内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/policy/937650/ai-alex-bores-openai-anthropic-ny12

内容总结：

AI巨头政治大战意外捧红“监管先锋”

随着6月纽约第12国会选区民主党初选临近，AI领域的两大巨头Anthropic和OpenAI已为此投入数百万美元。这场围绕AI政治未来——究竟该由谁制定监管规则，或者谁将因试图监管而受罚——的较量，最终赢家或许正是它们目前争夺的那位候选人：一位曾经默默无闻的纽约州议员。在“史翠珊效应”下，这场斗争反而把他塑造成了AI安全监管的代言人。

这位名叫亚历克斯·博雷斯的候选人，曾因起草全美首批AI监管法案而成为OpenAI等公司的“眼中钉”。自2025年底以来，由OpenAI、Palantir及a16z高管资助的超级政治行动委员会“引领未来”已花费数百万美元攻击博雷斯，试图扼杀他接替资深民主党众议员杰里·纳德勒席位的竞选。结果事与愿违：博雷斯如今在8名候选人中脱颖而出，成为《纽约杂志》封面故事里“曼哈顿面孔”的有力竞争者。

令人惊讶的是，他至今几乎没有投放任何大规模广告。博雷斯竞选团队表示，他们直到5月11日才在纽约投放第一则广告——距离6月23日投票仅剩数周。反观“引领未来”，自2025年12月起就持续播放攻击博雷斯的广告，据最新报告估计总花费已达240万美元。在通常情况下，这种由企业和亿万富翁支持的超级政治行动委员会（可无限制募集资金，只要不与竞选团队协调）足以将对手“砸”出局。该组织背后的集团已在2024年大选中成功用同样手段击败了俄亥俄州参议员谢罗德·布朗和加州众议员凯蒂·波特。

但博雷斯却因祸得福。艾默生学院上周发布的最新民调显示，他与主要对手米卡·拉舍尔几乎并驾齐驱，仅落后2个百分点，近期多项民调中他甚至持续领先。令人玩味的是，“引领未来”的广告支出实际上成了对博雷斯竞选的“实物捐赠”——一笔价值数百万美元的免费宣传，帮他完成了让选民认识自己的“苦活”。

“对于那些原本不关心AI议题的人，这些广告让它变成了当务之急。”博雷斯竞选发言人艾莉莎·卡斯表示。原本他们担心让选民关注AI安全难上加难，但对手从12月起就代他们完成了这项工作：不断抬高AI及监管话题的受关注度，促使人们追问：“这些人是谁？他们想对我们和社会做什么？”

更戏剧性的是，AI公司的广告反而成了博雷斯的“加分项”。内部竞选民调显示，收到博雷斯负面信息的选民反而更倾向于投票给他。当“引领未来”攻击他曾任职于与移民海关执法局有合作关系的Palantir时，博雷斯不但发函要求停止诽谤，还在社交媒体上嘲讽“Palantir的亿万富翁攻击我在Palantir工作过，这很讽刺”。

今年2月，Anthropic的介入更将这场地方竞选推向了全国视野。与超级政治行动委员会“公共第一行动”关联的“就业与民主行动委员会”宣布支持博雷斯，而Anthropic刚向“公共第一行动”捐赠了2000万美元，直接对抗与OpenAI关系密切的“引领未来”。《纽约客》《纽约时报》和Politico等媒体开始将这场斗争描述为Anthropic与OpenAI之间“宿怨”的延续——前者自称是更负责任的前沿实验室。

“在纽约初选中投放广告成本高得惊人，你愿意为任何一点媒体曝光拼命。”曾参与多个顶级竞选活动的纽约政治操盘手丽丝·史密斯感叹，“而博雷斯在几乎无人知晓的情况下，获得了所有付费媒体和免费报道——这简直是天赐的礼物。”

中文翻译：

等到纽约第十二国会选区的民主党初选在六月尘埃落定时，Anthropic与OpenAI将已花费数百万美元，用于这场围绕人工智能政治未来的较量：究竟谁能掌握监管权，又或者谁将因试图监管而受到惩罚。但这场争斗的真正赢家，或许正是它们眼下争相针对的那个人：一位曾经默默无闻的纽约州议员，被它们用“史翠珊效应”硬生生塑造成了人工智能安全监管的代言人。

人工智能试图埋没这位政客——如今人们真的听说过他了
一切尘埃落定之际，Anthropic与OpenAI在这场政治代理人战争中投入的金额将高达数百万美元。但真正的赢家，或许正是它们眼下争相针对的那个人。
一切尘埃落定之际，Anthropic与OpenAI在这场政治代理人战争中投入的金额将高达数百万美元。但真正的赢家，或许正是它们眼下争相针对的那个人。

自2025年底以来，由OpenAI、Palantir及a16z高管资助的超级政治行动委员会“引领未来”，已花费数百万美元攻击亚历克斯·博雷斯——这位撰写了美国首批人工智能监管法案之一的议员。该委员会试图扼杀他竞选即将由长期任职的民主党众议员杰里·纳德勒腾出的席位。然而，博雷斯如今反而成为八人角逐中的领跑者，正如《纽约杂志》近期在封面特稿中所言，他要成为“曼哈顿的门面”。
令人震惊的是，他取得这一切成就，并未依靠大规模的广告攻势。事实上，博雷斯竞选团队告诉《The Verge》，他们于5月11日才在纽约投放了首条广告，这距离博雷斯参选已近七个月，距6月23日投票结束仅剩数周。相比之下，由乔·朗斯代尔、马克·安德森及OpenAI的格雷格·布罗克曼支持的“引领未来”，自2025年12月起便持续投放攻击博雷斯的广告，据最新报告估算，总花费已达240万美元。

通常情况下，由企业和亿万富翁支持的超级政治行动委员会——只要不与竞选活动协调，即可为候选人或选票提案筹集并无限额支出——足以用金钱将目标碾碎。“引领未来”背后的组织已在2024年大选中成功得手，通过加密行业超级政治行动委员会“公平博弈”，扳倒了参议员谢罗德·布朗（俄亥俄州民主党）和众议员凯蒂·波特（加利福尼亚州民主党）。而在曼哈顿，它同样胜券在握：早在去年12月，与“引领未来”关联的“大思考政治行动委员会”就花费12万美元，在电视和数字平台投放了一条攻击博雷斯的单一广告。“在纽约的初选中做广告成本极高，”曾参与运营皮特·布蒂吉格2020年黑马总统竞选、并曾为州长安德鲁·科莫和艾略特·斯皮策工作的纽约政治操盘手利斯·史密斯表示，“纽约媒体市场是全美最昂贵的。任何一点播出时段都弥足珍贵。”

去年10月博雷斯参选时，这位前Palantir员工转型的公职人员面临着几位知名度更高、背后金主更雄厚的对手。同为纽约州议员的迈卡·拉舍尔，得到了纳德勒纽约政治机器以及迈克·布隆伯格超级政治行动委员会的支持。约翰·F·肯尼迪的外孙、网红杰克·施洛斯伯格，则获得了怀念“卡美洛”时代的全国民主党建制派支持。唐纳德·特朗普的批评者、前特朗普竞选经理凯莉安·康威的前夫乔治·康威，赢得了“永不支持特朗普”群体的拥护。“老实说，在被这些人工智能公司盯上之前，博雷斯并不算是个知名人物。”史密斯说。

“引领未来”发言人乔希·弗拉斯托回应置评时表示：“从一开始我们就说过，如今正在明面上上演的情况是：亚历克斯·博雷斯被Anthropic、其投资者如克里斯·拉森、有效利他主义社区以及一群暗钱边缘科技团体收买了。他有三个由Anthropic及其投资者、高管和盟友资助的超级政治行动委员会，这些人正试图为自己买下人工智能的监管控制权。任何认为支持亚历克斯·博雷斯就是在对抗亿万富翁的团体或背书人，要么是愚蠢，要么该赶紧去谷歌搜一搜。”

然而，人工智能公司非但未能扼杀博雷斯的竞选，反而提升了他的知名度。艾默生学院上周发布的最新民调显示，他与拉舍尔并驾齐驱，仅落后两个百分点；而在近期的多项民调中，博雷斯持续领先对手。奇怪的是，“引领未来”的广告投入实际上成了对博雷斯竞选的实物捐赠——一场价值数百万美元的免费广告活动，辛苦地提升了选民对博雷斯存在的认知。

“对于原本没把它放在心上的人来说，他们让它成了头等大事。”
博雷斯竞选团队发言人艾莉莎·卡斯表示，他们最初以为让选民关心人工智能安全会更难。“人工智能（监管）是他的强项，但要让这个问题在选区中成为突出议题，我们得下很大功夫，”她告诉《The Verge》，“而他们从12月开始，就替我们做了这项工作——提升了人工智能及人工智能监管的显著性，让人们思考：这些人是谁？他们想对我、对我们的社会做什么？对于原本没把它放在心上的人来说，他们让它成了头等大事。”

突然间，原本对博雷斯一无所知的选民开始收到邮件和广告，形容他是反人工智能、支持监管的，并强调他是《RAISE法案》的起草者——这部纽约州法律对前沿人工智能模型的发布设定了限制，已于去年12月签署生效。
这些广告无意中成了信号放大器：“引领未来”对博雷斯的攻击越猛烈，引发的媒体关注就越多，选民们就越意识到，一个由硅谷人工智能亿万富翁资助的超级政治行动委员会，正试图影响曼哈顿的一场选举，且专门针对一位想要监管人工智能的候选人。这还无意中赋予了博雷斯“光环”，让他在曼哈顿另外七名以“追究唐纳德·特朗普责任”为纲领的民主党候选人中脱颖而出：他确实是在被那些向特朗普舞厅捐款、以换取人工智能放松监管的科技亿万富翁们针对。事实上，内部竞选民调显示，收到过关于博雷斯负面信息的选民，反而更倾向于投票给他。

人工智能公司的广告容易成为博雷斯的笑柄，这对他也不无裨益。他们最早的一条广告指责博雷斯在Palantir工作期间，这家争议性科技公司曾与美国移民和海关执法局签约，并暗示博雷斯如今声称要废除ICE是虚伪之举。博雷斯以诽谤为由向“引领未来”发出了停止侵权函，声称自己之所以离开Palantir，正是因为他反对该公司与ICE的关系。他还在社交媒体上指出，一位Palantir的亿万富翁因他在Palantir工作而攻击他，这“颇具讽刺意味”。

而这还是在Anthropic介入、将这场竞选推向全国关注之前。今年2月，与支持监管的超级政治行动委员会“公共优先行动”关联的“就业与民主政治行动委员会”宣布支持博雷斯。《纽约客》、《纽约时报》和《政治报》等媒体开始将围绕博雷斯的争斗，报道为OpenAI与Anthropic之间长期对抗的一部分——后者自诩为更负责任的前沿实验室，且刚刚向“公共优先行动”捐赠了2000万美元，直接与“引领未来”及其与OpenAI的关系针锋相对。

这种程度的媒体曝光在众议院竞选中闻所未闻。“任何有偿媒体你都求之不得，任何无偿媒体你也求之不得，”史密斯说，“所以，当他此前在极端政治内行圈子之外几乎无人知晓时，能获得所有这些有偿媒体——这简直就是一份礼物。”

英文来源：

By the time that the Democratic primary for New York’s 12th congressional district wraps up in June, Anthropic and OpenAI will have spent millions on their battle over the political future of AI: who gets to regulate it, or who will be punished for trying to regulate it. But the real winner of their feud may be the guy they’re currently fighting over: a once-obscure New York state assemblyman, who they’ve Streisand-effected into becoming the poster child for AI safety regulation.
AI tried to bury this politician — now people have actually heard of him
When all is said and done, Anthropic and OpenAI will have spent millions in their political proxy war. But the real winner may be the guy they’re currently fighting over.
When all is said and done, Anthropic and OpenAI will have spent millions in their political proxy war. But the real winner may be the guy they’re currently fighting over.
Ever since late 2025, Leading the Future, a super PAC funded by OpenAI, Palantir, and a16z executives, has spent millions against Alex Bores, who wrote one of the first pieces of AI regulatory legislation in the country. The PAC hoped to kill his bid for the seat about to be vacated by longtime Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler. Instead, Bores is now a front-runner in the eight-person race to become the “face of Manhattan,” as New York Magazine recently put it in a cover feature.
And shockingly, he pulled all this off without running a massive ad campaign. In fact, the Bores campaign told The Verge that it had placed its very first ad buy in New York on May 11th, nearly seven months after Bores entered the race and only weeks before the polls close on June 23rd. In contrast, Leading the Future, whose backers include Joe Lonsdale, Marc Andreessen, and OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, has been running attack ads against Bores since December 2025, spending an estimated total of $2.4 million according to the most recent reports.
In any other situation, a corporate- and billionaire-backed super PAC, which is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for a candidate or ballot initiative so long as it does not coordinate with the campaign, could outspend a target into oblivion. The group behind Leading the Future had already done so successfully in the 2024 election, ousting Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) via Fairshake, a crypto industry super PAC. And it would surely have the upper hand in Manhattan: Way back in December, Think Big PAC, which is affiliated with Leading the Future, spent $120,000 to run a single anti-Bores attack ad on television and digital. “It is so expensive to advertise in a New York primary,” said Lis Smith, a New York-based political operative who ran Pete Buttigieg’s dark horse 2020 presidential campaign, and whose career involved stints with Govs. Andrew Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer. “The New York media market is the most expensive media market in the country. You’d kill for any bit of air time.”
When Bores entered the race last October, the ex-Palantir employee-turned-public servant faced several other candidates with broader name recognition and deep-pocketed backers. Micah Lasher, a fellow New York state assemblyman, has the backing of Nadler’s New York political machine, as well as Mike Bloomberg’s super PAC. Jack Schlossberg, the influencer and grandson of John F. Kennedy, has the support of the national Democratic establishment nostalgic for Camelot. George Conway, the Donald Trump critic and ex-husband of former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, has won over the Never Trumper crowd. “I’m gonna be honest with you, [Bores] wasn’t exactly a well-known quantity prior to becoming a target of these AI companies,” Smith said.
Reached for comment, Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson for Leading the Future, said, “From day one, we have said what is now playing out in plain sight: Alex Bores is bought and sold by Anthropic, its investors like Chris Larsen, the Effective Altruist community, and a network of dark money fringe tech groups. He has three super PACs funded by Anthropic, its investors, executives, and their allies who are trying to buy regulatory control of AI for themselves. Any group or endorser who thinks that by backing Alex Bores they are taking on billionaires is either foolish or needs to do a quick Google search.”
Instead of smothering Bores’ candidacy, however, the AI companies only elevated his visibility. A new poll released last week by Emerson College shows him neck-and-neck with Lasher, trailing him by two points, and Bores has consistently taken the lead against his rivals in recent polling. In an odd way, Leading the Future’s ad buys became an in-kind donation to the Bores campaign, in the form of a free, multimillion-dollar ad campaign that did the hard work of raising voter awareness that Bores even existed.
“For people for whom it wasn’t top of mind, they made it top of mind.”
Alyssa Cass, a spokeswoman for the Bores campaign, said that they’d initially thought it would be harder to make voters care about AI safety. “AI [regulation] is his strength, but it’s gonna take us a lot of work to make this a salient issue in the district,” she told The Verge. “And they, starting in December, started doing that work for us, of raising the saliency of AI and AI regulation, and making people think: Who are these people? What do they want to do to me, and to our society? For people for whom it wasn’t top of mind, they made it top of mind.”
Suddenly, voters who’d been unaware of Bores were getting mailers and ads describing him as anti-AI and pro-regulation, highlighting his authorship of the RAISE Act, a New York state law that placed restrictions on the release of frontier AI models and had been signed into law in December.
The ads became an unintentional signal booster: The more that Leading the Future attacked Bores, the more media coverage it drew, and the more voters became aware that a super PAC backed by Silicon Valley AI billionaires was trying to influence a Manhattan election, specifically targeting a candidate who wanted to regulate AI. It also inadvertently gave Bores the “it” factor that differentiated him from seven other Democrat candidates running in Manhattan on a platform of holding Donald Trump accountable: He was, quite literally, being targeted by tech billionaires who were donating to Trump’s ballroom in exchange for AI deregulation. Internal campaign polling, in fact, shows that voters who had received negative information about Bores were more inclined to vote for him.
It also didn’t hurt that the AI companies’ ads were easy for Bores to mock. One of their first ads criticized Bores for working at Palantir during a period where the controversial tech company had contracted with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and suggested that Bores was hypocritical for now saying he wanted to abolish ICE. Bores filed a cease-and-desist against LTF for defaming him, claiming that he had left Palantir because he opposed its relationship with ICE. He also noted on social media that it was “ironic” that a Palantir billionaire was attacking him for working at Palantir.
And this was even before an intervention from Anthropic brought the race to national awareness. In February, the Jobs and Democracy PAC, which is affiliated with the pro-regulation super PAC Public First Action, announced that it would back Bores. Outlets like The New Yorker, The New York Times, and Politico began covering the fight over Bores as part of the long-standing rivalry between OpenAI and Anthropic, the AI company that positions itself as the more responsible of the frontier labs — and which had just donated $20 million to Public First Action, in direct opposition to Leading the Future and its ties to OpenAI.
This kind of media exposure is unheard of in House races. “You’d kill for any earned media, you’d kill for any paid media,” said Smith. “So the fact that he’s getting all this paid media, when he was a virtual unknown outside of extremely political insider circles before — it’s a gift.”