

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Mr. Altman, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Zuckerberg: In the interest of humanity, stand by your word."
As progressives on Monday urged US House Speaker Mike Johnson to haul artificial intelligence leaders before Congress to answer questions under oath about "the dangers posed by this technology," Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote directly to a trio of AI CEOs.
"Almost every day, there is a new story about how your companies are losing control of the AI technology you are developing, with potentially cataclysmic results," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote to OpenAI's Sam Altman, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg.
Citing a study published Thursday in the journal Science, he noted that "this week we learned, frighteningly, that AI has been used for the first time ever to create new viruses. As you know, this type of development, in the wrong hands, could lead to new bioweapons that result in the deaths of tens of millions of people."
That revelation came just weeks after "the world found out OpenAI lost control of an AI model," the senator continued. "The result? The model hacked into another company’s computers—a clear violation of federal law. After conducting internal reviews, Anthropic and Meta reported their models similarly escaped their control."
Pointing to recent calls for action from Yoshua Bengio, the most cited living scientist in the world, as well as top scientists at various AI companies, Sanders stressed that the international community wants "to create a safety mechanism—a pause button—to avoid catastrophe."
"And yet, at a moment when we have seen human loss of control and the creation of potentially dangerous viruses, your companies are still racing ahead—investing tens of billions of dollars into a technology that nobody can fully understand, predict, or control," he wrote. "That is absurd, irresponsible, and extremely dangerous. It is also a betrayal of your own stated commitments."
After outlining those commitments from the past few years, the former presidential candidate argued that "AI capabilities HAVE reached a critical threshold. There is a reason why the head of the CIA says that AI models are 'akin to digital nuclear weapons' and 'almost like a doomsday device.'"
"Mr. Altman, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Zuckerberg: In the interest of humanity, stand by your word. Pause AI development. It is not too late to avoid disaster. Stop building machines that humans cannot control," he urged. "Let me be very clear: If you do not take appropriate action now, my colleagues and I in the US Senate will."
Sanders earlier this year proposed the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would give the public "a direct ownership stake" in the largest artificial intelligence companies in the country. The senators is also co-leading a data center moratorium bill.
Big Tech has done the impossible—they’ve united people from across the political spectrum around a singular issue: against data centers and AI.
If I told you that Big Tech billionaires have accomplished something rare in our incredibly divided country, you might laugh and assume I’m joking. But I couldn’t be more serious.
Through the data center buildout boom, Big Tech has done the impossible—they’ve united people from across the political spectrum around a singular issue: against data centers and AI. More than 70% of Americans oppose a data center being built near them.
There was a right way to roll out data center expansion and build support locally and nationally with a few basic but essential ingredients: transparency; local benefit; clean energy; and respect for peoples’ wishes to not be subjected to pollution, noise, added expenses, and wasteful water use. Like the best recipes, this would have been a little slower, deliberate, and less prone to burning.
But this sector—run by the mega rich, unconcerned with the struggles of everyday Americans—has instead delivered a masterclass on how to manufacture dissent.
Our communities, waterways, parks, and kids’ futures are not for sale.
How did they build such intense opposition so quickly?
Let’s start with secrecy. Tech companies—including the giants Microsoft, Amazon, OpenAI, and Google—have forced local elected officials across the country to sign non-disclosure agreements while they pursue data centers. The first time local residents hear about a data center being built in their hometown is often after it is already a done deal.
Communities get no say, but they do get higher utility bills. That is the next move in Big Tech’s playbook: increasing costs for communities when life is already unaffordable, so billionaires can become trillionaires.
Next comes round-the-clock noise from cooling fans that emit a constant low hum. When diesel backup generators are being tested or used continuously, it’s like living beside a helicopter taking off. And it’s not just the noise—communities suffer from air pollution impacts too. While many Big Tech companies were formerly champions of clean renewable energy, the Trump era has seen them embrace fossil fuels and power their data centers mostly with coal and methane gas. A Caltech and University of California Riverside study projects that data centers could contribute to 1,300 premature deaths and 600,000 asthma cases across the US in 2028.
Case in point: Microsoft, which just released its 2026 “environmental sustainability report”—quite the Orwellian title given the company’s ballooning pollution. Microsoft’s real-world emissions from powering its data centers have grown 178% from the start of the AI boom in 2020 to 2025, with a 2 million ton increase in carbon dioxide since just last year. That doesn’t include the estimated 15.5 million tons of carbon pollution expected to be emitted by just three mega data center projects announced this year. Microsoft’s voracious appetite for energy reached 37 million megawatt hours (MWh) in 2025—equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of Ireland. That’s what partnering with Chevron gets you.
Trying to spin these numbers into a climate-friendly narrative just adds fuel to the fire—as Microsoft’s chief sustainability officer Melanie Nakagawa saw firsthand recently at a PNW Climate Week event at Seattle City Hall. Audience members posed question after question challenging Nakagawa on the company’s talking points, while protesters chanted, “Microsoft, you can’t hide. We can see your dirty side.”
As if all this was not enough to fuel public backlash, it is clear that our children’s future job prospects are also in jeopardy. Collectively, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have already laid off tens of thousands of employees thanks to AI. It is no wonder that executives delivering commencement speeches about the wonders of AI have been booed off the stage.
“But why stop there?” tech barons seem to ask. How about a data center that threatens the actual river from A River Runs Through It? Yes. Native American land? Sure. National Parks? Certainly. The Great Salt Lake in Utah, a refuge to 12 million migrating birds? Of course. Each overstep brings legions more into the big tent of data center resistance.
Finally, when protest reaches a fever pitch, criminalize it. The US Department of Justice seems to be targeting people who oppose data centers. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella have all embraced President Donald Trump, making this deeply unpopular sector even more despised.
If the tech sector wants these built, they need to do the opposite of everything they’ve done so far. Data centers must be done right, or not at all. Otherwise, community opposition will continue to grow and local politicians will fall in line with public opinion—as we’ve seen in hundreds of jurisdictions across the United States. And if AI’s purpose is to steal our kids’ jobs, create new demand for fossil fuels, and make the rich even richer, there is little hope for a recovery.
Our communities, waterways, parks, and kids’ futures are not for sale. The tech sector has demonstrated incalculable greed and adopted radically antidemocratic practices. It needs to now, somehow, convince people that it cares even a little about communities and our country. If they don’t change course fast, the dissent they manufactured will crush them and their data centers.
"These are the first smart glasses guaranteed to never record nude videos of you and send them to random people. I never thought I’d have to guarantee that, but here we are.”
As Meta faces heat for selling artificial intelligence-powered sunglasses that record people without their knowledge, the web browser DuckDuckGo responded with what it called "the world's most innovative anti-surveillance sunglasses"... otherwise known as normal sunglasses.
Meta, the Big Tech behemoth that owns Facebook and Instagram, likely did not expect to become the subject of relentless scorn and mockery over its new line of "Meta Glasses," which retail for upwards of $299 and have been plugged by the likes of Kylie Jenner.
But internet users have saddled the shades with the nickname "pervert glasses." For good reason: among other high-tech bells and whistles, the latest version is equipped with photo and video technology that some of the clientele have used to discreetly film strangers.
As the Los Angeles Times chronicles, some women have been approached by bespectacled creeps only to later find a recording of the encounter posted online, entirely without their consent. Although the glasses have a white light to indicate that recording is in progress, some elite-tier perverts have found ways to disable it.
DuckDuckGo, a company that has billed itself as an alternative to its data-mining, privacy-violating competitors, responded to the backlash against Meta by partnering with the eyewear company Knockaround and selling its own pair of glasses whose primary gimmick is that they do absolutely nothing but sit on your face.
"No camera, no microphone, no AI, no battery, no electronics of any kind," reads the website, "Just a beautifully crafted pair of matte black sunglasses with a glossy DuckDuckGo logo, designed to block the sun and never send data to the cloud."
“We’re obsessed with innovation. So when Big Tech started putting cameras in smart glasses, we asked ourselves a radical question: What if we just didn’t do that?” a July 30 social media post from DuckDuckGo said. “These are the first smart glasses guaranteed to never record nude videos of you and send them to random people. I never thought I’d have to guarantee that, but here we are.”
This was not merely a hyperbolic what-if. It's been reported that Meta's AI glasses have recorded videos of users having sex and using the bathroom that were then viewed by Kenyan subcontractors involved in manually training Meta's AI systems.
Internal documents have also revealed plans by Meta to embed facial recognition technology into the glasses, which dozens of rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, warned "would allow anyone wearing them to identify by name any strangers in their vicinity—including at protests, medical clinics, and businesses."
After being secretly implemented for a brief period without being accessible to consumers, the technology was rolled back. But concerns remain that it could be added again, and there have been growing calls from lawmakers and privacy groups in the US and Europe to ban the glasses.
One British activist group called Everyone Hates Elon has begun a viral guerrilla marketing campaign against the Meta glasses.
One satirical ad, placed at a bus stop in London, shows the infamous sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein wearing the frames, with the tagline "glasses for people who don't do consent" next to the Meta logo.
"These glasses feel like they’re making perverts’ and abusers’ lives easier when we should actually be making women’s lives easier. They are pervert glasses," a spokesperson for the group told The Times of London. "We wanted to use Jeffrey Epstein to highlight who these glasses will be used by, and it’s powerful men and abusers.”
In this environment, it's perhaps not a surprise that DuckDuckGo's tech-free alternative has been a hit. The company said that within a week, the shades, which cost $35 a pair, had sold out.
"We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
A New Mexico court on Thursday ruled that Meta must pay an additional $567 million fine on top of the $375 million a jury fined the tech giant in March for harms caused to teens and children who use its Instagram and Facebook social media platforms.
First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid said in his 68-pager ruling that "significant numbers of people in New Mexico experience harm from Meta’s products due to risks of sexual exploitation, interference with education, and adverse mental health outcomes."
"The harm to the impacted New Mexicans is not doubtful, eventual, or contingent, but an immediate, temporally connected, and highly probable result of Meta’s actions," he continued.
"The youth mental health crisis has inflicted significant and widespread harm in New Mexico in terms of the number of youth suffering mental health harms, the profound suffering they and those in their families suffer, and the resulting interferences with the functioning of the schools, law enforcement, [and] healthcare systems in New Mexico," the judge added.
The case centered on allegations that Meta knowingly designed and operated Facebook and Instagram in ways that exposed children to harmful content, encouraged excessive use, and failed to adequately protect minors from exploitation. New Mexico officials argued that internal company knowledge and outside warnings showed Meta was aware of risks associated with its platforms but did not act sufficiently to address them.
Most of the new fine—$420 million—will go toward funding youth treatment services, while the rest is designated for awareness and prevention, screening services, and other costs.
Biedscheid's order also compels Meta to make changes to its platforms in New Mexico, including removing "like" counts and only showing them to minors with parental consent, and prohibiting overnight push notifications for users under age 18.
"Regardless of whether it is labeled as an 'addiction' or 'problematic use,' the evidence at trial proved that design elements, such as autoplay, infinite scroll, 'like counts,' and push notifications create a product that, particularly for adolescent users, is highly rewarding psychologically and neurochemically," he wrote. "As a result, for many, it is irresistibly compelling to start scrolling and very difficult to stop or abstain from its use."
"In addition," the judge added, "algorithmic content recommendations can create harmful feedback loops and 'rabbit hole' users. Within a similar vein, 'like counts'... can provide a potentially harmful focus for adolescent users."
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said the company would appeal the ruling, claiming: “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content. We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts."
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez hailed the ruling, saying that “Meta built products it knew would fuel addiction, deepen a youth mental health crisis, and expose children to sexual exploitation, then lied to parents and policymakers about the danger. Today, it pays for that choice.”
At Fairplay—a children's advocacy group—executive director Josh Golin hailed the "landmark ruling" as "the clearest indication yet that the tide is turning when it comes to protecting kids from social media."
"For the first time, Meta is being compelled by a court to change its dangerous and harmful design," he continued. "And with so many states lined up to sue Meta and other social media companies, we should expect to see a lot more injunctive relief to make online platforms used by young people safer."
“This ruling also clearly indicates why families need the Kids Online Safety Act," Golin added, referring to a controversial bill advanced this week by the Senate Commerce Committee. "The judge said it was up to Congress to address the addictive features on Instagram and other social media platforms. KOSA’s duty of care against compulsive use is the key to ensuring that Meta and other social media companies stop designing for addiction, as addictive design is the root of all social media harms.”
Justin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement: "This verdict is an important step towards creating safer social media for children and young people. For years, Amnesty International has warned that major social media platforms have been designed to maximize engagement and profit, while failing to adequately protect children’s rights."
“Crucially, the court went beyond imposing a financial penalty," he continued. "By ordering changes to platform features, including removing 'like' counts for people under 18 and restricting overnight notifications, the ruling recognizes that the harms children experience online are often the result of deliberate design choices."
“Amnesty has been calling for exactly this kind of action," Mazzola added. "Child safety must be built into platforms from the start, not added as an afterthought once harms are identified. This decision sends a clear message that social media companies cannot continue to prioritize engagement at the expense of children’s well-being and rights.”
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on Bluesky: "This is good news. For far too long, Big Tech corporations have put their bottom lines ahead of the health and safety of kids on their platforms."
"Congress must continue to push for accountability and real guardrails for companies like Meta as tech giants continue to grow," added Jayapal, who was critical of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act approved by the House of Representatives in June.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also welcomed the ruling, posting on X that billionaire Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's "greed is fueling a youth mental health crisis in America."
"Today, a judge ordered Meta to pay a $567 million fine for the damage it has done to our kids," Sanders added. "Good start. We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids."
"We need to clearly be 100% on the side of workers who are vulnerable, kids who are vulnerable, everyday people who are vulnerable to mass surveillance."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar this week urged fellow Democrats to reject campaign support from artificial intelligence industry lobbyists and unveiled a bill intended to help protect workers from AI-related mass unemployment.
The Texas congressman took aim at Leading the Future (LTF), a pro-industry super political action committee (PAC), and "AI billionaires that are lobbying for no regulation," during a Thursday interview with MS NOW. He argued that "we need to clearly be 100% on the side of workers who are vulnerable, kids who are vulnerable, everyday people who are vulnerable to mass surveillance."
Casar drew a comparison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose super PAC is spending millions against Democratic candidates critical of the Israeli government and its forces' genocidal violence in the Gaza Strip. He predicted that LTF and the "big anti-AI regulation donors" would soon be "as toxic as AIPAC is today."
According to AI Money Watch, a project launched in June by the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, "LTF entered 2026 with $70 million cash on hand and operates through affiliated super PACs (Think Big PAC in New York, American Mission PAC in Texas) and a dark-money 501(c)(4) arm called Build American AI."
AI Money Watch found that the two candidates with the most LTF money spent on them so far during this cycle are both former congressional Democrats from Illinois. The group poured over $1 million into supporting Jesse Jackson Jr., who lost the primary for the 2nd District, and AIPAC-backed Melissa Bean, who beat a progressive in the state's 8th District.
LTF also spent over $1 million each on Ben McAdams, a former Democratic congressman running in Utah's 1st District, and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who is formally endorsed by the group. Rounding out the top 5 is James Kingston, a Georgia Republican who won the 1st District primary, with over $960,000 spent on him.
Casar told MS NOW that rejecting such support could help his party earn the trust of voters: "If Democrats clearly stand with the 75% plus of Americans that want sensible AI regulations to prevent mass unemployment, mass surveillance, or mass national security risks, I think we should win over the voters... Even if it means we don't win over all the money."
Gallup found last September that 80% of US adults believe the government should prioritize "maintaining rules for AI safety and data security, even if it means developing AI capabilities at a slower rate." In March, 76% of respondents to a Americans for Responsible Innovation poll said that they had concerns about AI tools enabling unprecedented government surveillance of citizens.
A June poll conducted by Justice Research Group for Working Families Power found that 85% of working-class voters support large-scale retraining and apprenticeship programs for workers whose jobs are changed by artificial intelligence, 73% worry that AI will lead to job losses, and 62% fear the rapidly developing technology would personally affect them or people close to them.
Casar partnered with Reps. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) on Thursday to introduce the AI Tax and Work Protection Act, a bill that would tax industry giants to fund a Work Protection Administration charged with creating jobs to offset layoffs.
"This bill says: We will not let AI billionaires get rich by putting you out of work," said Casar. "Right now, the path we are on is clear: AI will turn a couple of billionaires into trillionaires but leave millions without work. That is unacceptable. And right now, the federal government is doing nothing to protect workers from the threat of AI mass unemployment. Our bill would protect American workers by making big AI companies pay their fair share."
The bill is backed by various policy experts and advocacy organizations, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Groundwork Action; and Demand Progress Action—whose executive director, Sean Vitka, applauded Casar's "continued leadership on artificial intelligence."
"Serious, resilient proposals to address the unfolding impacts of this rapidly advancing technology are far too hard to find in Congress," said Vitka. "Some policymakers don't take AI seriously enough, and some don't understand it at all. With this legislation, Rep. Casar is instead demonstrating the kind of policymaking vision needed to meet the moments ahead."
Related legislation recently introduced by progressives in Congress includes the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act proposed in June by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which would give the public "a direct ownership stake" in the largest artificial intelligence companies in the country, and the landmark data center moratorium bill unveiled in March by Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
In a sign of how the public is feeling about "AI taking our jobs," data centers driving up utility bills, and "surveillance tech tracking our every move," a coalition of groups is planning a week of action from August 9-16 "to demand that our elected officials stand with the people—not Big Tech billionaires."
"The likes of Palantir need to stump up what's due," said one expert. "Tech giants raking off billions in profit can’t be free to pay what they please."
Palantir Technologies, one of the world's most influential—and controversial—surveillance tech companies, enjoyed an effective tax rate of just 1.4% globally last year while paying no US federal income tax despite recording substantial profits, an analysis released on Wednesday revealed.
The study, Who Pays for the Surveillance State?, was written by the Center for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) in partnership with the European Federation of Public Services Unions. The report "examines how Palantir is capturing ever-larger government contracts while paying no US federal corporate income tax and shifting much of its foreign profits back to the US, avoiding taxes in Europe."
"In 2025 the company reported $1.657 billion in pre-tax profit, booked $22.7 million [in] corporate tax paid globally, and paid $0 in US federal income tax, resulting in an effective tax rate of just 1.4% globally," CICTAR found.
"The report's core claim of profit-shifting is based on the gap between revenue and profit location: 26% of Palantir's revenue came from outside the US, but 96% of pre-tax profit was booked in the US," the analysis states.
"The Trump administration has not only been granting record amounts in new contracts to Palantir but is running a global protection racket to help it—along with larger US tech giants—avoid paying tax both in the US and globally," the report contends.
"In Europe, the report finds a pattern of subsidiaries providing services to the US parent on cost-plus terms, leaving low taxable margins locally while related-party payments move value back to the US," CICTAR added.
Palantir maintains that it complies with applicable tax laws in every jurisdiction where it operates. Company representatives have said that transfer pricing arrangements and other accounting practices cited by critics are standard among multinational corporations and comply with existing regulations.
The Palo Alto, California-based company's soaring revenues are partly driven by government contracts, with the US Department of Defense being the data analytics specialist's biggest client. Palantir is also integral to the Trump administration's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown, selling technology used by Department of Homeland Security agencies—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to identify, track, and target people for arrest and deportation and manage their cases.
Palantir has also drawn scrutiny from Democratic US lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who demanded answers following reporting last year that the company was "amassing troves of data on Americans to create a government-wide, searchable ‘mega-database’ containing the sensitive taxpayer data of American citizens.”
Palestine defenders have also denounced Palantir and other tech giants for selling technology to the Israeli government and military despite findings by rights groups, scholars, national governments, and a United Nations commission of inquiry that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Alex Karp, the billionaire co-founder and CEO of Palantir, told CNBC last month: “I am the most publicly supportive CEO of Israel. I think Israel is on the side of good.”
In Europe, advocacy groups have raised concerns about Palantir's contracts involving sensitive medical records, immigration systems, and predictive analytics. Campaigners argue that centralized data platforms create attractive targets for misuse, unauthorized access, or mission creep beyond their original purposes.
CICTAR's report concludes that "European public authorities should be able to exclude companies that take public money while shifting profits away from the national tax base that funds public services, and provide the basis for national security that Palantir claims to defend."
Responding to the report, Andrea Egan, general secretary of UNISON, the largest trade union in the United Kingdom, said that "a big multinational aggressively avoiding tax and dodging its responsibility to pay a fair share is probably no surprise. But the fact the UK and other countries are rewarding Palantir with massive government contracts is what beggars belief."
“Systems that enable tax to be shirked on an industrial scale clearly have to change," she added. "The likes of Palantir need to stump up what's due. Tech giants raking off billions in profit can’t be free to pay what they please. Ministers shouldn’t award contracts to run public services to firms that are starving them of cash.”
The congressman from Silicon Valley said his resolution aims to give communities "the right to oppose data centers instead of having them shoved down their throats by state governments."
The congressman from Silicon Valley, Rep. Ro Khanna, is introducing one of the first comprehensive federal frameworks to give seething communities the right to fight back against Big Tech and its breakneck expansion of artificial intelligence data centers.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who announced the plan on Thursday, referred to it as a "Data Center Bill of Rights" and said it will aim to give communities "the right to oppose data centers instead of having them shoved down their throats by state governments."
Opposition to data centers has become a central plank in some progressive campaigns that have seen success in recent months, most recently the Democratic primary victories of Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and House candidate William Lawrence in Michigan.
They and other candidates have called for moratoriums on the construction of these facilities, which have come with soaring utility costs, dwindling water supplies, and pollution.
A nonbinding resolution introduced by Khanna earlier this week emphasized that developers have often made deals with state and local governments under a shroud of secrecy, with nondisclosure agreements that hide information about the ownership and potential costs of data centers until it's too late for the public to fight back.
Among other provisions, the resolution calls for Congress to give communities the right to:
Khanna's proposal comes as he says the developers seeking to hyperscale data center development are "losing the country."
A Gallup poll from May found that more than 7 in 10 Americans would either somewhat or strongly oppose the construction of a data center near them.
And while the Trump administration has pushed hard for rapid development, opposition is bipartisan. Three-quarters of Democrats say they don't want the facilities in their communities, but so do nearly two-thirds of Republicans.
Khanna's resolution is one of many legislative pushes by Democrats on Capitol Hill to regulate data centers, an issue on which they are eager to build credibility ahead of this November's midterms.
Also on Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, proposed an excise tax on data centers and to stop them from benefiting from tax-advantaged "opportunity zones," which Republicans extended last year.
Other proposals have gone further than Khanna's. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced legislation earlier this year for a nationwide moratorium on new data centers until national safeguards can be put in place.
“This is really just yet another class divide for the American public."
Regardless of tech executives' promises that artificial intelligence will make people's workdays more efficient, more productive, and even happier, a new survey out Monday found that employees "are bracing for the impacts of AI rather than embracing them."
That was the interpretation of Elizabeth Pancotti, the vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative, after the group joined research firm Ipsos in releasing the first results of a yearlong study of worker attitudes on AI.
Workers, said Pancotti, "expect the tech to deepen existing inequality in the workplace."
Just one-third of US workers expect the technology, whose expansion President Donald Trump has aggressively pushed, to improve their jobs, according to the poll.
The rest of the respondents rejected the idea that AI would automate tedious tasks at work and provide support, allowing them to complete more challenging responsibilities faster. Instead, two-thirds of workers said they expect their lives at work to get harder as AI eliminates jobs—theirs or their coworkers—and increases pressure at the workplace.
"This sentiment is consistent across race, gender, education, and income lines," reported Ipsos, while people with a college degree were more likely to believe that AI could improve their jobs. Only 1 in 5 people with a high school education or less said they expected their jobs to be improved by the technology.
Black workers (12%) were more likely than white respondents (4%) to feel that AI could eventually replace their jobs.
“Workers know bosses who say AI will make their jobs easier and allow them to be more productive are pulling a fast one."
More than a quarter of employed people said AI is already having a negative impact on their work, while 41% of unemployed people said the same.
As Jessica Grose wrote in The New York Times last month, AI has made it easy for companies to rapidly post job listings and give "the impression a business is thriving," without following up with many applicants, leaving job seekers in "purgatory."
More than half of the workers surveyed by Groundwork and Ipsos said they believe the widespread use of AI in workplaces will "only or mostly benefit business owners and executives."
"The benefits of AI in the workplace are not being split evenly," said Pancotti. "The workers who expect to reap the rewards of adoption are already high earners in white-collar jobs.”
Just 6% of respondents said workers will benefit, and about 14% said the technology will ultimately not benefit anyone.
About 40% of people making $100,000 per year or more expected their jobs to get better and easier due to AI—more than twice the percentage of people who make under $50,000.
“This is really just yet another class divide for the American public,” Alex Jacquez, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, told Semafor.
The poll comes as communities across the country have mobilized to stop AI data centers from being built, arguing that the facilities' massive water and electricity consumption, as well as the evidence that they could ultimately lead to job losses while creating little-to-no permanent work, makes them undesirable additions to their cities and towns.
“Workers know bosses who say AI will make their jobs easier and allow them to be more productive are pulling a fast one," said Pancotti. "Across the board, workers report AI putting more pressure on productivity rather than supporting workers as many AI proponents claim."
We are stuck in info-bureaucracies—just like real-life bureaucracies, only much more effective at giving us the runaround, wasting time, and conditioning us to accept the absurd as normal.
Drowning in my usual sea of online media saturation, I recently spotted an article in The Boston Globe that validated a long but increasingly less lonely quest against the perils of technocracy. It focused on a security safeguard we all know and love: two factor authentication and how it’s driving most of us bonkers:
How hard can it be to grab your phone, retrieve a six-digit code, and type it in—seemingly the simplest task in the world—to avoid, oh, having your bank account emptied, your identity stolen, or yourself rendered a kind of stateless person, adrift without access to your own life? Don’t get Thomas Lee, a Brigham and Women’s Hospital physician, started. “Two-factor authentication is sapping my will to live,” he said. Or litigator Kara Thorvaldsen. “It’s the bane of my existence,” she said. “Every time my husband tries to log into NESN, it somehow requires me to get a code and unlock something with Face ID, etc., etc., ad nauseam.” Or Kim Smith, a playwright, an actor, and an empty nester. “Sometimes the only reason I hear from my [youngest] daughter is when she needs the code that’s been sent to my phone,” she said. As porch pirate thefts mount, residents feel besieged. As two-factor—or, even worse, multifactor—authentication becomes inescapable, it’s safe to say that somewhere in America, a spouse is shouting from another room, “Did you get my code?” An employee can’t get into his work platform because he left his phone at the gym, or thinks he did. And an adult child is trying to help her cognitively faltering parents pay a bill, but can’t, for lack of that darn code.
Not a pretty picture but one that we all know all too well. For some reason, it got me thinking about T.S Eliot’s poem “The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock," a masterwork. In one of the more memorable lines, a disillusioned elderly man complains to himself muttering: “I have measured out my life with coffee spoons.” He was basically lamenting that he has let himself be lulled into a diminutive humdrum existence—characterized by small and inconsequential actions making his own narrow life feel smaller and smaller.
This line keeps surfacing in my ruminations about our culture’s slow steady march into some kind of technocratic dystopia—a digital panopticon where we all peck our way through life… where every action, gesture, word, deed, or genetic footprint is recorded and—a more alarming trend of late—presumably watched. In a curious inversion, this humdrum and plodding digital existence has turned out to be the precise opposite of the “machines of loving grace” meme introduced decades ago by another poet, Richard Brautigan—one often quoted by the techno-utopians who are now in charge of… well… almost everything it seems. Then I came across a similar lament from Alex Ross writing in The New Yorker:
You wake up and brace yourself for the barrage of toxic gibberish that constitutes the modern public sphere. Your email is overrun with spam, scams, and smut. There are voice mails from no one about nothing… Publications from the Times on down employ clickbait headlines that treat you like a starving rat in a Pavlovian experiment. AI systems simulate the experience of talking to an arrogant 10-year-old boy who knows far less than he thinks he does. When pressed, the chatbots admit that they cannot “naturally understand human morality, dignity, culture, or meaning.” It all adds up to a continuous discursive tinnitus—a buzz of random, fake, stupid, sinister chatter that nobody wants and nobody can stop.
Living our collective cultural experience by “measuring our life in coffee spoons” seems to resonate perfectly. We seem to be in some kind of number punching purgatory like the four sad corporate drones struggling to reclaim their humanity in the popular TV series Severance. We click away and are hypnotized by our screens. We overdose on mandatory cuteness courtesy of goofy cartoonish emojis and robot figures that some programmer seems to think is going to brighten our day.
As a thought experiment, I started musing about how much of my own time is frittered away on digital trivia. Elaborate verification processes just to use basic services. Endlessly punching numbers and codes into phones and computers and often reaching a dead end. The constant use of codes just to access our own stuff as if in some kind of military intelligence operation. Forcing us to constantly look over our shoulder about being hacked. (Is my life savings still there today?) Frequent visits to customer service hell which are only going to get worse as more and more AI chatbots get added to the mix by clueless companies. (Why is it that many popular companies can’t seem to figure out that customer service is the heart of their business?) Waiting on infinite hold because we might refuse to talk to some cartoon-like chatbot that’s clueless about dealing with anything with the slightest bit of complexity. (Wasn’t AI supposed to be “smart”? Or do companies just like to use “dumb AI” when it suits their purpose?)
I call the framework for these experiential trips to digital purgatory info-bureaucracies. They’re like real-life bureaucracies—only much more effective at giving us the runaround, wasting time, and conditioning us to accept the absurd as normal like the poor souls in Terry Gilliam’s strange but prescient movie Brazil. So here we are frittering away our already scarce and valuable time on these mindless digital chores when we could be doing things that enrich and sustain our lives.
Now that we’re rapidly moving to an “AI first” world, we won’t even be able to navigate these info-bureaucracies ourselves. Unfortunately, this will probably get worse before it gets better. Tech-enamored companies are increasingly using AI agents for customer service and the results are horrendous. Being able to speak to a human agent means mastering different workarounds for every 800 number you might have to call. And we can easily spend hours of our day on hold listening to someone else’s mind-numbing idea of snazzy music.
I believe that—right now—we’re at a unique crossroads in history where we have a window of opportunity to shape the future and our quality of life. But this may involve some hard choices.
Years ago, studies were done to determine how much time Americans spent waiting for red lights. According to some researchers, people in the US spend about 300 hours a year driving, a significant portion of which is spent waiting for traffic lights. One research organization calculated that this “comes up to a whopping four months of your life if you drive seven days a week for 50 years.”
Of course, arguably, this is simply one of the inconveniences we tolerate as expected time wasted in the complicated business of contemporary living. But I couldn’t help but think how much of our valuable quality time we now waste on the continual care and feeding of our Lilliputian-like digital lives. And how much already scarce quality time is also being spent on meaningless tasks plodding through digital labyrinths designed to increase corporate profit; unburden huge corporations from the anguish of having to hire more customer-service staff; and save them time while, of course, wasting ours.
More often than not, the AI agents we encounter turn out to be quite stupid by any human metric. I can assure you from years of working in high tech that companies unquestionably have the technical ability to provide much more user-friendly systems. But this isolation from human agents is intentional and serves their own interests. Many customers just give up trying to fix order problems and take a financial hit out of frustration. And these are vital systems of daily life. We’re talking about essential services such as banking, credit card transactions, paying taxes, and other functions. And once you’re in the tech soup, you’re forced to stay there if the matter is important enough.
Henry David Thoreau admonished us to “simplify, simplify.” But how can we accomplish this as the digital maze envelops us? I believe that—right now—we’re at a unique crossroads in history where we have a window of opportunity to shape the future and our quality of life. But this may involve some hard choices. I believe that Americans are intuiting this, and the AI data center pushback is a healthy and hopeful expression of this.
Another great American poet, Wendell Berry, captured it well. In “Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition,” Berry said: “It is easy for me to imagine that the next great division of the world will be between people who wish to live as creatures and people who wish to live as machines.” It seems clear that this is the unavoidable existential choice we now face. We have to decide what kind of world we want to live in and then summon all the agency we can muster to bring it about.
Despite what Altman may have told legislators in Washington this week, days after OpenAI’s unprecedented cyberattack, the war for the future of AI policy is not over—but it will be, quickly, if Democrats refuse to fight and continue to play both sides.
Just days after OpenAI's new model went rogue in an unprecedented cyberattack on another company, where did we find CEO Sam Altman? In closed door meetings on Capitol Hill and in the White House, shaking hands across Washington.
With a looming deadline to finalize the details of the White House's AI executive order, Altman and other Big AI executives are working overtime to make sure they get their way on the most consequential AI policy in history. And they're not alone: Big AI's agenda is being shepherded by Democratic and Republican operatives alike, backed by record levels of lobbying money and super PAC spending.
Democrats now face a choice. They can stay quiet while a handful of billionaires write the rules for the most consequential technology of our time—or they can own this issue and stand up to the lobbying blitz.
The stakes could not be higher. What's on the line is nothing less than the free and open debate our democracy depends on. And rarely has doing the right thing been such good politics—voters across party lines overwhelmingly want guardrails on AI. But make no mistake, the Big Tech AI goliaths we are up against will not give up without a fight.
Voters are not waiting to be convinced that Big AI has too much power; they are waiting for a party willing to say it with them.
Washington is crawling with Big AI lobbyists, whispering in the ears and stuffing the pockets of elected officials. In the first half of this year, OpenAI nearly doubled its federal lobbying to a record $2.22 million. Anthropic almost tripled theirs, topping their competitor's spending at $3.53 million. In May, OpenAI established its first lobbying office in DC called the Workshop, just blocks from the White House. In the last six months, tech companies including Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Anthropic have retained 234 lobbyists for AI policy specifically—that's about 1 lobbyist for every 1.5 members of Congress. According to a watchdog analysis, 25% of the 13,000 federal lobbyists in DC are involved in AI issues—a marked jump from 2023.
Behind the scenes, Democratic and Republican operatives alike, with deep ties in Washington, are helping to enable Big AI’s agenda. Chris Lehane, famously nicknamed a "Master of Disaster" during his time in the Clinton White House, was involved in establishing Leading the Future and plays a chief role in OpenAI's political strategy as chief global affairs officer. Also on the OpenAI side is Ann O'Leary, a longtime aide to both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Senate, the White House, and on the campaign trail, who became Gov. Gavin Newsom's chief of staff in 2018. Today she operates as OpenAI's vice oresident of global policy.
Their efforts toward controlling influence extends beyond Washington to this cycle’s consequential midterm elections. Leading the Future—an anti-regulation corporate super PAC funded by Trump-aligned billionaire executives at OpenAI, Palantir, and Andreessen Horowitz—has so far raised $140 million toward its effort to influence the 2026 midterm elections. The goal of this lobbying is to push through OpenAI's self-interested AI narrative at the expense of a broader conversation around the future of technology in this country and the world.
The danger here is grave, and the potential impact of the success of this strategy will be lasting. Our political system depends on the free and open debate of ideas in the public sphere. If Big AI proves that they can repress that debate by crushing public servants, our democracy will crumble.
To head up Leading the Future, Lehane reportedly tapped Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, a powerful pair with experience on both sides of the aisle. Vlasto is a Democratic strategist who formerly served as press secretary to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and chief of staff to disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Moffatt is a leading Republican strategist who also serves as the CEO of Targeted Victory. With decades of experience as political operatives, they are laser focused on defeating candidates who support AI regulation. Unfortunately, their approach may be working: New York Assemblymember Alex Bores (D-73) lost his congressional primary campaign, and they've recently seen victories for their supported candidates in Arizona.
However well-funded these groups are, they are on the wrong side of what American voters want—and Democrats should say so, loudly. In a recent Johns Hopkins poll, a broad majority of Americans—even those who trust the technology—support AI regulation. And in a recent Gallup poll, confidence in Big Tech sits at an all-time low. Voters are not waiting to be convinced that Big AI has too much power; they are waiting for a party willing to say it with them.
That’s why Democrats cannot treat AI as a niche tech debate, or quietly accept the industry's money while its super PACs pick off their colleagues one primary at a time. Some campaign veterans, including our team at Guardrails, are already standing up to push back against the autocratic takeover of the Trump administration and the tech industry. The party should put its money, its message, and its midterm strategy behind them. Bores' defeat should be a rallying cry, not a cautionary tale.
Despite what Altman may have told legislators this week in Washington, the war for the future of AI policy is not over—but it will be, quickly, if Democrats refuse to fight.