Kull is program director of the Program for Public Consultation. Lewitus is a research analyst at Voice of the People. Thomas is vice president of Voice of the People and director of Voice of the People Action.
As the House of Representatives’ new Task Force on Artificial Intelligence considers how the government should address AI issues, such as election-related deepfakes and bias in algorithms, a new survey finds very large bipartisan majorities favor giving the federal government broad powers to regulate AI.
They endorse seven proposals currently under consideration in Congress and the executive branch for regulating AI-generated deepfakes and AI making decisions with the potential for harm. Voters also favor international treaties prohibiting AI-controlled weapons and establishing an international agency to regulate large-scale AI projects.
The survey was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. To ensure that respondents fully understood issues around AI, as in all public consultation surveys, respondents were provided in-depth briefings and arguments for and against each proposal, reviewed by experts on each side of the debates.
Creating new laws for AI-generated deepfakes registered overwhelming bipartisan support. Advancements in AI have led to the ability to easily create hyper-realistic images, video and audio. All three proposals surveyed garnered the support of over eight in 10 Republicans and Democrats. They would:
- Prohibit the use of deepfakes in political campaign advertisements, such as to depict an opponent saying something they did not, or to depict an event that did not occur, as proposed by the Federal Election Commission (national 84 percent, Republicans 83 percent, Democrats 86 percent).
- Prohibit the public distribution of any pornographic deepfake that was made without the consent of the person being depicted, as proposed in the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act and DEFIANCE Act. (National 86 percent, Republicans 85 percent, Democrats 87 percent)
- Require that all deepfakes which are shared publicly be clearly labeled as such, as proposed in the AI Labeling Act, AI Disclosure Act, and DEEPFAKES Accountability Act. (National 83 percent, Republicans 83 percent, Democrats 85 percent)
Large bipartisan majorities also favor three proposals for closely regulating AI programs that make decisions which can significantly impact people’s lives, including in healthcare, banking, hiring, criminal justice, and welfare, in a similar manner to the way the FDA regulates drugs. There is evidence that some of these programs have violated regulations, shown bias (e.g. by race, gender, age, etc.) and caused material harm to individuals.
More than seven-in-ten voters favor proposals that would:
- Require these AI programs pass a test before they can be put into use, which would evaluate whether they may violate regulations, make biased decisions, or have security vulnerabilities. (National 81 percent, Republicans 76 percent, Democrats 88 percent)
- Allow the government to audit programs that are in use, and require the AI company to fix any problems that are found (national 77 percent, Republicans 74 percent, Democrats 82 percent).
- Require AI companies to disclose information to the government about how the decision-making AI was trained, if requested, to aid with pre-testing and audits (national 72 percent, Republicans 67 percent, Democrats 81 percent).
These proposals come from the Algorithmic Accountability Act, and mirror regulations in the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act.
Creating a new federal agency for AI to enforce regulations, oversee development and provide guidance on policy is supported by 74 percent (Republicans 68 percent, Democrats 81 percent). This proposal is based on the Digital Platforms Commission Act.
In the international realm, Americans also support the creation of an international regulatory agency for large-scale AI, modeled after the International Atomic Energy Agency, as proposed by OpenAI, New York University professor Gary Marcus, and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. A large bipartisan majority (77 percent) favors the creation of such an international agency that would develop standards for large-scale AI and have the authority to monitor and inspect whether their standards are being met (Republicans 71 percent, Democrats 84 percent).
Also in the international realm, Americans support creating a treaty to prohibit the development of weapons that can use AI to fire on targets without human control – called lethal autonomous weapons – as has been called for by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. A large bipartisan majority (81 percent) favors the U.S. actively working to establish such a treaty, and creating an international agency to enforce that prohibition (Republicans 77 percent, Democrats 85 percent).
Clearly Americans are seriously concerned about the current and potential harms from AI. Large majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats favor creating robust federal and international agencies to regulate AI and protect people from deepfakes, biased decision-making, and other potential harms from AI.
When respondents evaluated arguments for and against each of the above proposals, the arguments in favor of regulations were found convincing by larger majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. However, majorities also found many of the arguments against convincing, including: regulation will stifle innovation; prohibitions violate the freedom of expression; and international agencies may abuse their power.
Americans are wary of government regulation, but they are clearly more wary of the unconstrained development and use of AI.
The survey was fielded online February 16-23, 2024 with a representative non-probability sample of 3,610 registered voters provided by Precision Sample from its larger online panel. The confidence interval varies from +/- 1.4 to 1.8 percent.
Read the full report and the questionnaire.
Children watch a July Fourth Parade along the Walkway of Heroes and Independence Avenue on July 04, 2026 in Tappan, New York.
The Great American Grumpfest
Our nation’s 250th birthday party didn’t feel especially patriotic and wasn’t as much fun as the 200th anniversary was.
President Trump, who did his best to co-opt our holiday for his personal aggrandizement, was a major reason. The party he threw in Washington, D.C., was crankier than uplifting, and less about celebrating our shared past and a promising future than about reminding us how far we have strayed from our founders’ plan to create a republic that future Americans would keep in good working order.
Credit Trump this much. He has a singular gift for picking at scabs that other politicians would rather ignore and pushing us into reckonings we don’t need.
The thing is, Americans have seen all this before. Sometimes the makeover we were encouraged to undertake was more conservative, sometimes more liberal. Whatever direction we were pushing, however, the reckoning we had in mind this time had to be more forthright and the conclusion more definitive than it was the last time.
Our current discontents, the ones behind the reckoning President Trump has been trying to inspire, are not trivial. Included among them are immigration, birthright citizenship, exploding healthcare costs, election rigging, a gag-inducing national debt, how we educate our children, too many genders, racial differences we can’t move past, a lopsided economy that favors more well-off Americans, and historic levels of political corruption and graft. Add to these the several foreign adventures he has pushed us into or is anxious to undertake, and you have the makings of a national headache the likes of which we haven’t had in half a century.
All the elbow-throwing and overheated rhetoric we’re using today have begun to look almost normal in all the ways that bickering neighbors and feuding family members appear normal. But they have also made us look mean-spirited and have portrayed our differences as irreconcilable. To ourselves, of course, but also to many people outside the United States who might be forgiven for turning their heads and not looking at the national car wreck we Americans show no interest in avoiding.
The good news, as I suggested above, is that Americans have had a great deal of practice dealing with challenges and national car wrecks like these.
This essay begins to lay out the reasons why.
By way of illustration, we have our seemingly insatiable demand for more bad news about race in America.
Sixty years after being released from the legal constrictions that bedeviled both white and black Americans, many white people have come to believe the color that used to make them unassailable is now a sign of a moral inferiority born of a racial animus they can never wash off. Many black people, on the other hand, are insisting that America is as hopelessly stacked against them as the formerly unassailable white people’s ancestors used to tell their black ones.
The result is that many people today are buying into racist nightmares and mumbo jumbo that their black and white ancestors worked hard and effectively to put in each other’s heads.
This might be dismissed as crazy behavior if it weren’t so important to rituals Americans have long used to express their deepest fears about each other while figuring out what move they can make that won’t end with their world crashing down on everybody’s head.
Unfortunately, the kind of cultural sleight of hand we have used to ramp up our racial differences has been appropriated by people who have many other cultural fears and unresolved differences with each other. Their clumsy but culturally prescribed missteps are making all these other issues look as irremediable as our racial problems.
A good place to start an answer to how we back away from ledges is Alexis de Tocqueville’s writing on early-19th-century American democracy. He had an optimistic take on Americans’ unscripted displays of public bravado, recrimination, and payback.
For him, these were occasions when people tried to mitigate the effects of the unfair hand they were dealing someone else or had themselves been dealt by behaving in ways quite at odds with how they would otherwise be expected to act. These inversions of what Tocqueville called “the natural order of conscience” presented themselves as a loud but culturally muted challenge to the hypocrisies that people had built into the world they’d made together.
One of his favorite illustrations of early-American hypocrisy involved slave masters sleeping with their less-than-worthy slaves. To the best of my knowledge, he didn’t pick up on all the ways that slaves messed with their owners. Their well-chronicled and quiet resistance showed that even severely ill-treated people can exercise more control over their lives than outsiders appreciate.
Be that as it may, such inversions of a people’s “natural order of conscience” make a good public show of them wrestling with demons they can’t or may not want to shake off, but in any case, are nowhere close to figuring out how to cast out.
Implicit in these disruptions was the discomforting idea that people might flip the entire script and turn the world on its head in more permanent ways. That kind of flipping worked out better for us in our revolution against England than in our Civil War. These events taught us the value of stepping back from historically unprecedented ledges.
Americans of late have been giving loud expression to a long list of things they don’t like about each other and the last makeover they started but didn’t finish a half-century ago. The outcome of our fights today will be as revealing as they are embarrassing to everyone who imagined they could recast our country in a way that privileged their favorite kind of Americans.
Their disappointment with the accommodations they strike will be palpable, but the middling results they achieve with all their pushing and shoving won’t be anything they can’t live with.
Anthropologists who have written about such moments in other cultures less “advanced” than our own show that people find ways to work around their seemingly irreconcilable differences without ever fully resolving them. Indeed, the patches and repairs people make have the unheralded effect of reinforcing rather than undermining the legitimacy of the practices and values they thought were fundamentally flawed.
For example…
White guilt and black pessimism do more good than putting cash into the pockets of professional shamers and handwringers. They give the rest of us who don’t feel guilty or powerless more time to make the world less racially unequal. Good news.
Regarding illegal immigration, the entrance requirements for future immigrants will remain stringent. Americans will applaud the continued detention and deportation of the few illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. Good news.
All the people who came to the United States without being legally vetted and were locked up for a time will be released in numbers small enough to avoid serious media attention. Along with the several million other good people who snuck in but avoided capture, the former detainees will go to school, find gainful employment, pay their taxes, and stay out of trouble. Many will eventually become citizens. Good news.
Investigations into election tampering and Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential loss will come to an unceremonious conclusion the day after his second term ends. Many Americans will grumble about this, but there will also be some quiet partying, too. Good and bad news.
Congressional hearings into all the grifting accomplished by people tied to the Trump administration will end without anyone having to pay a dime back to the American taxpayers. Bad news, we’ll learn to live with.
New laws and regulations will be created in the hope that the kind of corruption practiced by President Trump will not be repeated for another 250 years. Good news, I hope we’ll live long enough to enjoy.
Show trials for people who allegedly vandalized the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, if they happen, will get big television viewer ratings. Good news.
Trials for pardoned Capitol insurrectionists who committed serious crimes after their release should get more attention, but won’t. Bad news.
We will continue to hear nothing from most of the people who were pardoned for crimes they committed in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They will keep their mouths shut and their heads down for the rest of their life. Good news.
The gold-gilded ornaments that Donald Trump had plastered all over the White House will be shipped to Mar-a-Lago, where the former president will sell them on eBay. Fun news.
American taxpayers end up paying for most of the new East Wing, the removal of the miniature gladiatorial arena that was built behind the White House, and the restoration of the White House rose garden. Bad news.
The Triumphal Arch was never built. Good news.
Trad wives and gay couples raise perfectly lovely children. Good but unsurprising news.
Trans men and women learn that most Americans can’t figure out who they used to be. No one gives a second thought to their use of “family bathrooms” or “unisex bathrooms” in public settings, businesses, and schools. Communities will sponsor athletic teams that have trans boys and girls just to show they can. Good news.
Budget deficits will be kicked down the road for someone else’s children to pay down. Bad news.
Federal agencies that had their budgets and employee ranks slashed during President Trump’s second term are getting some of the money and lost positions back. Good news.
Elite universities will buy their way out of DEI purgatory by competing for conservative scholars whose inflated salaries dwarf those of their liberal colleagues, who will think about suing their institutions for reverse discrimination but won’t be able to figure out who would pay for it or care. More fun news.
Okay. I’ve probably missed some ways that Americans will step back from the ledges they have been making noises about leaping off. But to the extent that my predictions pan out, the best and most important moral of the stories about us stepping away is this: everything we lost and took back, or had returned to us, will have happened without our government collapsing, civic traditions crumbling, or our people beating each other up.
The reason why is that the differences Americans have with each other really weren’t as irreconcilable as we made them out to be. The empty-sounding bromide that Americans have more that unites us than divides us turns out to be true, not just metaphorically but in fact.
Now that is really something to celebrate.
Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.