Discussing AI Policy with House Rep. Begich

Kevin T. Frazier

Only a handful of members of Congress have tech experience. When Nick Begich earned the support of his fellow Alaskans to represent them in DC, he brought a background in software and entrepreneurship. He also brought the state’s commitment to being first to the frontier—exploring new ways to develop and deploy emerging technologies. That’s why his voice is an important one in ongoing AI policy debates. It’s also why I was so excited to interview Rep. Begich on the Scaling Laws podcast at the Cato Institute.

Our conversation covered a few key issues. First and foremost, we examined Congress’s institutional capacity to tackle something as complex and evolving as AI. Rep. Begich explained that his familiarity with tech has set his office apart. His staffers not only test new ways to integrate AI into their daily workflows but also train other offices to do the same. According to Rep. Begich, his colleagues would benefit from playing around with AI a little more before deciding whether and how to regulate it.

We also dove into the proper regulatory divide between the states and the federal government regarding AI governance. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that he represents one of the more unique jurisdictions in the US, Rep. Begich acknowledged that some regulatory questions are properly left at the local and state levels. Still, we both expressed the importance of treating frontier AI as a national policy priority. Rep. Begich emphasized that if the US falls even slightly behind on AI progress, those losses may quickly compound. The two of us agreed that policymakers ought not assume that today’s AI architecture will be the one underpinning future models.

The upshot is that Congress’s allegedly slow reaction to the AI question is in some ways a feature, not a bug. Good policy takes time. Congress has conducted dozens, if not hundreds, of AI hearings since 2023. This slow but steady process has increased awareness of the issue and deepened the policy discourse. It’s somewhat unsurprising that a clear path forward has emerged, given that the nature and use of AI are themselves emerging topics. That said, the ongoing deluge of state proposals makes clear that Congress must at a minimum specify which areas must be addressed at the federal level. 

The conversation also took on the important topic of data centers. Rep. Begich made a strong case for why Alaska may be a hub for the necessary data center buildout. He highlighted the state’s vast energy resources, water supply, and cool temperatures. I pressed him on the point that local opponents may stand in the way of that vision. He noted that possibility but is confident that Alaska’s unique approach to resource-related governance may mitigate some of those concerns. 

My takeaway: Rep. Begich understands better than most that US leadership requires a national, long-term vision in which states row in the same direction rather than attempt to lay their own anchors. His own background provides unique insights into how AI policy matters to Americans and Alaskans, and into the importance of getting the policy approach right.