Hundreds of bills about AI have been introduced to Congress. Almost all die in committee, and usually they only address one aspect of how AI could impact civilization: data centers, children's wellbeing, transparency, etc.

From my experience watching how the Epstein Files topic played out (more below), I think it may be prudent to assume that we will only have one meaningful shot at getting something substantive and well-thought-out about AI passed in the short-term. Public attention and political will are fickle things. Even if they endure to a certain level of strength and persistence (as with the Epstein Files topic), it seems that getting subsequent legislation passed on a subject in which there is strong opposition can still be a herculean effort. For AI, I do not think we should waste the opportunity while public attention and political will are mounting.

I've attempted to draft legislation that intends to address the full-spectrum of AI-related challenges we'll face: near-term and long-term, domestic and international, mundane and existential, immediate and ongoing. The structure is to legislate into existence a slate of interim technical working groups (which turn into permanent government entities outside of Congress) mandated to produce time-bound [...]

---

Outline:

(05:11) So What Happened With The Epstein Files and Why Is It a Good Case Study?

(06:52) So What Does the MAD Act Cover?

---

First published:
September 15th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dbD8MKa3oKhZD4XCu/we-should-assume-we-have-one-chance-at-ai-legislation

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“We Should Assume We Have One Chance At AI Legislation” by Jamie Joyce

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“We Should Assume We Have One Chance At AI Legislation” by Jamie Joyce