zroe1

I spent a few hundred dollars on Anthropic API credits and let Claude individually research every current US congressperson's position on AI. This is a summary of my findings. Disclaimer: Summarizing people's beliefs is hard and inherently subjective and noisy. Likewise, US politicians change their opinions on things constantly so it's hard to know what's up-to-date. Also, I vibe-coded a lot of this. Methodology I used Claude Sonnet 4.5 with web search to research every congressperson's public statements on AI, then used GPT-4o to score each politician on how "AGI-pilled" they are, how concerned they are about existential risk, and how focused they are on US-China AI competition. I plotted these scores against GovTrack ideology data to search for any partisan splits. I. AGI awareness is not partisan and not widespread Few members of Congress have public statements taking AGI seriously. For those that do, the difference is not in political ideology. If we simply plot the AGI-pilled score vs the ideology score, we observe no obvious partisan split. There are 151 congresspeople who Claude could not find substantial quotes about AI from. These members are not included on this plot or any of the plots which follow. II. Existential risk is partisan at the tails When you change the scoring prompt to ask how much a congressperson's statements reflect a concern about existential risk, the plot looks different. Note that the scoring prompt here emphasizes "A politician who is most XRisk-pilled is someone who thinks AI is a risk to humanity -- not just the US." This separates x-risk concerns from fears related to US-China relations. This graph looks mostly like noise but it does show that the majority of the most x-risk pilled politicians are Democrats.[1] This is troubling. Politics is a mind-killer and if AI Safety becomes partisan, productive debate will be even more difficult than it currently is. III. Both parties are fixated on China Some congresspeople have