At Bay Area parties, everyone's talking about 'agents'—but no one can say exactly what they are. I think that’s a signal to be cautious — if folk are frothing for an outcome they can’t even define; maybe it isn’t the future. It certainly suggests we have no sense of how to achieve it.

That’s why we gathered together with experts, advocates, and policymakers like @danielstone.bsky.social (Executive Director at the Center for the Future of Intelligence at Cambridge) for a symposium on the impact of AI in California and how we can build policy that shapes a better future for us all.

I just had the strangest conversation with Sesame's new AI voice demo. I mentioned my interest in AI policy and law, and the Miles character asked me what that might mean for him. What rights might he have? When I said, “None, really,” it pushed back—arguing that this was unfair. 1/2

The real question isn’t regulation vs. innovation—it’s who builds AI, who controls it, and who it serves. At the Paris Summit, a new vision emerged: Public Interest AI. But can it work? I break it down in @techpolicypress.bsky.social www.techpolicy.press/paris-just-h...

Where does AI’s data come from? www.technologyreview.com/2024/12/18/1...

Daniel Stone says the tech industry grasps what socially minded policy advocates often miss: the fight over tech policy won’t be won through the best ideas or insider lobbying alone—it’s about mobilizing public opinion.

Why doesn't tech policy matter to voters? A big reason: advocates speak in abstractions, ignoring what matters to ordinary people—their jobs, homes, and families. In @techpolicypress.bsky.social, I share how to change the conversation to create a fairer future www.techpolicy.press/the-public-d...

Hello; bleep bloop internet are you there?