2024 US Presidential Election: A Turning Point for AI Regulation and Investment

How the 2024 US presidential election will determine tech's future

The 2024 presidential candidates have starkly different approaches to regulation and privacy. Here's what each administration could mean for the industry and individuals. The 2024 US presidential election will redefine emerging technology. Artificial intelligence (AI) is evolving at a breakneck pace, and the next president will make critical decisions in crafting the regulatory framework that will govern one of Silicon Valley's most transformative innovations. That regulation will have far-reaching implications for both businesses and individual users. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have differing visions on navigating the complex topography of emerging technology. If elected president, Vice President Harris has vowed to redouble the Biden administration's efforts to govern transformative technologies like AI, protect citizens from their potential harms, and position the US as a global leader in responsible innovation. Also: Anthropic warns of AI catastrophe if governments don't regulate in 18 months Former President Trump has a different approach. He has pledged to unshackle the American tech industry from overregulation, giving innovators free rein to create and compete. He has also suggested that the Biden administration's attempts to mitigate tech's downsides have only played into China's hands. In his farewell address, Trump claimed Biden was "afraid" of China and boasted that "we slashed more job-killing regulations than any administration had ever done before." As technological change accelerates, the stakes of getting tech policy right have never been higher. Here's a closer look at how the candidates diverge on some of the industry's most pressing issues and what their presidency could mean for its future. AI has emerged as a defining issue in the race as the technology's transformative potential -- and destabilizing risks -- come into more explicit focus. Harris has communicated that ensuring AI systems are developed and deployed responsibly is a top priority. Building on the Biden administration's initiatives, she has called for scaling up federal investments in AI research and development, with a focus on supporting projects that prioritize safety, transparency, and accountability. Expanding the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource is at the core of her AI agenda. This cloud-based platform gives academic and industry researchers access to powerful computing resources and high-quality government datasets. The Harris campaign argues that by democratizing the building blocks of AI innovation, the US can maintain its competitive edge while ensuring a wider range of perspectives shape the technology's trajectory. Also: Your Windows 10 PC can't be upgraded? You have 5 options before support ends in 2025 "Harris played a major role in Biden's approach and landmark Executive Order, and will presumably build on this work with an eye towards addressing AI's potential to exacerbate privacy risks or wrongfully discriminate -- particularly in the context of government use of AI," said Chloe Autio, an AI regulation analyst. Harris's policies on emerging technologies are likely to have significant impacts on businesses and consumers alike. Based on her record as Vice President and her campaign platform, Harris is expected to pursue a balanced approach to regulating AI, emphasizing responsible innovation while addressing safety and ethical concerns. She will likely maintain or expand initiatives like the Biden-Harris CHIPS and Science Act, which directs funding toward domestic production of advanced technologies. For consumers, Harris has advocated for more robust data privacy protections and may push for stricter regulations on how tech companies collect and use personal data. As part of that effort, Harris supported the Biden administration's framework for the AI Bill of Rights, a set of principles aimed at safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring AI systems are fair, transparent, and accountable. She also emphasized the importance of working with allied nations to establish global norms and standards around AI development and deployment, citing her role in shaping the Bletchley Declaration, a multinational pact acknowledging AI's risks and committing to mitigate them through coordinated governance frameworks. Also: Why data is the Achilles Heel of AI (and every other business plan) "I think it is fair to say that Harris will continue to play a global role in the governance of tech," said Ivana Bartoletti, chief privacy officer at the technology consulting firm Wipro. The Trump campaign, by contrast, has pledged to fundamentally alter the Biden administration's AI regulations, arguing that they disadvantage American companies in comparison vis-à-vis China. "We will repeal Joe Biden's dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI innovation and imposes radical left-wing ideas on the development of this technology," Trump's manifesto states. "In its place, Republicans support AI development rooted in free speech and human flourishing." "Trump sees it as an underlying problem of a 'woke' tech industry absorbed with censoring conservative speech and ideas," Autio said. "Despite the fact that Biden's AI EO doesn't really address content moderation, Trump has announced that he will repeal it on day one should he get reelected." This suggests a more laissez-faire approach with less government oversight. Tech companies are recalibrating their strategies to navigate a potentially volatile regulatory landscape. Industry leaders are reaching out to Trump, seeking to mend fences and establish rapport. Companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon engage in preemptive diplomacy, with their CEOs initiating conversations with the former president. This outreach suggests a recognition of Trump's influence and the need to position themselves favorably in case of his re-election. As AI systems become more sophisticated and ubiquitous, one of the most vexing challenges is ensuring they do not absorb and amplify societal biases in ways that harm marginalized groups. Harris has signaled that combating algorithmic discrimination is a key priority. As a senator, she supported legislation to mitigate bias in facial recognition technology and other AI tools used by law enforcement agencies and pushed for more diversity in the tech workforce. Also: We have an official open-source AI definition now, but the fight is far from over "Her pursuit of injustice makes her well-positioned to address incidents in which technology is enabling or exacerbating unfair outcomes," Ms. Autio noted. Bartoletti said such measures are urgently needed as awareness of AI's potential to entrench inequality reaches an inflection point. "Concerns about bias and the perpetuation of inequality through software have entered mainstream discourse," she said. "This is important as we have seen many cases of algorithmic decision-making automating existing inequalities into decisions about people´s access to services, work opportunities, or loans." "There is now a widespread recognition of these issues and a pressing need to adapt non-discrimination laws to address AI-induced harms," Bartoletti added. Whether a Trump administration would prioritize proactive measures to mitigate AI bias to the same degree remains to be seen. Trump has largely dismissed concerns about AI bias as overblown, arguing that efforts to mitigate it threaten to hamstring innovation at a critical juncture in the global tech race. Also: Could AI make data science obsolete? "For most Republicans, fear of slipping to China on AI innovation outweighs any concerns about harmful bias," Autio said. "Trump won't prioritize this issue and views bias as an issue primarily hindering conservative viewpoints." The tumultuous events of the past year -- from the implosion of cryptocurrency exchange FTX to a spate of cyberattacks linked to foreign governments -- have added fuel to the simmering debate over how aggressively to police the tech industry. Harris has staked out a middle ground on digital currencies, emphasizing the need to protect consumers and root out illicit activity while preserving space for financial innovation. "I think this is an area where the candidates´ approach may diverge significantly," Bartoletti said. "Harris is likely to place a strong emphasis on balancing innovation with the imperative of minimizing consumer harm, which is particularly crucial here." The Biden administration has taken initial steps to regulate the crypto industry, including through sanctions on crypto firms tied to ransomware attacks and a new framework for responsible development of digital assets. But Harris has suggested she would go further, potentially backing legislation to require crypto exchanges and other service providers to register with the government and comply with anti-money laundering rules. Also: Technologist Bruce Schneier on security, society and why we need 'public AI' models Trump, who has his own crypto venture and coin and once floated the concept of a "national Bitcoin reserve," has advocated a far more laissez-faire approach to digital assets, arguing that heavy-handed regulations risk driving innovation offshore. In a speech last year, he accused the Biden administration of waging a war on Bitcoin and vowed to aid the industry if elected president. While light on details, the proposal appeared to signal a hands-off stance toward the industry, with few safeguards for consumers or the broader financial system. On cybersecurity, Harris has called for a more robust government response to the growing scourge of digital attacks that have crippled hospitals, schools, gas pipelines, and other critical infrastructure in recent years. Last year, the Biden-Harris White House published the National Cybersecurity Strategy. She has voiced support for minimum security standards for internet-connected devices and holding software makers financially liable for failing to patch known vulnerabilities that lead to breaches -- ideas that have gained traction among cybersecurity experts but faced resistance from industry groups. Also: The best secure browsers for privacy in 2024: Expert tested It remains to be seen whether a second Trump administration would take a more forceful approach to cybersecurity regulation, such as requiring companies in critical sectors to report breaches to the government or setting up a dedicated cyber resilience fund. However, some experts worry that his "America First" rhetoric and strained relationships with allies could hamper international cooperation on digital threats. The pandemic-induced shortages that brought assembly lines to a standstill and left consumers scrambling for electronics have thrust a long-overlooked sector into the spotlight: semiconductors. The Biden-Harris CHIPS and Science Act represented a significant foray into industrial policy to re-shore semiconductor manufacturing and reassert US leadership in strategic technologies. Two years later, its success in catalyzing domestic investment is largely considered a success by economic standards. The election's outcome could shape the initiative's future trajectory. In a rare display of bipartisanship, Congress passed the CHIPS Act last year, which provides over $50 billion in subsidies and tax credits to boost domestic chip manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. The Biden administration has touted the law as a signature achievement that will create jobs, strengthen national security, and help the US compete with China. Also: I tested 7 AI content detectors - they're getting dramatically better at identifying plagiarism Both Harris and Trump have pledged to continue implementing the law if elected president. However, some of the projects it has funded have faced delays and cost overruns recently, raising questions about the program's efficacy. "If Intel continues to falter, it could reflect poorly on the Biden admin, which may cause Harris to distance herself from the program," Autio said. "Trump would seize on this as evidence of a failed initiative but would not likely pursue a large investment package of his own." The Trump campaign has accused the Biden administration of using the CHIPS Act to reward political allies, pointing to the fact that some of the largest grants have gone to companies with ties to Democratic lawmakers. But supporters of the law argue that it is a critical step toward rebuilding a strategic industry that the US allowed to atrophy for decades. "The CHIPS and Science Act allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to bolster US semiconductor manufacturing and prompted US allies, including key semiconductor suppliers Japan and the Netherlands, to impose restrictions on China's access to advanced technologies," Bartoletti explained. She sees more alignment than difference between Harris and Trump regarding protecting the US industry's global position. Also: 4 ways to turn generative AI experiments into real business value Both candidates appear committed to securing critical supply chains and promoting "Made in America" innovation. However, Harris may focus more on distributing the tech boom's economic gains to workers and consumers. She has emphasized creating an "opportunity economy" that benefits the middle class and has proposed initiatives like expanding apprenticeship programs to help workers find tech jobs without needing four-year degrees. In contrast, Trump seems inclined to give tech companies freer rein, focusing on corporate tax cuts and deregulation to spur innovation. His approach emphasizes protecting American businesses and reducing government oversight to promote unfettered technological advancement and economic growth. Experts say the US will need to do more than just throw money at the problem to maintain its edge in chip technology. That includes investing in research and development, expanding STEM education and immigration, and working with allies to coordinate export controls and other measures to prevent China from dominating the industry. As tech giants amass power rivaling that of nation-states, antitrust has re-emerged as a major point of contention. The Biden administration took an aggressive position, launching high-profile lawsuits and appointing reformers to key posts. "Biden's administration took a firm stance on antitrust issues, and Harris will likely follow a similar path, given her emphasis on expanding opportunities for all Americans," Bartoletti predicted. "The Biden administration has targeted large platforms, frequently addressing predatory practices in the name of consumer rights." Trump's record and rhetoric paint a more ambiguous picture. "Trump has been very vocal about Silicon Valley giants in the past, arguing that these companies are a threat to US elections than Russia, due to what he calls their anti-conservative bias," Bartoletti said. Also: Why you should power off your phone at least once a week - according to the NSA However, Bartoletti pointed out that the ultimate impact often comes from specific personnel choices. "It remains to be seen if he will appoint strong leaders to key positions, such as the FTC." Both candidates face the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex international regulatory landscape, particularly about American tech giants. The European Union has been at the vanguard of the big tech regulatory push, with new laws and enforcement actions targeting US tech firms. The EU's approach, which emphasizes competition and market dominance concerns, has resulted in significant fines and regulatory burdens for companies like Google, Apple, and Meta. This strategy by the EU impacts the operations of these companies abroad and puts pressure on US policymakers to respond, potentially reshaping the global tech regulatory environment. As Filippo Lancieri of ETH Zurich noted, the EU's competition-focused approach to antitrust will likely continue dominating the European conversation, further complicating the international landscape for US tech firms and policymakers. Also: The journey to fully autonomous AI agents and the venture capitalists funding them Emerging technologies like AI are rapidly reshaping politics, business, and culture. The choice between Harris's and Trump's visions will influence lives far beyond Silicon Valley. With US technological leadership hanging in the balance, the 2024 election may determine whether America approaches today's technology challenges through collaborative governance or competitive isolationism.

Election 2024: How will the candidates regulate AI?

Our guide to the frontrunners' positions on artificial intelligence. The US presidential election is in its final stretch. Before election day on November 5, Engadget is looking at where the candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, stand on the most consequential tech issues of our day. While it might not garner the headlines that immigration, abortion or inflation do, AI is quietly one of the more consequential issues this election season. What regulations are put in place and how forcefully those rules are enforced will have wide ranging impacts on consumer privacy, intellectual property, the media industry and national security. Normally, politicians lack clear or coherent policies on emerging technologies. But somewhat shockingly, both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have at least some track record handling artificial intelligence. VP Harris, in particular, has been very hands-on in shaping the current administration's approach. And Donald Trump was the first president to sign an executive order regarding AI. That being said, neither has made AI a central component of their campaign, and we're making some educated guesses here about how either would approach it once in the White House. With Harris' considerable involvement in the Biden administration's AI efforts, it's safe to assume she would move forward with many of those policies. While the White House started laying the groundwork for its AI initiatives in early 2021, it wasn't until late 2023 that they kicked into high gear, and Harris has often been the public face of those efforts, including holding numerous press calls on the issue and appearing at the Global Summit on AI Safety in London. She has used these venues to draw attention to the potential pitfalls, both large and small, of AI ranging from "cyberattacks at a scale beyond anything we have seen before" to seniors being "kicked off [their] healthcare plan because of a faulty AI algorithm." October 2023 saw the issuance of an executive order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. This order noted the potential for AI to solve broad societal issues as well as its ability to "exacerbate societal harms, such as fraud, discrimination, bias and disinformation; displace and disempower workers; stifle competition and pose risks to national security." It laid out eight guiding principles focused on creating standardized evaluations for AI systems, protecting workers, consumer privacy and combating inherent bias. It also called for agencies to name a chief AI officer (CAIO) and directed the federal government to develop policies and strategies using and regulating AI. This included developing technologies for identifying and labeling AI-generated content and building guardrails to prevent the creation of images depicting sexual abuse and deepfake pornography. Harris helped secure commitments from Apple, Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, Adobe, Cohere, IBM, NVIDIA, Palantir, Salesforce, Scale AI, Stability and OpenAI to work towards the administration's goals. She also worked to obtain endorsements from 31 nations of a declaration regarding the responsible creation and use of military AI. At this stage, the latter is merely a commitment to work together to establish rules and guidelines. But there are many absences on that list, most notably Russia, China and Israel. Because the technology is so new, however, there are still a lot of questions about the specifics of how a Harris administration would handle AI. Besides, without an act of Congress, the White House would be limited in how it could regulate the industry or punish those that run afoul of its policies. On the campaign trail, Harris hasn't said much new about the issue, outside of a brief mention at a Wall Street fundraiser, during which she said, "We will encourage innovative technologies, like AI and digital assets, while protecting our consumers and investors." Harris does have strong ties to Silicon Valley, so it remains to be seen just how much she would try to rein in the industry. But as of now, most of her statements have focused on protecting consumers and workers. Donald Trump holds the distinction of being the first president to sign an executive order regarding AI, but his actual public statements on the matter have been limited. In February 2019, he established the American AI Initiative, which created the first national AI research institutes, called for doubling the funding of AI research and set forth broad regulatory guidance. It also called for the creation of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office, which would serve as a central hub for coordinating research and policy across the government. Unsurprisingly, the executive order signed by former President Trump and the policies set forth by his allies have focused more on encouraging private sector growth and limited government oversight. The official Republican party platform adopted at the RNC in July called for repealing Biden's October 2023 executive order claiming it "hinders AI Innovation and imposes Radical Leftwing ideas on the development of this technology." It goes on to call for the development of AI "rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing." Unfortunately the RNC platform and Trump don't get much more specific than that. So we'll have to look at what the former president's allies at the America First Policy Institute and Heritage Foundation have put forth to get a better idea of how a second Trump presidency might handle AI. America First began drafting a document earlier this year that called for launching Manhattan Projects for military AI and for reducing regulations. (Currently, there are limited regulations in place regarding AI, as the government is largely in the information-gathering stage of policy development. Congress has yet to pass any meaningful AI legislation.) It also called for the creation of industry-led agencies tasked with evaluating and securing American artificial intelligence technologies. This is in contrast with the Biden administration's executive order, which put responsibility for those efforts firmly in the hands of the federal government. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 (PDF) gets into more specifics, though it is worth noting Trump has tried to distance himself somewhat from that document. Much of the discourse around AI in the 922-page tome is dedicated to China: countering its technological advancements, limiting its access to American technology and preventing it from backing joint research projects with American interests, especially on college campuses. It calls for increasing the use of AI and machine learning in intelligence gathering and analysis, while simultaneously calling for a heavier reliance on the private sector to develop and manage the technology. The document also spends significant time discussing AI's potential to "reduce waste, fraud and abuse," particularly with regards to Medicare and Medicaid. However, it makes almost no mention of protecting consumer privacy, ensuring the accuracy and fairness of algorithms, or identifying abusive or misleading uses of AI, beyond combating Chinese propaganda. While both candidates' platforms lack specifics regarding the regulation of artificial intelligence, they do lay out two clearly different approaches. Kamala Harris has made consumer protections and building guardrails against abuse a cornerstone of her AI policy proposals; Donald Trump has predictably focused on reducing regulation. Neither has suggested they would try to put the proverbial AI genie back in the bottle, not that such a thing would be feasible. The big question marks are just how much of the America First Policy Institute or Project 2025 proposals a Trump administration would adopt. His own official platform mirrors many policy positions of Project 2025. While it may not reflect any of its AI proposals specifically, there's little reason to believe his approach would differ dramatically on this specific issue.

Harris vs. Trump: What the 2024 Election Means for AI Investment

As the U.S. presidential election looms, the American AI industry is at a crossroads. Which path voters take on Nov. 5 could determine investment trends for the next four years. Supporters of Donald Trump believe his deregulatory agenda will drive innovation and help the U.S. maintain its AI leadership. On the other hand, many in the industry support Kamala Harris' vision for AI policy, which could provide much-needed stability in the years ahead. Ideological Differences In many ways, Democrats' and Republicans' differing stances on AI reflect longstanding views on the role of government and the extent to which it should intervene in private enterprise. If she wins the presidency, Harris is expected to follow the path of the Biden administration, which sought to establish a federal position on AI safety outlined in an Executive Order last year. Meanwhile, Trump has vowed to repeal Biden's order, with Republicans arguing that it "hinders AI Innovation and imposes radical left-wing ideas on the development of this technology." In its place, his platform has promised to support AI development "rooted in free speech and human flourishing." With ideology forming the basis of the two candidates' perspectives on AI policy, a Harris presidency would most likely emphasize AI safety and the gradual expansion of the regulatory perimeter. On the other hand, Trump supports limiting the scope of regulation and expanding First Amendment protections to AI-generated content. However, given Trump's protectionist trade policies, the debate can't be reduced to a matter of more versus less free markets. American AI firms that rely on international markets and talent might face challenges under a Trump presidency. And some high-profile figures in the space have questioned the notion that regulation inhibits growth. What Do AI Leaders Say? While Elon Musk's passionate support for Trump marks a break from the norm, Silicon Valley moguls have always been involved in politics. In the past, they typically cheered on their favorite candidates from the sidelines. Among AI leaders, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has donated money to at least one Republican and hundreds of Democrats, including Kamala Harris, during her 2019 bid for the party's presidential nomination. The feeling among many in the space is that deregulation isn't a silver bullet, especially if it leaves the U.S. out of sync with the rest of the world. Highly regulated industries have been characteristically risk-averse in adopting AI so far. However, as Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez pointed out recently, what companies want is for Washington to provide "guardrails" to help them advance more quickly, not repeal existing legislation. Maintaining Global Leadership According to a recent survey of 500 technology industry business leaders, 74% think the results of the upcoming election will significantly impact the United States' ability to maintain its global leadership. Areas they expect to be most affected by the vote include cybersecurity and data protection, AI and machine learning, and user data and content oversight. Regardless of who wins in November, 82% of business leaders said their company intends to increase investment in AI by at least 50% in the next year. This paints a positive picture of the sector's ability to weather uncertainty and reflects a widespread belief that even political volatility won't be able to upend growth in such a booming sector.

A Culture-War Test for AI

You might think, given the extreme pronouncements that are regularly voiced by Silicon Valley executives, that AI would be a top issue for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Tech titans have insisted that AI will change everything -- perhaps the nature of work most of all. Truck drivers and lawyers alike may see aspects of their profession automated before long. But although Harris and Trump have had a lot to say about jobs and the economy, they haven't spoken much on the campaign trail about AI. As my colleague Matteo Wong wrote yesterday, that may be because this is the rare issue that the two actually agree on. Presidential administrations have steadily built AI policy since the Barack Obama years; Trump and Joe Biden both worked "to grow the federal government's AI expertise, support private-sector innovation, establish standards for the technology's safety and reliability, lead international conversations on AI, and prepare the American workforce for potential automation," Matteo writes. But there is a wrinkle. Trump and his surrogates have recently lashed out against supposedly "woke" and "Radical Leftwing" AI policies supported by the Biden administration -- even though those policies directly echo executive orders on the technology that Trump signed himself. Partisanship threatens to halt years of bipartisan momentum, though there's still a chance that reason will prevail. By Matteo Wong If the presidential election has provided relief from anything, it has been the generative-AI boom. Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump has made much of the technology in their public messaging, and they have not articulated particularly detailed AI platforms. Bots do not seem to rank among the economy, immigration, abortion rights, and other issues that can make or break campaigns. But don't be fooled. Americans are very invested, and very worried, about the future of artificial intelligence. Polling consistently shows that a majority of adults from both major parties support government regulation of AI, and that demand for regulation might even be growing. Efforts to curb AI-enabled disinformation, fraud, and privacy violations, as well as to support private-sector innovation, are under way at the state and federal levels. Widespread AI policy is coming, and the next president may well steer its direction for years to come. Speaking of election madness, many people will be closely watching the results not just because they're anxious about the future of the republic but also because they have a ton of money on the line. "On Polymarket, perhaps the most popular political-betting site, people have wagered more than $200 million on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election," my colleague Lila Shroff wrote in a story for The Atlantic yesterday. So-called prediction markets "sometimes describe themselves as 'truth machines,'" Lila writes. "But that's a challenging role to assume when Americans can't agree on what the basic truth even is."

How AI will be shaped by 2024's presidential election results

A new Harris administration would likely pursue a middle-of-the-road AI agenda in the vein of Biden's 2023 executive order. A Harris White House will also face pressure from Silicon Valley giants to back off from the more aggressive regulatory stance of the Biden era. A second Trump term would lay out a much more volatile scenario for AI. We do know one thing -- Elon Musk, who is raising billions for his xAI startup, would almost certainly gain additional sway. An empowered Musk is almost certainly bad news for OpenAI, a company that he helped found but fell out with soon after and has tangled with in both the courts and the press. The outcome of the fight to control Congress will also determine the nature of any new laws that might aim to influence AI's growth. What's next: The most active arena for AI rule-making is likely to continue to be the states -- particularly California, home to the industry and to some of the highest-profile efforts to regulate it. The bottom line: Whoever wins on Tuesday, the companies that are building AI will probably continue to make the most consequential decisions about the nascent industry's future.

Would Trump victory keep US ahead of Europe on AI?

How a Trump or Harris win in the 5 November presidential election impact the US stance on AI development and regulation. With a week to go until Republican former President Donald Trump and his Democrat counterpart Kamala Harris face off in the US presidential election and with polls putting the result on a knife's edge, the future direction of the US on AI remains up in the air, since both candidates contrast sharply in approaches to regulation and handling of the technology. Unlike the EU where the AI Act was approved earlier this year in a bid to curb high-risk machine learning tools, the US lacks nation-wide AI rules. During the current mandate of outgoing Democrat President Joe Biden, however, the US government signed an executive order allowing it to make wider use of AI and to keep commercial use of AI on a tighter leash. Trump has promised to repeal this if elected. "We will repeal Joe Biden's dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI innovation and imposes radical left-wing ideas on the development of this technology. In its place, Republicans support AI development rooted in free speech and human flourishing," Trump stated in his manifesto. Less regulation will most likely be welcomed by Big Tech companies. In July, Meta complained about the strict regulatory environment in Europe and decided not to roll-out its AI model here due to regulatory concerns. "I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen's aim of completing the EU's digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies," Meta's President of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg, said in October. Trump claims he spoke to Apple's Tim Cook earlier this month to share concerns about the EU, including the €13bn fine it was ordered to pay in Ireland following unpaid taxes. Harris takes a different approach, building on the existing commitments from the executive order. In her manifesto she has said this will "strengthen innovation and competitiveness, protect workers and consumers as technology advances, and develop a skilled federal AI workforce." She wants the US to continue to lead in the development and research of new technologies, and at commercialising it at scale. Harris and her running mate Tim Walz are proposing "a historic investment to shore up our national and economic security by making sure the United States -- not China -- leads in AI by scaling up and making permanent the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource, a shared research infrastructure to give start-ups and researchers access to the most advanced computing power, data, and analytical tools, to surge responsible discovery and innovation in AI." Daniel Schnurr, a Professor of Machine Learning and Uncertainty Quantification at the University of Regensburg, Germany, told Euronews that Harris is "more likely to continue on the current path". "I would expect a Harris administration to be more active in terms of AI regulation compared to Trump, although the approach will likely be much lighter than something like the EU AI regulation in any case," he added. A Trump win, by contrast, would introduce much more uncertainty for AI providers. A study from think tank Bruegel found that in the first half of 2024 alone, of more than $35 billion invested globally into artificial intelligence startups, the EU attracted a mere 6%.Despite European Commission initiatives designed to speed the uptake of AI and its development by making AI supercomputers available for start-ups, the US is continuing to invest more in AI. Schnurr added that the outcome of the vote will probably not significantly change the US advantage in terms of commercial AI technology and leading digital services. "The competitive gap in terms of the largest AI service providers is currently just too big to change quickly in a short amount of time," he said. AI technology has also been deployed in the US Presidential campaign, signalling problems with underregulated tools in the US and AI's potential contribution to fake news. Trump, who claims he will "restore free speech" when elected, himself posted AI generated images of US singer Taylor Swift appearing to endorse him, which he later acknowledged were fake. Swift eventually endorsed Harris in September. Trump-supporting tech mogul and X-owner, Elon Musk shared a video of Harris on his platform, put together by an AI voice-cloning tool, without indicating originally that it was intended as a parody. "I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate," the fake video said. The US Federal Communications Committee (FCC) has proposed that all radio and television broadcast stations that air political ads should check whether they contain AI-generated content and provide an on-air announcement if so, which would reflect EU rules on political advertising. However, these rules are not in place before the 5 November vote.