Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Sam Altman’s “something’s clearly not working” remark was a judgment about AI-industry political spending and public perception—not a finding that campaign money caused Americans to turn against AI. In a Politico interview, he argued that spending on politics would not reassure people worried about AI’s economic effects or concentrated power, and said the industry should address those concerns directly.
What Altman meant by “clearly not working”
In the first episode of Politico’s Decoded podcast, interviewer Brendan Bordelon asked Altman how political spending by AI companies and executives had affected politicians’ and the public’s perception of AI. Altman answered, “Well, something’s clearly not working. I don’t think the perception of AI is where we’d like it to be.” Politico’s interview transcript
He contrasted that perception with the value many people find in AI tools, which he said can make life easier or give users time back. He also identified anxiety about economic effects and fear of concentrated power as concerns. His point was that political donations would not resolve those worries: “I don’t think spending money on politics is what’s going to make people feel better about it.” He described parts of the industry as tone-deaf and urged companies to respond to people’s actual concerns.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →So “not working” was Altman’s assessment of the gap between the industry’s political activity and the public’s comfort with AI. It was not a claim that a study had measured the effect of donations, nor that spending had definitively worsened attitudes.
#1 Best Overall
Altman’s position on money in politics
Altman said he would prefer “much less money in politics” generally, while doubting that the AI industry could unilaterally disarm or that selectively telling some people they could donate while others could not would work. He said he would support a way to reduce political spending if it applied overall.
He also said he had supported individual candidates in the past but was not donating to candidates at the time of the interview. He cited AI’s central importance and OpenAI’s business with government as reasons for that position.
When Bordelon asked about OpenAI president Greg Brockman and a reported additional donation to Leading the Future, Altman said he had not seen the report and did not want to respond to that specific matter. The interviewer described a reported $25 million gift and a reported decision not to make an additional $25 million contribution; the transcript does not establish Altman’s independent knowledge of those reports. Politico’s interview transcript
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11What the reported spending figures do—and do not—show
AI-linked political groups have spent money to influence races while backing candidates and regulatory approaches that differ. The figures reported in 2026 use different measures and dates, so they should not be added together or treated as interchangeable.
Rank #3
| Figure | What it measures | Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| More than $38 million | Spending by four AI-linked super PACs to influence races | Los Angeles Times report dated June 21, 2026; spending through June 15, 2026. Its breakdown: Think Big, $14.1 million; American Mission, $8 million; Jobs and Democracy, $11 million; and Defending Our Values, $5.2 million. Los Angeles Times |
| More than $185 million | Contributions by OpenAI and Anthropic collectively to contests | The Washington Post reported this on March 12, 2026. It is a different measure and date from the four-super-PAC spending total above, not a directly comparable figure. The Washington Post |
| More than $1 billion | Dark money tracked in the 2024 election cycle | OpenSecrets figure quoted by the Los Angeles Times; it is broad political-finance context, not AI-industry spending. The Times said it was $350 million above the previous presidential election. Los Angeles Times |
The Los Angeles Times described one super-PAC network linked to OpenAI and another linked to Anthropic, with groups backing different candidates and arguing for different approaches to regulation. The reported totals establish political activity, but they do not show whether it persuaded voters, shifted politicians’ views, or changed public opinion about AI.
Public-attitude figures are not evidence of a spending effect
Separate polling offers context for concerns around AI, but it does not establish that political donations caused those views. The Washington Post reported that, in a 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 50 percent of Americans were more concerned than excited about increased AI use. That is a national measure of attitudes toward AI—not a measure of reactions to campaign spending.
The same March 2026 Washington Post report said 70 percent of registered Wisconsin voters believed data-center costs outweighed the benefits. That state-specific result concerns data centers and energy costs, not national opinion about AI political spending. The Post also cited a 28 percent increase in electricity prices since the end of 2021, based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration; that figure describes electricity prices, not AI campaign spending or public sentiment. The Washington Post
The Post’s account of early primary success for AI-backed candidates in Texas and North Carolina was an early-cycle snapshot in March 2026, not a final election result. Neither candidate outcomes nor individual survey figures, on their own, identify what political spending did to public perception.
Best Value
What can be concluded
Altman said AI-industry political spending was not making people feel better about AI and argued that companies should engage more directly with concerns about economic disruption and concentrated power. He also expressed a preference for less money in politics overall, rather than a one-sided retreat by the AI industry.
Reporting documents sizable, dated political spending and several distinct measures of public concern. It does not isolate whether that spending improved, worsened, or had no effect on how people view AI. “Clearly not working” is therefore best read as Altman’s political and communications judgment—not a demonstrated causal result.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
