Every now and then, a popular question emerges that every incumbent or aspiring US politician should ideally be prepared to answer. Failure to properly answer that question, conventional wisdom says, might bring about the end of once-promising career or even stop a career before it even starts.
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, a question often lobbed at politicians from both reporters and voters revolved around milk. Congressional, gubernatorial and even presidential hopefuls were often asked how much a gallon of milk cost. If the candidate was able to give a relatively accurate answer, supposedly it showed how relatable he or she was to the voters. Occasionally this would trip up even the most seasoned individual pursuing public office.
The aides working for politicians and candidates would often spend their time researching for the prices of just about anything to prepare their boss and prevent him or her from looking out of touch.
Sometimes, not looking relatable can be self-inflicted and have nothing to do with a reporter's question, as was the case with the 41st president of the United States, George HW Bush, as he was running for reelection in 1992. The New York Times pointed out that President Bush seemed to be amazed by supermarket bar-code scanners during a campaign stop. It's important to point out that by 1992 bar-code scanners were incredibly common, and it reinforced the narrative that Mr Bush couldn't relate to the average voter.
The popular milk/grocery cost question has sometimes been supplanted by asking politicians about the cost of petrol, and often a failure to know the answer can lead to disastrous consequences in the minds of voters.
All that said, the unprecedented artificial intelligence boom in recent years has created an entirely new type of question that public servants, incumbent and aspiring politicians should be prepared to answer.
Voters, increasingly worried about whether or not AI will cause a spike in unemployment, are curious about what elected officials know about AI, and in turn, what they plan to do to blunt the impact of labour disruption.
Meanwhile, there's another group of voters who are enthusiastic about AI who want to ensure that politicians know what they're talking about before making laws that impact it.
As a result, politicians have been peppered with variations of AI-related questions. When was the last time you used a chatbot? What AI model do you prefer to use? Do you use AI to write any of your speeches? Should students be taught how to use AI?
The chorus of questions and the daunting influence of AI has created some awkward situations where superficially, some politicians might look out of touch with voters.
During a recent podcast interview, long-time US Democratic Congressional Representative James Clyburn told Vox that he didn't know what OpenAI's ChatGPT was "until about a week ago".
"ChatGPT or whatever it is ... that may sound strange to you," he told the interviewer, adding that he also has not stepped foot inside a data centre, which are fast-becoming controversial in many parts of the US.
The host, seeming a bit surprised by Representative Clyburn's answer, asked him about those who wonder how he can effectively legislate "as someone who is distant from the technological shifts affecting folks' lives right now".
Without missing a beat, the Democrat from South Carolina provided an answer.
"I have a great staff," he stoically said, adding that ideally he "wished that he could know everything", but ultimately being at peace with the fact that he doesn't know everything.
"What I spend my time doing is trying to surround myself with people who do know stuff," Representative Clyburn continued.
The reaction to the 86-year-old US representative's answer is continuing to elicit a lot of strong reactions.
Some technology experts, executives and even reporters are basically aghast that someone tasked with creating laws that could regulate AI also be largely in the dark about the basics of ChatGPT, one of the most prominent AI chatbots.
The disappointment and surprise related to Representative Clyburn's AI comments, though understandable, are largely misplaced.
I completely understand that mounting fears about the societal, environmental and political impacts of AI make us all wish that elected officials and those in government leadership positions would have extreme proficiency with the technology, but it's not an absolute pre-requisite.
Going back to the price of milk question I discussed earlier, lawmakers in the US have passed countless laws about dairy production without knowing the first thing about cows and agriculture.
What's more important, as Representative Clyburn points out is that his staffers are familiar with all the issues accompanying the territory of AI, and that his aides know enough about his broader ideology to draw conclusions about AI.
So what should we really be worried about regarding AI, tech proficiency and elected officials?
A recent incident in Canada helps to answer that question.
I am referring to Bill Oliver, a legislative assembly member in New Brunswick who was reading a speech in front of other lawmakers about public confidence, only to start reading what was almost certainly an message left from an AI chatbot he probably used to craft the speech.
"Here's a more natural, flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech rather than a series of short points," he awkwardly said.
That video has been video millions of times, leading to a plethora of reactions laced with outrage and second-hand embarrassment.
Unlike Representative Clyburn, who admitted to know knowing the specifics of ChatGPT, Mr Oliver and his staff clearly aren't careful with how they use AI.
That's where all of us should be worried.
I don't expect elected officials to know everything, but I do expect them acknowledge shortcomings instead of haphazardly using technology in way that reeks of carelessness.
