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

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.