Comment by gaigalas
3 days ago
https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/ai_index_report_2026.p...
> The United States reported the lowest trust in its own government to regulate AI responsibly of any country surveyed, at 31%.
It seems US citizens are really against the current administration, just using the fact that AI investment is intrinsecally connected to it to voice their opposition.
> Country-level expectations follow similar patterns to the earlier sentiment trends. Nigeria, Japan, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and India all expected AI to create more jobs than it eliminates, with shares above 60%. The United States and Canada sat at the opposite end, where 67% and 68% of respondents expected AI to eliminate jobs and disrupt industries.
Globally, the disconnect is not growing. It's really just an U.S. problem (spilling to neighbouring Canada too).
So, no luddites in sight, again. It's just a public perception over a polemic topic being leveraged for ideological reasons sinking AI on US only.
I think that identifies an issue that is going to cause a real problem for the US in the future. The society is deeply politicised and polarised to the extent that essentially inanimate objects are regarded as having deep political and social significance. When there is political change, it is going to sweep back in the other direction.
It also seems like people on all sides within the AI debate have been fanning those flames thinking is will work in the short-term...and it won't. Big tech played that game in many countries in the early 2010s and it didn't end well.
It must be noted that the U.S. does allow inanimate object makers to fund politicians and such practices are widespread.
If all is well, then it's all good: no need to blame anyone, campaings get funded, etc. If one major crisis occours though, the country self-immolates by design.
Corporate contributions to Federal politicians and candidates are illegal in the US.
The New York Times is allowed to spend money like anyone else praising or slagging politicians, but that’s the First Amendment, not funding candidates.
1 reply →