If you've ever wanted to watch a room full of lawmakers stare into the abyss together, Thursday's congressional roundtable on artificial intelligence was basically that, but with better lighting and C-SPAN coverage.
A subcommittee of the United States Congress gathered to discuss the "potential" of AI - which, based on Fast Company's reporting, quickly became a group therapy session about everything that could go horribly, existentially wrong with it. And honestly? Same.
The concerns were... a lot
Rep. James Walkinshaw, Democrat from Virginia, raised the very reasonable alarm that federal workers might be casually feeding sensitive government data into AI chatbots. You know, the same kind of chatbots you use to write emails and argue about pizza toppings. Except with classified stuff. Cool, cool, totally fine.
Meanwhile, Rep. William Timmons, Republican from South Carolina, went straight for one of the most disturbing corners of the AI problem: whether it should be outright illegal for AI systems to generate pornographic images using someone's real likeness without their consent. Which - yes, obviously, but the fact that it's still a question in 2025 is its own kind of horror.
Existential dread, but make it bipartisan
What's actually notable here - and a little bit refreshing in a bleak way - is that the angst was shared across party lines. The word "destruction" reportedly hung in the air. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle seemed genuinely unsettled, which is either deeply reassuring (they get it!) or deeply alarming (they have no idea what to do about it!).
Probably both.
Why this actually matters
Look, it's easy to dunk on Congress for being late to every tech conversation - and historically, very fair. But a room full of representatives openly admitting fear and uncertainty about AI is actually a significant shift from the usual performative confidence of political hearings.
The problem is that existential dread, while relatable, doesn't write legislation. And AI is moving at a pace that doesn't particularly care about subcommittee schedules.
The questions being raised - about data privacy, about consent, about what we even do when the technology outpaces our ability to regulate it - are the right ones. Getting to actual answers before the technology laps them entirely is the part that remains, let's say, a work in progress.
But hey, at least they're scared. That's a start.
