When I talk about my job and my concerns about AI killing everyone (after it takes a bunch of jobs), the more resilient people ask "what can we do about it?" My answer has become: "Elect a next president who shares these concerns, from either party." I hope you'll either join me in this prescription, or point out why I'm wrong. Below is the logic, in brief.

The US public really doesn't like AI,
- even before clear job losses, more warning shots, and more expert concern as capabilities improve
AI caution is a likely platform of the next presidential campaign
If the next president is sincerely concerned and/or thoughtful
- They could easily slow development and force safety measures
- This would improve the odds of good AI outcomes

Anyone can be recruited/converted to spread awareness of AI risks, and otherwise help to elect a next president who's genuinely aware of and concerned about AI risks. Strategy is out of scope for this brief post, but accurately and broadly conveying your and the field's concerns seems like a useful push.

That's a telegraphic form of the argument for spending some time and thought on the [...]

---

Outline:

(01:30) Why not?

(03:30) The president won't take action

(04:56) The president can't take action

(05:37) The public doesn't care enough to elect an AI-concerned president

The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
August 27th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oMwkcNP4MJh4rry3s/the-2028-presidential-primaries-could-be-crucial-for-ai

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“The 2028 presidential primaries could be crucial for AI outcomes” by Seth Herd

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“The 2028 presidential primaries could be crucial for AI outcomes” by Seth Herd