This is an edition of <\/i>The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. <\/i>Sign up for it here.<\/i><\/a><\/small><\/p>\n<\/div>\n OpenAI\u2019s CEO signed a letter in 2023 acknowledging that AI might cause human beings to go extinct. More recently, Anthropic\u2019s CEO said that AI will \u201ctest us as a species.\u201d Many Americans seem to believe them: A March poll<\/a> showed that a majority of voters think the risks of the technology outweigh the benefits. Now, as the midterm elections approach, tech-affiliated super PACs are investing tens of millions of dollars to try to overcome that animus.<\/p>\n To understand their strategy, think back just a few short years to a playbook established by the cryptocurrency industry. During the 2024 election cycle, crypto and venture-capital firms poured funds into a super PAC called Fairshake, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting pro-crypto candidates and attempting to undercut anti-crypto candidates. The plan worked. Major politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) supported by Fairshake and its affiliate PACs defeated<\/a> their opponents; Congress became marginally more accepting of crypto; and the industry notched several major policy wins the following year.<\/p>\n AI-backed super-PAC groups are now adopting Fairshake\u2019s model<\/a>, but under profoundly different circumstances: About half<\/a> of American adults say that they use chatbots such as ChatGPT, whereas just under one-fifth<\/a> say that they\u2019ve used or invested in crypto. AI is both ubiquitous and<\/i> largely distrusted. No leading candidates are advocating for a ban. Instead, the question is how this industry ought to be regulated.<\/p>\n Two super-PAC groups offer two different answers. One, Leading the Future<\/a>, which was co-founded by the venture-capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz, has embraced a regulation-light approach to AI, focusing on \u201cidentifying, maintaining, and growing pro-AI candidates.\u201d It has raised<\/a> more than $140 million, receiving contributions from the VC firm\u2019s founders as well as OpenAI President Greg Brockman. Leading the Future\u2019s priorities seem to align with those of OpenAI. (The AI firm recently put out a statement<\/a> distancing itself from the super PAC.)<\/p>\n Meanwhile, OpenAI\u2019s main rival, Anthropic, donated $20 million to the competition: Public First Action, a nonprofit that works with super PACs to back candidates who have a focus on AI safety. (Anthropic has stated<\/a> that its donation is reserved exclusively for the group\u2019s AI-education initiatives and \u201ccannot be used for federal election activity.\u201d) The group touts its support of comprehensive regulation over the \u201cmove fast and break things\u201d approach. It\u2019s in line with how Anthropic has described its priorities\u2014the company has always positioned itself as a humane, safety-focused alternative to first-mover OpenAI and was recently blacklisted<\/a> by Pete Hegseth\u2019s Department of Defense after it refused to remove guardrails from one of its AI models (the company is currently suing the government). One of Public First Action\u2019s co-founders described<\/a> it as \u201cthe anti-super<\/i> PAC<\/i> super PAC\u201d\u2014purely a way to counter Leading the Future and its Donald Trump\u2013aligned donors.<\/p>\n A high-profile battle between the two has been playing out in New York\u2019s Twelfth Congressional District. Alex Bores, one of the leading candidates, is a former Palantir employee who left the company after it renewed its contract with ICE; he\u2019s been running as the candidate who knows how to regulate<\/a> Big Tech because he understands its power. Leading the Future\u2019s ads have blasted<\/a> him for his focus on regulation, calling him a \u201chypocrite\u201d who will stifle AI\u2019s progress. Politico<\/i><\/a> calculates that groups affiliated with the tech industry have spent $26 million to ensure that Bores doesn\u2019t win. Meanwhile, Public First Action and other aligned groups have spent $18 million to back him.<\/p>\n The political strategist Cooper Teboe told me that the New York race \u201cwill be viewed as the final exam\u201d for this model of AI-backed political spending. If Leading the Future wins out and Bores loses, the super PAC could double down on its playbook in future races. So far, Leading the Future\u2019s spending has arguably given Bores more attention, and has in some ways bolstered his appeal to AI-critical voters. One of his own campaign ads<\/a> satirizes an \u201cAI super PAC\u201d with an evil-sounding robot voice that is trying to destroy him; the ad paints Bores as the level-headed alternative.<\/p>\n As the midterms approach, debates over AI have intensified. Last month, when commencement speakers at the University of Central Florida, the University of Arizona, and Middle Tennessee State University began to talk about AI\u2019s importance in graduates\u2019 lives, they were met with loud boos. It\u2019s worth watching video<\/a> clips<\/a> from the events to get a sense of the ambient feeling; these kids hate<\/i> AI. People are especially skeptical<\/a> of data centers: Seven out of 10 Americans don\u2019t want to see<\/a> one built in their area. And the conversation has lately escalated into violence: Two months ago, an Indiana politician\u2019s home was fired at 13 times, and a handwritten note reading \u201cNo Data Centers\u201d was left on his doorstep.<\/p>\n The industry seems to be realizing that supersize personalities such as OpenAI\u2019s Sam Altman and Anthropic\u2019s Dario Amodei, who tend to speak about AI\u2019s potential in extreme terms, aren\u2019t necessarily equipped to represent the tech to worried voters. The fight over AI regulation has the potential to affect nearly everyone in American society. How should AI\u2019s processing power be taxed? Will data centers ultimately subsidize the restoration of the country\u2019s electrical grid? What towns should allow data centers to be built, and which shouldn\u2019t? Voters will decide, but the industry\u2014and its money\u2014will be guiding the conversation.<\/p>\n Related: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n Here are three new stories from The Atlantic<\/i>:<\/strong><\/p>\n Today\u2019s News<\/strong><\/p>\n Dispatches <\/strong><\/p>\n Explore all of our newsletters here.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Evening Read<\/strong><\/p>\n The Warrior-Witches of Ukraine\u2019s Resistance<\/p>\n By Ken Harbaugh<\/i><\/p>\n For several months last year, a Ukrainian housewife, 35 and lonely in a marriage that had gone cold, traded WhatsApp messages with a Chechen commander, Achmad, stationed somewhere in Ukraine\u2019s occupied south. They wrote about their days, their disappointments, what they hoped to do when the war ended. She asked about the front. He told her.<\/p>\n \u201cSend me a picture,\u201d she said. \u201cI want to see your life.\u201d<\/p>\n One afternoon, he obliged\u2014a photograph taken inside the barracks, of himself and another soldier grinning for the camera. Behind them, pinned to the wall, was a map of the compound showing the unit\u2019s position.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Read the full article.<\/a><\/p>\n More From The Atlantic<\/em><\/b><\/p>\n Culture Break<\/b><\/p>\n Read.<\/b> Critics of the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy pioneered an American pastime: obsessing over a document dump<\/a>. Kaitlyn Tiffany\u2019s new book<\/a> is about the women who went deep examining the crime.<\/p>\n Watch (or skip).<\/b> Toy Story 5 <\/i>(out now in theaters) confronts a nightmare of modern parenting<\/a>, David Sims writes.<\/p>\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n![\"An](\"https:\/\/cdn.theatlantic.com\/media\/img\/mt\/2026\/06\/2026_06_11_The_Warrior_Witches_of_Ukraine\/original.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/picture>\n
\n
\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/cdn.theatlantic.com\/media\/newsletters\/2026\/06\/cult-4\/original.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/picture>