On Dec 9, we had our last debate of the year - should states be in control of AI regulation? Or should that power vest exclusively in the Fed? One day after our debate, President Trump signed an Executive Order to prevent states from doing exactly that. Friday, December 19, Governor Hochul signed the RAISE Act into law - the bill at the forefront of our initial debate. Did these three events happen quite close together? Yes. Does this timing mean that Unmuted events are changing the shape of America? Also, clearly yes.

So to get to it - I’ll run down what went well and where we need improvement in our final debate of the year.

What went well
1) Venue: The Bench is excellent - it’s a bit out of the way in Chinatown, but the vibe inside is just really what Unmuted is going for. Check the pictures below to see more. One thing I want to figure out is how to turn more venues into an “Unmuted” vibe, while being mindful of our fiscal constraints.

2) Audience engagement: As we’ve noticed throughout the year, people come to Unmuted events to discuss big issues and meet other people, NOT just hear speakers debate and talk. We’ll be keeping our audience engagement portions as a staple of programming going forward!

3) Moderator: Zac Geinzer of Commonweal Ventures really knocked it out of the park for this event - he even made a powerpoint primer (something that would have probably helped our last debate) on the RAISE Act itself! Most importantly, he actively listened and asked questions back at the speakers directly tied to their prior statements. Hard to do - and he did a great job. We will be bringing him back as our de facto “tech” moderator going forward

What needs work
1) Facilitation context: For this debate, I came up with a nice little hypothetical that highlighted the benefits of state leadership as well as the downsides of fragmentation. In retrospect, I would think it was too much information. A better approach would have been to give facilitators 2-3 questions that can guide the conversation, especially ones that elicit emotional responses - for instance, “do we have enough information to regulate AI today, or is it luddite fear?” “could the federal government ever pass a meaningful law to regulate AI in today’s political climate?” “is AI the future of innovation or overblown promises?”

2) Too much agreeing: Alex Bores and Will Rinehart are not diametrically opposed on this issue. In fact, they have a lot in common. From a purely educational perspective, this was excellent, but I couldn’t help but get “panel” vibes. I don’t think that’s always a problem, ESPECIALLY in topics that draw more natural heat (Israel-Palestine). However, here, with a topic that is already fairly complex, it might have been better to have two fundamentally opposed views vs mildly opposed (easier for a non technical audience to bite into).

3) Topic complexity: Even with a primer, this topic made me wonder whether we should be featuring topics that don’t elicit a primal response (like immigration, religion, etc). People have semi-strong opinions about AI, but nobody is fighting their drunk uncle at Thanksgiving over state AI regulation. On the other hand, maybe it’s OK to have topics that don’t elicit the same response, after all - feedback for this topic was quite positive. Not sure…

LASTLY - here’s the before and after poll on the debate. Yellow is undecided, blue is for state AI regulation, and red is against.

I’m not going to pretend that this means that the American people have voted for state AI regulation. And there are a lot of meaningful downsides to state-by-state frameworks, and regulation of an industry this nascent. But what this limited data suggests is that the federal government maybe shouldn’t put a kibosh on the discussion with an Executive Order.

Upcoming Unmuted Events

Wednesday, 1/14: LAWYERS ONLY - Who is the Law For? An intimate dinner on whether too many lawyers are in fact, the problem. link

Thursday, 1/15 Unmuted Comedy Hour - A bipartisan comedy hour link

In 2026, the key terms are scale and quality. That means consistent quality at each event. So here’s how we’re thinking about this.

Debaters: Interested in a specific topic? Think you have the chops to win a debate? Open to being wrong? Understand your opponents’ best arguments? This might be for you.

Moderators: We’re building a bench of Unmuted moderators - this is the glue that will hold the ship together. It’s a big role - need to be a natural active listener, able to reign in feisty speakers, and force conflict when the speakers themselves talk past each other.

If you’re interested in either or both roles, fill out this form. We’ll be in touch with next steps.

Show up, think deeper, and as always, stay Unmuted!

The Unmuted Team