Good morning.
I spent Wednesday in Washington, D.C., at a closed-door briefing for executives held by the Committee for Economic Development. While I can’t share details, I can report this: For all the growing polarization in politics, there is surprising bipartisan agreement on the two hottest topics of the day: A.I. and China.
On A.I., efforts are underway on Capitol Hill to come up with a regulatory framework that may not be as prescriptive as the one taking shape in Brussels, but still will lay down ground rules. “We are not going to repeat the mistake of Section 230,” said one senator, referencing the 1996 law that provided immunity to online platforms for the content generated by their users.
And on China, despite the administration’s efforts to increase engagement, the political parties are competing on who will be toughest. Even members of the business community—which normally favors engagement—reported efforts to reduce their exposure to China out of fear both of what a protectionist U.S. government may do and what an increasingly authoritarian and militaristic Chinese government may do.
Since it is Friday, some feedback. E.G. pushes back against the hype over ChatGPT, and says:
“A.I. should not be telescoped into GPT. Predictive A.I. may be a better tool, as it is more based in objectivity. GPT is more subjective.”
“Subjective,” of course, is putting it nicely. Chat GPT makes things up. This now-famous New York Times story about a lawyer’s brief that included made-up case citations illustrates the issue. Young legal associates may make mistakes, but if they fabricate court decisions, I assume they are instantly fired. The same for journalists who concoct facts. Which led R.D. to write:
“A challenge for sure, which is a big reason we need journalists of impeccable reputation. Where is Walter Cronkite, Scotty Reston, Paul Steiger…?”
Following Peter's and my posts on ESG–which clearly is not a source of bipartisan agreement—S.K. offered the following:
“If ESG wants to navigate the ever-meandering political shoals I suggest they list the top 20 objectives and then score them with a Consensus Matrix. The 10 initiatives with the most total monthly media mentions (total by sources from either side) should lose budget while the 10 least mentioned/least controversial initiatives should correspondingly gain budget. This sort of noise-averse rebalancing can move people with fiduciary responsibilities toward less noisy work—doing good while gently stepping away from controversy.”
My guess is that, for better or worse, something like that rebalancing is already quietly happening.
CEO Daily is off on Monday for Juneteenth. We'll see you back here Tuesday. More news below.
Alan Murray
@alansmurray
alan.murray@fortune.com
