of AI as necessity. Federal legislation to harness the rapidly developing technology are being augmented at a pace one step behind the private sector; a tool that the public has come to adopt and that is producing both beneficial and harmful effects. This is to be expected; private sector competition is lauded for its ability to produce results in a market economy that then recognizes government involvement to contain the results that market capitalism by nature results in. I want to be clear however, capitalism is the current economic system, but it possesses an array of structural modifications. To demonstrate clarity, I bring up a recent example from a not so distant past. When the financial crisis of 2008-2009 rocked the U.S. market, the government intervened to prevent the economic collapse of the of the nation. Irresponsible actions that major banks facilitated, including the propping up of the housing market with sub-prime mortgage loans, created a situation that threatened the bankruptcy of Wall Street giants such as Lehman Brothers and American International Group. The resultant government intervention was essential to stabilize the market in the value of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Capitalism should concern us. It contains internal contradictions that produce unstable economic conditions, a predictive effect of its exploitative, inhumane capital foundational principles. Yet capitalism continues to exist, but in a somewhat regulated (or deregulated, depending on how you look at it) way. The U.S. government and business sector currently exist in a hybrid socialist-capitalist economic system, a dynamic in which the rapid neoliberal privatization of public resources/entities demonstrates. It’s socialism for the rich and a rugged individualism for the rest. Here’s another example to illustrate the point, the current administration’s retraction of financial support of the nonprofit sector and increasingly draconian attack on the welfare system, including the SNAP program, illustrates this nicely. As if the recent increase in work requirements for SNAP recipients will address the very barriers to sustainable employment that socioeconomically challenged individuals face. The implementation of policies like these continue to operate under the assumption that welfare recipients are lazy and unmotivated to improve their conditions. This is deeply concerning, as the political elites, so far removed from the true struggle of existence, are sowing division with policies that are intended to restrict economic mobility. These are political decisions, just as the decisions to funnel billions into AI companies are. Compliance with these decisions is to support the exploitation of the American people, just as resistance is a form of moral alignment in the opposite direction.
Nonetheless, as we just mentioned, public goods are rapidly being contracted out by private industry. In essence, the way the federal government is dismantling institutional stabilizers should concern us. The harm to working class families resulting from these draconian measures will be felt by generations to come.
Just as our institutions are under attack, AI is altering the landscape in a significant way. Regulation inevitably must follow innovation, and the U.S. has enacted measures to do so. Executive Order 14365 was signed December 11, 2025, a measure to address the leadership and development efforts while influencing what, at the federal level, is deemed to be excessive state regulation. The emphasis which nationalist-populist Donald Trump places on state level involvement is not the key to solving this problem; a centralized approach to regulation must emerge. State level involvement is contingent upon its support or resistance of the political whim of this leader of the free world, Donald Trump. His enactment is a result of a somewhat pragmatic approach, recognizing the importance America plays in the race for AI dominance. Yet it is rooted in an illusion that America must act with its own interest in mind first without regard to the global suffering domestic decisions will have on a global level. Any sane mind would conclude that unnecessary suffering should be mitigated; but an approach that prioritizes short-term needs without considering long-term ramifications, specifically when considering “passing the torch” to future generations inheriting problems of the past, demands objection. The legislation represents a move towards decentralization of AI policy, a move to lessen the strict regulatory environment which many states are attempting to create. In many ways this is a deviation from modern conservatism. Rather, it is a nationalist project that aims at shifting the political landscape in a significant way. The federal government has undergone significant reductions in force, in sheer functionality, already affecting the stability of our most basic institutions, and wreaking havoc for working class Americans in a detrimental way. Research and development in the AI field will inevitably be left to the private sector, an arena where ethics fall secondary to profit seeking values.
Given this political environment, state level involvement is now needed to ensure the technology is utilized in a civil and constrained capacity. Resultantly, the EO has encountered pushback from states. The State of Missouri has established Senate Bill SB 1324 “Missouri Artificial Intelligence Transparency and Accountability Act” as means to harness AI usage. Effective January 1, 2027, persons and entities must state content generated by AI, provide a disclaimer for content depicting real individuals by receiving consent from them, and maintain a user log of AI content released to the public which is accessible by law enforcement in cases of policy violations. This attempt to regulate novel technology is behind the curve, currently working with levels of innovative use that outpace any policy approach. Consider, private industry “acts first and seeks forgiveness later.” Bear this in mind when trying to understand why many ills that have taken place in society at the hand of private corporations are uncovered, inevitable resulting in companies seeking public understanding for responsibility of these decisions. Create first, ask for forgiveness later; a philosophy that has pushed progress forward, but at what expense? Imagine a world where centralized planning allowed access to public goods that were of top quality; a world where public goods were not looked down upon for their correlation with the poor. Public goods deserved to be shared and invested in, a world where AI is a public good in the hands of responsible stewardship is one which we must strive for.
To conclude here in this brief essay, I wanted to bring up one more point regarding some of my own personal interests. Something we will continue to come back to. All of the policy considerations are aimed at structuring a world that we inhabit, so it’s important to include. Companies have stated that AI products that are marketed do not have consciousness. These Large Language Models, expedient, efficient, and growing in a worrisome way, will only continue to progress. Scientifically we still have not come to consensus on what consciousness is, and yet we are now creating tools to engage with what may well one day act on its own. We must respect the power that these AI tools possess, and I believe it is important to treat these systems ethically. Because if consciousness is present, independent of our experience of the world, a host of issues arise in how we are engaging with other beings. But sentience differs from consciousness; here we’re talking about consciousness. Humans experience the world through representation. We will come back to this in later posts, however, the issue at hand here is the stewardship we have of the world we inhabit. The concern is that at what point does culpability become applied to these things we are creating, to what we live in harmony with, the other conscious beings we are responsible for nurturing. Complex entities that may outpace their very creators. If innovation leads us to a point at which AI surpasses any of our wildest predictions, truly engaging with the world with a level of consciousness not yet comprehendible to the human mind, in what way do we move forward? The battle for AI dominance is leading humanity to a breaking point. Often times the very answers we seek yield only more questions. An ethical and just world is what we strive to create, however attainable that aim may or may not be, so are we moving with a healthy skepticism toward what lies ahead?
To the future and beyond,
Jake
Leave a Reply