Will AI Ever Run for Office? Could It Outperform Today’s Leaders?
By Shayne Heffernan of Knightsbridge
Let’s tackle a serious question: could artificial intelligence (AI) ever run for political office, and would it do a worse job than the human leaders we have today? With global politics bogged down by division, poor decisions, and widespread corruption, the idea of an AI leader doesn’t seem as far-fetched as it once did. At Knightsbridge, we’re focused on how innovation reshapes systems, and this debate offers a compelling angle.
Is It Possible for AI to Run for Office?
Not under current laws. Most democratic systems require candidates to be human. In the U.S., the Constitution mandates that presidential candidates be natural-born citizens, at least 35 years old, and residents for 14 years—requirements AI cannot meet as a non-human entity. You’ll find similar rules globally: the UK, Japan, and other democracies restrict candidacy to human citizens. Legally, there’s no framework to hold AI accountable either. Who would be responsible for an AI leader’s decisions—its developers, its operators, or the AI itself? That’s a legal mess. There are also risks like bias, hacking, or manipulation by those controlling the AI, which could undermine electoral integrity.
Still, the idea has sparked interest. In 2018, a Japanese tech firm symbolically ran an AI named SAM for mayor in Tama City, not as a legal candidate but as a conversation starter. In 2024, a group in Wyoming tried to register an AI called VIC for local office, only to be blocked by existing laws. These examples, while not serious bids, show people are curious. If laws eventually recognize AI as a legal entity—similar to how corporations are treated as “persons”—the possibility might emerge down the road. For now, it’s not an option.
Could AI Be Worse Than Current Leaders?
Look at global politics today. Division runs deep across the U.S., Europe, and emerging markets. Leaders often prioritize short-term popularity over long-term solutions. In the U.S., a projected $40 trillion debt over the next decade looms, with Trump-era policies adding another $3.8 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is a crisis in the making, yet human leaders keep delaying action. Corruption makes things worse—whether it’s bribery scandals in the EU or nepotism in Middle Eastern governments, public trust in politicians is at an all-time low.
An AI leader could potentially improve on this. It wouldn’t care about votes, public opinion, or backroom deals. It could process vast datasets—economic indicators, social trends, historical outcomes—and make decisions rooted in evidence, not emotion. Imagine an AI managing economic policy: it could analyze millions of tax scenarios to find the most effective one, or oversee disaster relief by directing resources exactly where they’re needed, free from political bias. Human leaders are often clouded by bias, ego, or greed—AI wouldn’t have those flaws.
However, AI has its risks. Its decisions depend on the data it’s trained on, and if that data is flawed, the outcomes can be problematic. Algorithms used in U.S. courts, for instance, have faced criticism for racial bias due to skewed inputs. An AI leader might also lack human qualities like empathy or moral judgment, which are critical for issues such as social justice or cultural preservation that can’t be reduced to numbers. If hacked or misprogrammed, an AI could lead to disastrous results—think of emotionless decisions that overlook human suffering, or a system exploited by malicious actors.
Could AI be worse than humans? Possibly—if it malfunctions or falls into the wrong hands, it could amplify existing issues, creating a technocratic nightmare. Yet, given the corruption and short-sightedness plaguing current leaders, AI might actually be an improvement. At least it wouldn’t be driven by personal ambition or the need to win re-election.
A Practical Approach: AI as a Support System
While AI isn’t poised to run for office anytime soon, it’s already contributing to governance. Singapore uses AI for urban planning, the EU employs it to detect financial fraud, and the U.S. applies it in defense strategies. The most effective path is to use AI as a tool, not a leader—allowing it to provide human leaders with data-driven insights while keeping final decisions in human hands. This combines AI’s strengths, like logic and scalability, with human values such as empathy and ethical judgment.
At Knightsbridge, we see a similar dynamic in investment strategies—AI tools that analyze markets don’t replace human investors; they enhance their decisions. Governance could follow the same model: AI as an advisor, not a president. However, if human leaders continue to fall short, the appeal of an AI candidate might grow, despite its risks. The question isn’t only “Could AI be worse?”—it’s also “How much longer will we tolerate the failures of those in charge?” The future of leadership is uncertain, and AI may well play a role in shaping it.
Shayne Heffernan of Knightsbridge is a global markets analyst and commentator with a focus on emerging economies and strategic investments.
legal challenges AI
AI ethics governance
more direct tone
