Bipartisan Support Exists for AI Regulation. Nobody Can Agree on What That Means.

A post from {{entity:fli|the Future of Life Institute}} landed on X this week with an optimistic Sen. Bernie Sanders is preparing legislation to block new data center construction until Congress enacts AI rules, positioning himself as the populist brake on a runaway industry. On Bluesky, a post with 69 likes made a sharper, more personal argument: if lawmakers were genuinely worried about what children experience online, they would be writing laws that mediate AI use, not passing bills that require everyone to scan their face. That post captures something the institutional framing misses — the gap between regulatory activity that happens to mention AI and regulatory activity that actually responds to how AI touches people's lives. Meanwhile, on X, a user offered a darker read on the whole enterprise: legislators sign off on unread bills prepared by intermediaries, proofread by AI, and only pay attention when their earmarks survive. The cynicism wasn't new, but in this context it landed differently — a commentary on whether the bipartisan appetite FLI is celebrating is appetite for governance or appetite for credit. The emerging phrase