August 10th, 2026
Over the weekend I was reading some of the most informed commentary about AI regulation that I’ve yet encountered.
First was Jasmine Sun’s post, “No Data Centers in my Backyard: Money, Power, and Populism in the AI Buildout.” I’ll quote from the opening, which sets the tone for the post, perfectly:
Driving in Wisconsin feels like cruising through Eden. It is unimaginably green given the heat-wave summer. There are fields of corn and clover blossoms and Queen Anne’s lace; in the temperate evenings, fireflies trace and weave star-trails between cottonwood trunks. Everyone we meet is generous, warmhearted, ready to show us the meaning of “Midwestern nice” one free beer at a time.
In those halcyon environs, the data centers land like a spaceship crash.
Going deeper, I read the edited transcript of Ezra Klein’s wonderful long interview with Sun, from Klein’s free podcast, available everywhere. An excerpt, with Sun speaking:
One of the things that was the most surprising to me when I talked to data center activists was that they responded to so many of the pro arguments with: I don’t believe them.
So this company says that they are going to treat the water with chemicals in it so that it doesn’t flow into the lakes. People would say: I don’t believe them. I don’t think they can do it.
The companies would say: We are going to cover the costs of our own electricity grid build-out. We are going to ensure that rates do not go up for all Michiganders. A lot of folks would say: I don’t believe them. DTE Energy has raised our electricity rates basically every year since 2022. Why would this be the year that they decide not to do it? I do not believe them.
Companies say: We are going to create 500 jobs, and some of these will stick around after the data center is built. People just said: I don’t believe them.
One of the people Sun interviewed as part of her research was Abdul El-Sayed, the recent winner of the Democratic Senate Primary in Michigan. She published a separate post about that interview. Excerpt:
I spent 30 minutes chatting AI with Abdul while doing my data center reporting. He was surprisingly “with it” for a politician—citing everything from Moore’s Law to Mythos—and has a laundry list of aggressive AI policy ideas. Now that he’s won, and has a serious shot at the Senate, I wanted to share the full interview.
The interview led me to Abdul three-part policy recommendations for AI governance, “First, Do No Harm: AI Under Democracy.” It’s brief, yet in-depth. I found myself simultaneously agreeing with most of the recommendations, while thinking, this will never happen. Excerpt:
#2. Public Ownership, Public Dividend, Public Investments
We Own Half: Consistent with Sanders’s proposal, with returns flowing to the American people.
Annual AI Dividend: Proceeds fund a direct annual dividend to every American.
Automation Levy: A per-worker-equivalent tax on AI-driven automation, reinvested in workers to do the following:
Education Investment: Education should be free, particular for early and mid-career workers through community college partnerships, guaranteed apprenticeships, and entrepreneurship training.
Expanded Unemployment Benefits and Wage Insurance: Longer duration, higher wage replacement, and a federal bridge that makes up the gap between old and new wages during transition.
Small Business Revolving Loans: Publicly capitalized loans so local businesses can build and thrive.
Then I thought, I wonder what some of the other policy platforms are recommending, and found three:
A. “Regulating Under Uncertainty: Governance Options for Generative AI,” from the Stanford Cyber Policy Center. It’s long, but there’s an executive summary here. Excerpt:
- Several high-level principles and observations emerge from this exploration of the different national and international initiatives related to AI:
1. Regulation of the technology or its applications. Sector specific laws allow AI regulation to work incrementally and adapt laws in narrow ways to the changes made by AI. However, due to the uncertain reach and implications of AI technology and the development of general-purpose AI models, predicting future applications and use cases is challenging. Consequently, regulating the technology itself is particularly important. This necessity explains why some countries, such as the EU, have adopted specific provisions targeting AI models. Additionally, many countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, and the European Union, have established dedicated AI Safety Institutes.
B. “The MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the MIT Washington Office AI Policy Briefs.” The extensive briefs focus on these five topics:
- A Framework for U.S. AI Governance: Creating a Safe and Thriving AI Sector
- Large Language Models
- Can We Have Pro-Worker AI? Choosing a Path of Machines in Service of Minds
- Labeling AI-Generated Content: Promises, Perils, and Future Directions
- How Policy Can Help Ensure the Proper Use of AI in K-12 Education
C: From private software organization Mind Foundry comes this useful summary of “AI Regulations around the World – 2026.” Excerpt:
Around the world, at least 72 countries have proposed over 1000 AI-related policy initiatives and legal frameworks to address public concerns around AI safety and governance. Here’s what those AI regulations look like at the beginning of 2026…
Authors and publishers have concerns that go beyond the issues faced by certain other communities, and the general public. Some organizations are addressing those specific concerns.
The Authors Guild offers “AI Best Practices for Authors.” Excerpt:
The Authors Guild first published best practices for AI use by writers in February 2024 to help writers understand where those boundaries lie for their own writing. Our newly updated best practices—the result of conversations with many writers and deliberations by the Authors Guild Council—seek to add some context and clarity around the best practices and are provided in response to the many inquiries we have received around AI issues. These are guidelines, not rules, and are intended to assist members of the writing community in making their own ethical and informed decisions about AI use or non-use.
The library at Oklahoma State University publishes a set of ten links to “Publisher Policies on AI,” including both organizations and individual publishers.
I hope you’ll find some of these articles and recommendations useful as you continue to explore the many issues surrounding AI, and formulating your own opinions and recommendations.
PS: In the past I’ve written about the nuclear energy industry, and its safety regulations.