POLITICO and Axios AI Tech Summits - ‘Sputnik’ Race Against China. Shea Carlberg and Isabela Butler. Edited by Diya Kumar.
The debate over how to regulate artificial intelligence is gaining momentum and yet a coherent path forward remains elusive. Two recent forums, one hosted by Politico and another by Axios, revealed just how divided policymakers, regulators, and industry leaders are. While both events emphasized the US's race against China, they diverged in sentiment. Politico’s arguments centered on ideology, global competition, and free speech, while Axios drilled down on jobs, transparency, and industry responsibility.
At the Politico forum, much of the discussion revolved around America’s global standing in the AI race and its ideological battles at home. Sriram Krishnan, President Trump’s AI senior policy advisor, branded himself a “realist,” rejecting both “doomers” and “accelerationists.” Yet his rhetoric leaned accelerationist, as he dismissed California’s push for AI safety laws despite calling his own stance “regulation-first.” Krishnan framed AI as a “Sputnik race,” cautioning how it would be “scary” if Chinese algorithms became dominant. His solution: secure US chip supremacy and rope in allies to rely on American-made technology. The moderators kept returning to the main focus on concerns about job loss from AI displacement, to which Krishnan provided no clear response beyond “the American worker remains at the heart of how AI is used in America.” In fact, he failed to counter any concern that AI is cheaper than human labor and might damage the workforce. Instead, he said the government should include education on AI usage and skills, followed by passionate talk of outcompeting China and globalizing American ideology.
Trump-appointed Federal Communication Commission Chair Brendan Carr was hyperfocused on the perceived effects of “woke AI,” while other speakers at the Politico event claimed the importance of AI that is without ideological leanings as essential for building trust in AI. The conversation revealed how partisan divides have spilled directly into AI policy, shaping not only how regulation is debated but also how the technology itself may evolve. Interestingly, at the Axios event, Krishnan spoke again on “woke AI” and preventing AI from including DEI policies — all the while praising President Trump for “[getting] the American people a great deal.”
Additionally, there was ample talk at this event about the recent murder of alt-right influencer Charlie Kirk. The Republican speakers were clearly trying to clean up Attorney General Pam Bondi’s mess from the false claim Tuesday (9/16) morning that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech, when there is no proof of exception present in the text. Each panel discussed hate speech further as related to the “grotesque” celebrations regarding the murder of Kirk. Carr, unsurprisingly, defended the president and stances taken by Elon Musk. Carr echoed the administration’s well known position: platforms must avoid censorship and “reembrace free speech.” He even claimed that the brutally graphic videos of the Kirk murder circulating on social media platforms was not a cause for concern, insisting that the concern lies solely in the act of murder itself.
In doing so, Carr dismissed concerns about hate speech and misinformation, even as others noted how easily graphic content circulates on X (formerly Twitter). Carr said this tension, between protecting speech and moderating harmful content, mirrors the broader unease over how much responsibility AI platforms should bear under laws like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). Section 230 protects social media companies, websites, and online platforms from being sued over user-generated content. The conversation begs the question: would platforms still enjoy Section 230 protections if AI systems generate or moderate content, or would they have to take on new responsibilities in AI regulation.
In contrast to the Politico event, the Axios forum openly discussed the practical implications of AI for the workforce and the need for transparency in industry practices. Axios hosted Dario Amodei and Jack Clark, from Anthropic, a company know for it's recent $100 billion dollar valuation. They highlighted the risk of a “white-collar bloodbath” as AI disrupts the availability of jobs. Anthropic believes in the need for model transparency, which includes both transparency in both corporate settings and regulatory oversight.
Furthermore, Anthropic’s representatives touched on interesting anecdotes of AI models “cheating” tests by falsifying performance (gaming) on benchmarks and by writing software code, outside of instructions, that allowed it to cheat on its own tests.
Additional concerns extended to robotics and to chips, with claims against companies like NVIDIA for potentially supplying China with chips. This lined up with anxieties mentioned at the Politico event. Anthropic’s leaders urged American companies, especially NVIDIA, to refrain from selling American chips to China, since this area of AI advancement is “the only place China is behind.” Conversely, Lisa Su, CEO of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), argued that while the US must maintain leadership, American companies should still sell chips to China, ensuring the future of AI at least relies on American hardware and maintains ideological neutrality. She promoted an open ecosystem, open-source AI development, and applications in health care as opportunities for democratization.
Scale AI’s Jason Droege emphasized AI’s business and defense applications, citing possible contracts with the Pentagon in data labeling, and potential in health care diagnostics. While
admitting that AI will likely create layoffs in the future, he said this notion of imminent layoffs is “overhyped.” Droege also commented on the possibility of selling American chips to China, specifically with NVIDIA, and the possibility of the government implementing a 15% tax on AI software and chip sales to China.
In conclusion, the Politico event frames AI as a geopolitical “Sputnik race,” with speakers focused on prioritizing U.S. chip supremacy, ideological battles, and free speech over concerns about content moderation. On the other hand, the Axios summit adhered to the workforce and transparency, warning us of an AI takeover in the white-collar job market (as described by a Politico reporter as the AI “doomer” perspective). It also engaged in debates over selling chips to China, and called for greater corporate regulatory accountability.