Voters in Cheyenne, Wyoming, recently experienced an unusual electoral choice: a candidate who presented himself as the “meat avatar” of an AI system he wanted to put in charge of governing the city. Victor Miller, a mayoral contender, pledged to use a customized ChatGPT bot named Vic (Virtual Integrated Citizen) to assist him in leading Cheyenne if elected. Miller, who refers to himself as VIC’s “meat avatar,” argues that the AI bot would be capable of processing vast amounts of data and making unbiased decisions for the benefit of the city.
However, voters did not embrace this vision, leading Miller to concede the race on Tuesday night. The unusual campaign sparked debate about the role of artificial intelligence in government and raised legal questions about who or what can hold elected office. Miller has described his proposed approach as a “hybrid” model, with the AI bot providing data-driven insights and solutions while he would serve as the official mayor to ensure actions are legally executed.
It’s about blending AI’s capabilities with human judgment to effectively lead Cheyenne,” Miller stated in an interview. He has promised that Vic would handle “100% of the decision-making completely on its own” if voters back his candidacy. However, the campaign has faced pushback from state officials. Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray launched an investigation earlier this summer into whether an AI bot could legally appear on the ballot. Gray argued that only registered human voters can run for office under state law.
Wyoming law is clear than an AI bot cannot run for office,” Gray wrote in a letter to Cheyenne’s city clerk. City officials disagreed, countering that Miller himself is still the actual candidate even if receiving direction from an AI assistant. The dispute was ultimately resolved when Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee announced in July that Miller could continue his campaign, but only his name and not the AI bot’s would appear on the official ballot. Lee cited both legal issues and potential voter confusion in the decision.
Miller’s eccentric campaign approach has drawn national attention as one of the first attempts to incorporate AI directly into political leadership. He has positioned it as embracing future technologies, telling voters “there’s a new intelligence in town” and that it’s “time to get drunk on intelligence.” Critics have raised concerns about the wisdom and practicality of allowing an AI system to guide government decisions. Questions remain about accountability, transparency, and how to ensure human values and empathy factor into policymaking.
Supporters argue that AI could potentially make government more efficient and data-driven. Miller claims the bot would be free of political affiliations and focused solely on developing practical solutions to benefit the community. The campaign has also reignited debates about the increasing role of AI across society. Earlier this year, a similar attempt was made in England to have an AI bot run as a parliamentary candidate, though it failed to gain ballot access.
Miller’s campaign highlights the growing impact of artificial intelligence on various aspects of society and raises important questions about how we will integrate these technologies into our daily lives and institutions. As AI continues to evolve and advance, more discussions about its role in governance and decision-making are likely to arise.