内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/column/841161/ai-moratorium-midterm-elections-republicans

内容总结：

【两党罕见共识：反对AI禁令，州权与联邦管控之争成焦点】

在当前美国政治极化背景下，人工智能（AI）监管议题却出现了罕见的两党一致立场：共和党与民主党均对联邦层面推动的AI研发禁令表示反对。这一共识使得AI监管成为少数能跨越党派分歧的议题之一。

尽管前总统特朗普曾表示将通过行政命令加强对AI的联邦管控，但其具体方案仍模糊不清，且面临法律层面的挑战。分析指出，此类行政令可能难以推翻各州已制定的AI法规，而此前白宫泄露的草案已暴露出诸多法律争议。

真正的博弈焦点集中在州与联邦的监管权之争。由两党成员共同成立的“安全AI联盟”首席执行官布伦丹·斯坦豪瑟指出，各州——包括深红州如得克萨斯——正在积极推动本地化AI立法，并强烈抵制联邦政府干预。得州今年通过的综合AI监管法案即为例证，该法案获得了州内跨党派支持，反映出地方对保护立法成果的坚决态度。

斯坦豪瑟分析，红州推动AI监管主要基于三方面原因：一是对社会伦理与家庭价值的保守主义关切，尤其是AI对青少年心理健康的影响；二是宗教层面对“AI试图扮演上帝角色”的警惕；三是对宪法第十修正案所保障的州权的维护。这种地方保护意识与15年前各州反对奥巴马医改时的逻辑一脉相承。

然而，共和党内部对此也存在分歧。以参议员特德·克鲁兹为代表的部分议员支持暂停AI开发，认为需避免过度监管阻碍美国对中国的技术竞争。斯坦豪瑟指出，这种立场背后是AI行业强大的游说力量——相关团体预计投入数亿美元影响政策制定。他警告称，若共和党忽视基层选民对AI风险的担忧，可能在未来中期选举及经济议题上承受政治后果。

随着AI技术深入日常生活，公众对该议题的关注度自2024年末显著上升。媒体对高级AI发展的报道、DeepSeek等关键事件的曝光，加速了主流社会对AI监管的讨论。多数民众逐渐形成共识：AI发展需要“护栏”，科技公司不应在无约束状态下加速技术迭代。

这场监管权之争，折射出美国在技术创新、联邦制原则与公共利益之间的复杂平衡。随着各州与联邦的角力持续，AI政策很可能成为影响未来选战的关键议题之一。

中文翻译：

欢迎来到《监管者》栏目。若您是我们的订阅用户，感谢您始终如一的坚定支持；若您是通过网络偶然到访，不妨在此订阅The Verge，以行动证明您的骑士精神与卓识。（至于大卫·萨克斯先生：我们坚持此前观点。）

两党罕见共识：皆反对人工智能禁令
这大概是当前共和党与民主党为数不多能达成一致的议题之一。

截至周二，唐纳德·特朗普总统已承诺将签署一项行政命令，旨在赋予联邦政府某种形式的人工智能监管权。我在此采用如此模糊的表述，原因有二：首先，行政命令缺乏充分的宪法依据来推翻各州自行制定的法律——尤其在人工智能领域——去年11月白宫泄露的行政命令草案已暴露出大量法律问题（更不必提其中涉及大卫·萨克斯的争议）。其次，特朗普在“真实社交”平台上宣布此事时，对其具体目标同样语焉不详。

遗憾的是，本届政府执政风格充斥着专断气息与健怡可乐般的虚浮。我们大可推测，无论白宫推出何种方案都难以通过法律审查，但特朗普势必竭力驱使下属快速执行其意志，且不容任何质疑。（不妨试想：若将“州权”比作“白宫东翼”，而“掌控美国人工智能政策”是“宴会厅”，会是何等景象？）

但潜在的政治余波未必会立刻冲击华盛顿——至少不会立竿见影。

本周，我邀请到两党合作组织“安全人工智能联盟”的首席执行官兼联合创始人布伦丹·斯坦豪泽，探讨人工智能监管（或缺位 thereof）会否成为中期选举的焦点议题。斯坦豪泽是常驻奥斯汀的共和党政治战略家，长期为得克萨斯州候选人服务，曾操盘众议员迈克尔·麦考尔（前任）、丹·克伦肖及参议员约翰·科宁的竞选并助其胜选。他的履历还包括早期茶党政治活动，2009至2012年间曾任草根组织“自由works”的联邦及州级竞选全国总监。

毋庸置疑，斯坦豪森深谙红州选民心理，却仍与民主党人找到共同立场，于2025年7月联合创立了这一非营利组织。（坦白说，我震惊于2025年的政治组织竟能汇聚曾效力拜登政府、参议院民主党、民主党国会竞选委员会、得州共和党国会代表团及迈克·约翰逊议长办公室的成员。但这恰是人工智能领域的“马蹄铁理论”体现。）

他承认相关民调尚处早期：保守派家庭研究学会与YouGov合作的两项调查显示，选民反对联邦政府推翻各州人工智能监管。但越来越多证据表明红州选民对人工智能行业日益警惕。斯坦豪泽与我深入探讨了他观察到的三大反弹：宗教反弹、社会反弹，以及极不寻常的“各州政府对抗华盛顿共和党人追逐禁令”之反弹。

“我二十年来断断续续为共和党人提供顾问服务，与他们共事、助选，深耕草根政治，试图理解选民并指导候选人如何思考及与选民沟通，”他在电话访谈中告诉我，“但我认为他们（共和党）未能预见六个月后的局面。”

本周The Verge精选：

• 《Square产品负责人谈分币消亡与货币未来》解码器栏目：Square的威廉·阿维与主编尼莱·帕特尔探讨AI自动化、加密货币投资及为杰克·多西工作的体验。
• 《AI“创作者”可能摧毁网红经济》特伦斯·奥布莱恩：在信息泛滥的网络中，杰里米·卡拉斯科利用平台普及AI认知。
• 《反虚假信息战争节节败退》詹姆斯·鲍尔：对抗错误信息的系统如何被曲解与瓦解。
• 评测：《谷歌携手Xreal打造的Project Aura眼镜初体验》维多利亚·宋：这款厚重如太阳镜的设备竟能运行安卓应用。
• 评测：《特朗普移动的翻新iPhone果然性价比堪忧》多米尼克·普雷斯顿：你愿意花近500美元买一部三年前的旧iPhone吗？

“诸位，请思考未来六到九个月的局势”
（本次访谈经过精简梳理。）

问：您于2024年启动安全人工智能联盟工作，该非营利组织于2025年7月成立。在此期间，普通选民对人工智能议题的认知有何变化？
斯坦豪泽：除民意调查外，这很难量化。需结合媒体报道与日常见闻观察。我认为整个2024年，公众对AI的认知及对其发展速度的意识尚未形成。但2024年深秋至冬季开始显著提升。我愿将此归功于报道先进AI崛起的记者们——《纽约时报》的凯文·鲁斯、埃兹拉·克莱因、罗斯·杜塔特等人——他们凭借影响力将议题推向公众视野。

另一重要推动力是DeepSeek事件。它真正引起了主流人群（我厌恶“主流”一词，但指代那些专注日常生活的普通民众）的关注，使其开始聚焦AI。当然，新模型的陆续发布也持续助推。但媒体报导与DeepSeek事件确实是关键引爆点。

问：从DeepSeek事件到首次州级AI法律禁令表决仅隔数月，但国会浮出禁令构想后，各州反应激烈。能否为不熟悉此事的读者解读当时状况？
斯坦豪泽：各州立法者、州长和总检察长对其专注的议题抱有自豪感。他们常在重大政治问题上立场相左，但若能跨党派合作并通过法案签署成法，他们会珍视这份成就并希望延续。众多州通过AI相关法律后，他们自然固守立场并捍卫这些法律。

全国各地的共和党人与民主党人——无论是立法者、总检察长或州长——开始异口同声：“我们为重要事业付出艰辛努力，不容联邦政府轻易推翻。”他们通过社交媒体发声，联系本州国会议员和参议员，甚至致电白宫表达诉求。

问：The Verge读者熟悉科罗拉多与加州的AI监管，但可能不了解深红州的AI立法浪潮。您所在的得州今年通过了综合性AI监管法律。红州推动AI监管的动力何在？为何如此警惕联邦干预？
斯坦豪泽：这是关键且难以简答的问题。得州作为深红州，具有高度保守性与宗教氛围。立法者与州长等人透过此透镜审视AI：关注先进AI对民众（尤其是青少年）健康福祉的影响，担忧社会弊病与家庭受损，警惕AI相关的心理健康危机与自杀潮。

他们亦忧虑AI被塑造成试图取代上帝的存在——我在得州与宗教领袖及普通人交流时反复听到此观点。这种将技术讨论为“全知全能”的倾向冒犯了他们的情感。

宪法第十修正案中的联邦主义原则亦至关重要，许多保守派与自由主义者长期在理论上支持此理念。当联邦政府试图推翻州级成果时，他们更坚定拥护州权。十五年前共和党在医疗问题上对抗奥巴马政府，特朗普任内亦有多起类似案例，但AI领域最为突出，因为立法者希望抢占先机保护本州公民。

令我惊喜的是此议题的跨党派合作。得州立法机构中极右共和党人与极左民主党人携手并进，彰显此运动的巨大潜力。

问：这在得州议会真实发生？两端的公开声明真能达成一致？
斯坦豪泽：当然。我手头有一封两周前致克鲁兹与科宁参议员的联名信。得州参议院共31席，此信成功汇集9名共和党人与7名民主党人联合署名，信中包含保护儿童、通用人工智能等有力表述。若非因《国防授权法案》优先权之争时间紧迫，本可获得更多支持。

问：若我记得没错，克鲁兹参议员一直高调支持禁令。这似乎反映共和党内在AI问题上的分裂。支持禁令的共和党人基于何种考量？
斯坦豪泽：我与参议员及其团队多次交流。克鲁兹始终秉持某些核心原则——尽管也从政治角度分析问题。2016年他赴艾奥瓦州反对乙醇补贴仍赢下该州，在特朗普首个任期内坚持自由贸易，力挺以色列犹太人民而承受压力……这些都是他坚守信念的例证。AI议题亦属此类。

安德森·霍洛维茨基金、大卫·萨克斯及乔·朗斯代尔等人对此具有不成比例的影响力。但克鲁兹也关注AI危害，追踪其快速发展，思考通用AI与超级智能。他认为必须与中国竞赛开发AI，且不相信能与对手达成“只竞商业、不竞超级智能”的协议。

他亦持古典自由派思维，不愿施加繁重行业监管——这点我理解且尊重。但AI（尤其是先进AI）因其能力属性截然不同：我们可能轻易失控，而开发者显然未采取足够安全措施。证据比比皆是。

问：他的观点是否代表支持禁令的共和党人？他们如何看待AI发展？为何认为需要禁令？
斯坦豪泽：简言之，这是AI行业的诉求。算上游说资金、政治行动委员会及各类免税组织，他们正投入2.5至3亿美元推动此议程，目的就是规避我们支持的安全措施。行业影响力巨大。除非共和党议员看到更多普通人通过电话、市政会议、社交媒体参与讨论，否则他们仍会屈服于短期利益。

我为共和党提供顾问二十年，协助竞选，深耕草根政治，研究选民心理。但共和党未能前瞻六个月后的局面。他们只盯着眼前——大科技公司的资金、威胁、影响力，以及安德森与萨克斯描绘的美妙图景。我想说：诸位，请思考未来六到九个月的局势。

问：您指中期选举？
斯坦豪泽：正是。中期选举及潜在经济影响。如果我们身处AI泡沫，用AI自动化取代岗位，出现招聘冻结……尽管夹杂关税等其他因素，共和党终须面对后果。政治现实是，经济恶化时执政党需担责。而若经济真陷入困境，AI必是核心诱因。届时选民（包括基本盘与独立选民）会质问：“你们给大科技公司开绿灯，未加约束，看看现在成了什么样子。”

这需要民众积极关注议题。假以时日参与度会提升，但恐怕要等到严重危机爆发——经济首当其冲，但儿童青少年受害案例也已引发注意。昨晚《60分钟》关于Character AI的报道就是重大警示。

问：如今已难忽视这些现象。
斯坦豪泽：除非刻意视而不见，否则都能凭直觉感知事态。是好是坏？或许利弊参半。多数人认为：我们不需要创造数字上帝。他们虽不信其可能，但担忧开发者的企图。多数人也认为不能任其毫无约束地狂奔——开发应为造福人类，但必须监管这些公司，看看他们在社交媒体上的前科。这确实是主流共识。

又到假日休会期。
抱歉，我仍忍不住回归主题讨论：
下周再见。

英文来源：

Hello and welcome to Regulator. If you’re a subscriber, you are stalwart and true, and if you’re here from the internet, prove your chivalry and worth by subscribing to The Verge here. (And if you’re David Sacks: we said what we said.)
Both sides of the aisle hate the AI moratorium
It’s the one of the few things Republicans and Democrats can agree on right now.
Both sides of the aisle hate the AI moratorium
It’s the one of the few things Republicans and Democrats can agree on right now.
As of Tuesday, President Donald Trump has committed to signing some sort of executive order that would do something that would give him some federal control over AI regulation. I state this in the vaguest of terms for two reasons: First, there’s still no good constitutional rationale for an executive order to override laws that states pass for themselves, let alone on artificial intelligence, and the version of the executive order that leaked from the White House in November immediately presented an overwhelming amount of legal issues (to say nothing about the David Sacks of it all).
Second, Trump was just as vague about what he hopes to accomplish when he made the announcement — naturally, on Truth Social.
Unfortunately, this presidency is run on tyrannical vibes and Diet Coke, so one can safely assume that while whatever emerges from the White House won’t pass legal scrutiny, Trump sure as hell will push his people to do whatever he wants them to, to do it quickly, and to not question his judgment about it. (Imagine, if you will, that “states’ rights” is “the East Wing of the White House,” and “control over America’s AI policy” is “a ballroom.”)
But the potential political fallout won’t be felt in Washington — at least, not immediately.
This week, I’m talking to Brendan Steinhauser, the CEO and cofounder of the bipartisan Alliance for Secure AI, about whether AI regulations — or the lack thereof — will become a hot-button issue for voters in the upcoming midterm. Steinhauser’s a Republican political strategist based in Austin who’s primarily worked for Texas candidates, managing the campaigns of Reps. Michael McCaul (former) and Dan Crenshaw, as well as Sen. John Cornyn, all of whom were elected. His resume also includes a stint in early-stage Tea Party politics, serving as national director of federal and state campaigns for the grassroots organization FreedomWorks from 2009 to 2012.
Suffice to say, Steinhauser understands red state voters, but found plenty of common cause with Democrats to create the Alliance, launching the nonprofit in July 2025. (Honestly, I am shocked that in the year 2025, a political organization can have leadership and staff who’ve worked for the Biden administration, Senate Democrats, the DCCC, the Texas Republican congressional delegation, and Speaker Mike Johnson’s office. But that’s AI horseshoe theory for you.)
Polling on the issue, he admits, is early: So far, two polls conducted by the conservative Institute for Family Studies in partnership with YouGov have found that voters reject the idea of the federal government overriding state AI regulations. But there’s growing evidence that red state voters are increasingly skeptical of the AI industry, and Steinhauser sat down with me to walk through what he was seeing: religious backlash, social backlash, and, quite unusually, state-governments-against-Washington-Republicans-chasing-a-moratorium backlash.
“I’m someone who’s advised Republicans for 20 years off and on, and worked with them and campaigned for them and dealt in grassroots politics, trying to understand voters and advise candidates on how to think about voters and talk to voters,” he told me during a phone interview. “I just don’t think they’re seeing [things] six months from now.”
This week at The Verge:

• “Square’s product chief on the death of the penny and the future of money”, Decoder: Square’s Willem Avé talks to The Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel about the AI automation, investing in crypto, and what it’s like working for Jack Dorsey.
• “AI ‘creators’ might just crash the influencer economy”, Terrence O’Brien: On the slop-filled internet, Jeremy Carrasco uses his platforms to spread AI literacy.
• “The war on disinformation is a losing battle”, James Ball: How the systems that fight misinformation and disinformation became misconstrued and dismantled.
• Review: “A first look at Google’s Project Aura glasses built with Xreal”, Victoria Song: It’s kinda like a pair of chunky sunglasses that runs Android apps.
• Review: “Trump Mobile’s refurbished iPhones are an unsurprisingly bad deal”, Dominic Preston: Would you like a three-year-old used iPhone for almost $500?
  “Guys, start thinking about where things are going to be six to nine months from now”
  This interview has been edited for clarity.
  You started working on the Alliance for Secure AI in 2024, and the nonprofit launched in July 2025. Between then and now, what happened to the average voter awareness of AI as an issue?
  Brendan Steinhauser: I think those things are difficult to measure other than through public opinion polling and things like that, and looking at news media coverage and anecdotal stories in everybody’s lives. I would say that throughout 2024, the public opinion related to AI and the awareness of what was happening and how fast things were moving was just not there. But sometime around late fall, winter of 2024, it started to pick up quite a bit. I honestly give a lot of credit to journalists covering the rise of advanced AI and saying this could rapidly advance. Kevin Roose, for example, at The New York Times and Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat and others like that. With the megaphone that they have, it’s started to bring this issue more front and center for a lot of people.
  The other thing that contributed in a great way was the DeepSeek moment. I think that really made more mainstream people — I really hate to use the word “mainstream,” but I’m talking about people that are going about their daily lives, who are focused on other things — it got their attention and they started to focus more on AI. Certainly, the release of new models helped over time. But I would say that the media coverage and the DeepSeek occurrence really sparked a lot of this.
  Going from the DeepSeek moment to the first vote on the AI state law moratorium took only months, but once the idea of a moratorium had been floated in Congress, the states reacted very negatively towards it. Could you explain, for an audience who doesn’t really follow that stuff as closely as you and I do, what that looked like?
  One thing about state legislators and governors and attorneys general is that they’re proud of the work that they do on the issues they care about. A lot of times, they’re on different sides of important political questions. But when they get to work together on things in a bipartisan fashion and they’re able to pass laws and get the bills signed into law, they’re proud of that accomplishment and they want to see that continue. I do think the fact that so many states passed laws related to AI policy created a situation where they were dug in and defending those laws.
  You have this interesting mix of Republicans and Democrats from around the country, whether they were lawmakers or attorneys general or governors, who said: We worked really hard to do something important here, and we don’t want the federal government to just overturn our work. So they started speaking out about this. They started posting on social media. They started calling their members of Congress, their US senators. And of course, if they had a good number, they were calling the White House, saying, Don’t overturn what we did in our state.
  Verge readers will be familiar with AI regulation efforts in states Colorado and California, but maybe not with the explosion of AI regulations coming from deep Republican states. You’re from Texas, which passed a comprehensive law regulating AI earlier this year. What is driving AI regulation in red states and why are they so protective of it against federal intrusion?
  That’s the really important question and hard to answer succinctly. So I’ll try and start with broad strokes and we can get into more detail. But I think Texas represents red states in that it’s very conservative. It’s a very religious state, it’s very socially conservative, so many of the lawmakers and the governor and others are looking at it through that lens. They’re looking at the impacts of advanced AI on their people, on the health and well-being of their people, especially young people. They’re worried about the social ills, the potential for negative impacts on families. They’re worried about this epidemic of mental health crises and suicides that we’ve seen related to AI.
  They’re also worried about AI being seen as almost something that will attempt to replace God. That is a theme that I hear again and again here in Texas, when I meet with faith leaders and regular people — this instinctual reaction to this technology that is being discussed as if it were an omniscient, omnipresent thing. So that offends their sensibilities.
  There’s also this important concept in the Constitution — the 10th Amendment, the idea of federalism, which many conservatives and libertarians have supported, at least in theory, for a long time. I think that they come out more in support of the 10th Amendment when they see that the federal government is trying to overturn something they’ve worked on. We saw this when Republicans pushed back against the Obama administration on healthcare 15 years ago. We’ve seen this in a few instances in the Trump administration with Republicans here in power. But mostly, I’ve seen it on AI because I think it’s an issue that these lawmakers want to get ahead of and make sure they’re protecting their citizens. It’s just something they care passionately about.
  To be honest with you, I’ve been pleasantly surprised and somewhat encouraged by the bipartisan nature of this effort. The fact that you have these very far-right Republicans in the legislature in Texas and these far-left Democrats getting together on this and joining hands has been pretty spectacular. So I think that really shows how powerful this movement can be.
  That’s actually happening in the Texas state legislature? Like, if I were to look at their public statements at both sides of the spectrum, they would be united on this?
  Oh yeah. I have a letter I can share with you that was just sent over to Sen. Cruz and Sen. Cornyn a couple weeks ago. So the Texas Senate has 31 members, and this letter was able to get nine Republicans and seven Democrats to sign on with their names together, all their signatures, in no particular order. It had some really great language in there about AI: protecting kids, AGI, that sort of stuff. I think there would have been more and there can be more people who add their names to that, but that’s just who they were able to get in the middle of the [National Defense Authorization Act] preemption fight on short notice.
  Sen. Cruz, though, has been very vocal about having a moratorium, if I’m remembering that correctly. And it does seem a little bit emblematic of a split within the Republican Party itself on AI. What accounts for the part of the GOP that is okay with a moratorium?
  I’ve had plenty of conversations with the senator himself and with his team, and I have always observed that Sen. Cruz has certain core principles that he believes in. Yes, he analyzes things through a political lens as well, but you can see plenty of examples of him fighting for things that he believes in because he believes in them, whether it’s going to Iowa and campaigning against ethanol subsidies and winning the state of Iowa in 2016, or speaking out for free trade when President Trump wasn’t too happy about that in the first term, or speaking up for the state of Israel, for the Jewish people in the Jewish state of Israel specifically — taking flack on that. Like, those are examples of things where he just believes things and he fights for them. I think this is similar.
  I do think that Andreessen Horowitz and David Sacks and other similar folks — like Joe Lonsdale, who I know and I like — have a disproportionate influence there. But I also know that Sen. Cruz is tracking some of these harms. He is tracking the rapid advancement of AI. He’s thinking about AGI and ASI. I think he looks at it as, we’re in this situation where we have to race to beat China in developing AI, and if we don’t, they will [develop it] anyway. And he doesn’t believe — and I’ve asked him this — he doesn’t believe that we can make a deal with our adversary to race commercially and to not race to superintelligence.
  He also does have that kind of small-L libertarian mindset of not wanting, in his view, burdensome or onerous regulations on industry, which I get and I respect. And I don’t either. I just think that AI, and advanced AI in particular, is a different category for so many reasons because of the capabilities. Because we could easily lose control of it. And these guys are clearly not taking the safety precautions that they need. There’s just a ton of evidence of that. Long answer, apologies.
  Do you think his views reflect the rest of the GOP that’s pro-moratorium? Like, how do they think about the development of AI and why does that require a moratorium?
  I think the specific answer to that is, that’s what the AI industry wants. If you include lobbying money, plus PACs, plus all the 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, etc., etc., they’re on pace to spend $250 to $300 million on all of those things pushing this agenda, and they don’t want to deal with the safeguards that we all support. The industry just has a tremendous amount of impact and influence. And until the Republican senators and members of the House really see more and more regular people engaging in this, calling them up, going to their town hall meetings, speaking out on social media, they’re going to go with that immediate incentive.
  I’m someone who’s advised Republicans for 20 years off and on, and worked with them and campaigned for them and dealt in grassroots politics, trying to understand voters and advise candidates on how to think about voters and talk to voters. I just don’t think they [the Republican Party] are seeing six months from now. They’re not seeing around the corner. They’re looking at what’s immediately in front of them, and it’s all the money and all the threats of Big Tech and all the influence, all the great things that Andreessen and Sacks are telling them. And it’s like, Guys, start thinking about where things are going to be six to nine months from now.
  In the actual midterms, yeah.
  Oh yeah. The midterms, and also potentially with the economy. If we are in an AI bubble and we’re automating jobs to AI and there are freezes on jobs and all these other things — yeah, there’s tariffs in the mix and there’s other stuff in the mix, but Republicans are going to have to deal with that. Unfortunately, politically speaking, they’re going to own an economy if it’s a bad economy. And guess what? AI is going to be a huge part of that story if it is a bad economy. I don’t think that is inevitable, but I think that if that does happen, voters — including their base and independent voters — are going to say, well, You guys gave all this leeway to Big Tech. You didn’t do anything to place a check on them, and then now look at where we are.
  It takes people getting active on this issue and I think in time they will more and more, but unfortunately, it may take some really bad things that cause people to take more action. The economy, first and foremost, but people are definitely paying attention also to these harms of the kids and young people. The 60 Minutes thing last night about Character AI was a big deal.
  It’s hard not to see it everywhere.
  Yeah, you really have to be burying your head in the sand to not see it and have a basic intuition about what’s going on. Is it good or bad? Is it a mix? I do think most people are like, Yeah, it’s kind of a mixed bag, but we don’t need to create a digital God. Most people don’t believe that’s possible, but they’re worried about what the developers are trying to build. And I think most people also would say they shouldn’t just be able to accelerate without any guardrails — develop it to help people, but we need some checks on these companies, because look what they did with social media. I do think that’s a very mainstream position.
  And now, more Holiday Season Recess.
  I’m sorry, I can’t help but return to The Discourse:
  See you next week.