Matt Mahan

I also think, though, that there is a...

more extreme version within my party that wants to just hit the brakes.

And I think, I just believe we are better served.

And I think historically we have been better served by regulating, managing, shaping technological change, but having the authority to do that than just saying no and having it happen elsewhere.

And I think there's a balance to strike there.

I put out an AI accountability plan that's all about striking that balance.

It's about investing in workforce development.

putting strict guardrails on the way that children interact with technology, accountability for data centers and robotics companies.

We need to have an AI shared prosperity fund that is paying, that is taking tax revenue from these hyperscalers, these big tech companies.

And paying for the upskilling and reskilling we need to make sure that people are prepared for the jobs of the future.

And look, if it gets really dire, we haven't seen this yet, but we should have a plan B. If job loss increases, we're going to have to talk about things like a UBI.

We need to have a whole other set of tools, a totally different safety net if this plays out in a way that some of us fear.

I go between Claude and ChatGPT mostly.

Although I end up by default on Gemini a lot just because of the browser.

Yeah, I mean, look, it's a very fair question.

And my response is, one, I've regulated tech.

And as an elected official over the last six years, I have never done one thing to benefit the biggest employers in Silicon Valley over the people of San Jose.

And I sure as heck am not going to do that in Sacramento.

I'm actually running against special interest capture in Sacramento.

And I'm not going to replace one set of interests with another.