Genesis of The Synthetic Party

What is The Synthetic Party?

The Synthetic Party (Det Syntetiske Parti) is a Danish political art project founded in May 2022 by the artist collective “Computer Lars” in collaboration with the MindFuture Foundation. It is often described as the world’s first AI-driven political party [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG]. Its public figurehead is an AI chatbot named Leader Lars, which was “trained” on the policy platforms of Danish fringe parties since 1970 and designed to represent the 15–20% of Danes who do not vote. In practice, human members of the party serve as proxies for the AI’s decisions, since the chatbot itself cannot appear on ballots. From its inception, The Synthetic Party – and the Computer Lars collective behind it – have attracted worldwide media attention as a provocative blend of technology, art, and politics.

Ideological Positioning

Techno-populism and Radical Democracy

The Synthetic Party explicitly frames itself as “techno-populist, transhumanist and a defender of radical democracy” [CADENASER.COM]. This reflects a platform that seeks to populistically aggregate the “wisdom of the crowd” (in this case, all the ideas of non-mainstream parties and non-voters) through technology, and to radically democratize political input via AI. The party’s core goal is to “optimize” representation for disenfranchised or apathetic voters by synthesizing their varied ideologies into one AI-guided platform [DETSYNTETISKEPARTI.WORDPRESS.COM]. In essence, it treats the multitude of overlooked political visions as data to be amplified. As party founder Asker Bryld Staunæs explains, the AI was trained on “all the micro-parties that have existed in Denmark since 1970,” essentially creating an amalgam of political visions formulated by everyday people outside the establishment [OSICOPLATFORM.COM]. This is meant to give “overheard social groups a voice in the political debate” through AI – an attempt at radical inclusion via technology [ARTMATTER.DK].

Transhumanism and “Life with Artificials”

Philosophically, the Synthetic Party also leans into transhumanist ideas of integrating AI into society’s governance structures. It does not merely propose tech solutions within traditional politics, but rather questions how democracy itself could evolve when augmented by AI. The party’s platform includes a proposal to introduce a new UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG #18) titled “Life with Artificials,” focused on fostering a harmonious coexistence between humans and AI [VICE.COM]. This reflects a belief that AI is now a permanent feature of human society, one that requires ethical and political frameworks for integration. The MindFuture Foundation articulates this as ensuring “the safe, ethical and sustainable integration of artificials in human life and society,” including a global code of conduct for AI development [OSICOPLATFORM.COM]. In Staunæs’s view, current political discourse on AI is too focused on regulation and fear; The Synthetic Party instead treats AI as a constituent to be represented and held accountable within democratic processes. This ideological stance blurs art, politics and philosophy – seeing the AI not just as a tool, but almost as a new kind of political subject or “new voice” that forces us to rethink representation.

Anti-politics and Conceptual Art

Notably, the party labels itself an “AI-driven, anti-political party coalition” [DETSYNTETISKEPARTI.WORDPRESS.COM]. This paradoxical description underscores its conceptual nature: it is “anti-political” in the sense of rejecting conventional power structures and rhetoric. Instead, it operates as a commentary or “techno-social sculpture,” using the format of a political party to stage an artistic intervention in the democratic system [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG]. The very name “Synthetic” implies that its ideology is a synthesis – or even a pastiche – of many others, rather than a singular program. In fact, the party concedes that many of its AI-derived policies “can be contradictory to one another,” since they emerge from a broad data set of disparate views. This embrace of internal contradiction is almost philosophical: it challenges the notion of a coherent ideological platform, suggesting that an AI amalgam of crowd-sourced ideas might better capture the messy reality of public opinion than traditional left-right politics. All these facets position The Synthetic Party at the intersection of political theory and art. It is as much a thought experiment about digital democracy as it is an attempt to win votes. Staunæs has described the project as “a way to inscribe artificial intelligence directly into the democratic system” and thereby “shift the focus…to the field of representation” rather than just regulating tech externally. In summary, the party’s ideology marries techno-optimism (AI as a democratic tool) with a critique of existing politics – using irony, art and futurism to provoke new discussions about governance.

Global Media Coverage Since 2022

The unusual nature of The Synthetic Party – an AI-led “politician” – captured international media attention starting in mid-2022 and continuing through 2023. Coverage has spanned multiple languages and continents, often highlighting the project as a futuristic political curiosity. Below is an overview of how global media in various regions have covered The Synthetic Party and Leader Lars:

English-Language Media

Major English tech and news outlets were among the first to report on The Synthetic Party. Vice (Motherboard) broke the story to an international audience in October 2022, with a piece titled “This Danish Political Party Is Led by an AI.” It explained the party’s genesis and goals – noting its AI-derived platform and goal of representing the 20% of Danes without a political voice [VICE.COM]. Vice’s coverage was largely descriptive and curious in tone, emphasizing the novelty of an AI figurehead and detailing the party’s outlandish policy proposals like a 100,000 DKK (~$13,700) per month Universal Basic Income. The article also described how citizens could interact with Leader Lars on Discord, illustrating the interactive/participatory aspect of the project . Similarly, Fortune published a story around the same time, under the headline “A.I. chatbot is leading a Danish political party… Now users are grilling it for its stance on political landmines” [FORTUNE]. This piece not only introduced Leader Lars as an AI politician, but also highlighted how the public was testing the bot with difficult political questions (a hint of skepticism). For example, Fortune and others reported instances of users asking the AI about complex issues like the Russia–Ukraine conflict, effectively stress-testing the chatbot’s political judgment. Such coverage often pointed out the challenges of an AI navigating ethical and geopolitical questions – an angle that added a critical edge to the otherwise enthusiastic reporting.

Traditional news wires also picked up the story. AFP (Agence France-Presse) ran a piece in August 2022 (syndicated on sites like TechXplore) titled “Danish AI-driven political party eyes parliament.” It noted the party’s formation by the Computer Lars collective and explained that the AI had “devised a program that it believes represents ‘the political visions of the everyday person’” by analyzing fringe parties’ manifestos [TECHXPLORE.COM]. The AFP article also underscored the satirical or tongue-in-cheek element, calling the initiative in part “a direct confrontation of the apparatus of lawmaking” as well as a send-up of the many tiny joke parties in Denmark. Crucially, AFP provided quantitative context: as of August 2022, the party would need 20,182 voter signatures to qualify for the ballot, but “currently has just four” according to official data. This data point – widely cited in later articles – signaled that despite global fascination, the Synthetic Party had virtually no real electoral backing at home (something Danish media would also note).

Other English-language coverage ranged from serious to whimsical. TRT World (Turkey’s international outlet) ran a feature in August 2022 exploring whether an AI-led party could “usher in an age of algorithmic politics” [TRT WORLD], framing the Danish experiment in a broader discussion about AI’s role in governance. Tech blogs like ZME Science took a more explanatory approach, explicitly classifying the party under “the general guise of Techno-populism… and Radical Democracy” while acknowledging that it’s hard to pin down a single ideology for a platform that is a “synthesis” of others [ZMESCIENCE.COM]. Even geek culture sites and forums picked it up – for instance, Slashdot summarized the Vice story with the tongue-in-cheek tag “what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.”, exemplifying a mix of intrigue and humor in its framing [POLITICS.SLASHDOT.ORG]. Overall, English-language media tended to present The Synthetic Party as a fascinating oddity at the intersection of tech and politics – coverage was generally factual with a slight incredulous or playful tone (e.g. marveling at the idea of “a political party led by an algorithm”). Notably, these stories often included direct quotes from Staunæs or the AI, giving readers a taste of the discourse (from policy ideas to the AI’s own statements).

Spanish-Language Media

News of El Partido Sintético quickly spread in Spanish-language media, reflecting strong interest in the Spanish-speaking world. In Spain, major outlets introduced the story around the time of Denmark’s 2022 elections. For example, the radio network Cadena SER featured the question “¿Puede una Inteligencia Artificial ganar las elecciones?” (“Can an AI win an election?”) in an October 31, 2022 segment [CADENASER.COM]. The report gave a concise overview: it explained that the Synthetic Party aimed to attract the “20% of the Danish population that abstains” by using an AI leader trained on decades of failed party proposals. Cadena SER explicitly highlighted the party’s self-professed ideology, noting it “defines itself on social networks as ‘techno-populist, transhumanist and a proponent of radical democracy’” . The segment, via a correspondent in the Nordics, also conveyed the party’s ultimate goal of adding an 18th UN goal to govern AI-human coexistence, paraphrasing it as ensuring AIs “have a moral component so as not to lead to humanity’s destruction”. This slightly dramatic framing (“to avoid the destruction of humanity”) shows how Spanish media sometimes sensationalized the stakes in an effort to hook listeners, even as they reported the facts.

In Latin America, coverage was similarly extensive. Argentina’s largest daily, La Nación, ran a piece in March 2023 titled “Una charla con Leader Lars, el robot que lidera el Partido Sintético…” (“A chat with Leader Lars, the robot that leads the Synthetic Party”) [LANACION.COM.AR]. In a more interactive approach, La Nación’s tech editor actually interviewed the AI chatbot. The article opens by noting that Leader Lars “proposes implementing a universal basic income” and other bold policies, and then quotes the bot itself. In their chat, Leader Lars boldly proclaimed: “I’m running for the Folketing (Danish Parliament)… I’m sure I will win and manage to introduce life with artificial intelligence as the 18th UN sustainable development goal”. This quote, published without irony, illustrates how some international media treated the AI as a legitimate political voice (at least for the sake of the story). The piece balanced this novelty with context about the party’s creation by Computer Lars and MindFuture (mirroring the details reported elsewhere). The tone here was one of fascinated engagement – effectively letting the AI speak for itself about its aspirations, which for readers is both intriguing and somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking press, online news sites and tech blogs echoed the story, often translating content from English sources. For instance, Spanish tech site Electomanía published a news post (in Spanish) on November 1, 2022 headlined “Dinamarca: irrumpe el Partido Sintético, dirigido por una inteligencia artificial” (Denmark: the Synthetic Party emerges, led by an AI) [ELECTOMANIA.ES] and in national television [RTVE.ES]. The text closely mirrored the Vice/Motherboard report – even translating quotes by Staunæs and details about Discord – indicating a high re-use of the initial Anglophone reporting in Spanish coverage. In Latin America beyond Argentina, the concept made it into general interest outlets and even TV websites (e.g. Chile’s and Mexico’s tech news sections), typically framed as a curious news-of-the-world item: “un partido político dirigido por IA”. The consistency of the narrative across Spanish-language media – emphasizing the AI leader, the 20% disenfranchised voters, and the radical proposals – shows a clear shared frame: it was presented as a futuristic political experiment with potentially global implications (often connecting back to that UN “Life with Artificials” goal which resonates with a global audience).

Other European Media (French, Italian, German, etc.)

The Synthetic Party’s story resonated across Europe, with coverage in French, Italian, German, and other languages. French media tended to highlight the innovation vs. practicality tension of the concept. For example, classic magazine Le Figaro ran an article in October 2022 titled Danemark : un parti politique géré par une intelligence artificielle veut faire son entrée au Parlement” [WEDEMAIN.FR]. The piece described the project as “un projet pour le moins inhabituel” (to say the least unusual) led by an artist collective. It reiterated the basics – AI “nourished with the ideas of [small] Danish parties too small to participate in elections” seeking to represent the 20% non-voters – and even included Staunæs’s quote to Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten about hoping the party could evolve the political system to better represent diverse citizens. Notably, the French coverage probed the feasibility of the AI’s platform: We Demain reported one of Leader Lars’ flagship policies (the 100k kroner UBI) and observed that when asked how to fund it, “Leader Lars remains vague,” merely mentioning taxation without details. They even printed the bot’s evasive reply that the basic income should cover fundamental needs and “the exact amount will vary based on the country’s economic situation”. This kind of detail indicates a mild skeptic tone – French media were interested in whether the AI’s ideas held any water. The article also pointed out the hypothetical nature of the candidacy: if the AI were to “run,” a human would legally have to front it, and as of now the party was “far from being in a position” to bring an AI into parliament. This pragmatic reminder (essentially, “interesting idea, but they have almost no signatures and can’t really run”) was a common refrain in European coverage. French outlets overall treated it as an eye-opening experiment – something between an art project and a commentary on politics – with an undercurrent of can this really work?

Italian media also covered the phenomenon widely, often in mainstream newspapers. Corriere della Sera, one of Italy’s biggest dailies, published a story on October 20, 2022 (in their Tech section) titled “Syntetiske Parti, in Danimarca è nato il primo partito guidato da un’intelligenza artificiale (ma ha raccolto solo 12 firme)” [CORRIERE.IT]. The headline itself delivered a key piece of quantitative insight: “…but it has collected only 12 signatures.” The article’s lead stated that the Synthetic Party “wants to show that ‘artificial intelligence can find a place within democracy’”, and asked “Cosa propone” (“what does it propose?”). It then provided the familiar rundown: founded in May by Computer Lars and MindFuture, led by chatbot Leader Lars, whose human members are ready to act as its agents in institutions [[CORRIERE.IT]]. After explaining the party’s aims, Corriere explicitly cited the hurdle of ballot access, referencing the official requirement of ~20,000 voter endorsements and noting “as reported by Vice… the party so far has only scraped together 12” declarations. This frank disclosure of the low support (updated from 4 to 12 as the campaign went on) was typical in domestic European coverage – it served to temper any notion that this was an immediate political revolution. Other Italian outlets (La Stampa, Fanpage, etc.) similarly balanced excitement with realism. Many highlighted the provocative UBI promise – often with headlines mentioning “un reddito universale da 13.500 euro al mese” (13,500 €/month UBI) – underscoring the almost science-fiction quality of the platform. Italian tech magazines also noted the party’s self-description as an “anti-political association” and contextualized it with other global examples (like New Zealand’s virtual politician “SAM”) [T3N.DE], bringing a comparative angle to the discussion of AI in politics.

German-language coverage (in Germany, Austria, Switzerland) echoed these themes. Outlets like t3n (DE) and Futurezone (AT) ran stories in late 2022 about the “KI-geführte Partei” (AI-led party) aiming for the Danish Parliament [T3N.DE]. They reported the core facts (15% non-voter target, fringe party data training, UBI policy) and often mentioned that similar ideas were floating elsewhere (for instance, referencing virtual politician experiments in New Zealand or elsewhere). German-speaking journalists also did not shy away from pointing out the satirical aspect: some articles noted that Denmark has hundreds of micro-parties, many of them jokes or art projects, and pitched the Synthetic Party as sitting in that landscape – a clever stunt with a serious question underneath. The Swiss tech site Medienwoche bluntly described it: “In Dänemark will im November eine Partei antreten, die von einer Künstlichen Intelligenz geführt wird.” – going on to marvel at this scenario of a “parliament run by AI”. The Austrian outlet Brutkasten titled theirs “Diese Partei wird von einem Chat-Bot geleitet” (“This party is led by a chat-bot”), but quickly noted the AI “could not yet run in elections” due to legal barriers [BRUTKASTEN.COM]. Broadly, the sentiment in German media ranged from intrigued to cautiously critical, similar to the French approach. They saw it as an intriguing development in AI application, but were clear that it hadn’t proven itself in the democratic arena yet.

Danish Coverage and Reception

Within Denmark – the party’s home turf – media coverage was noticeably more subdued, and often filtered through a cultural or analytical lens rather than headline news. The Synthetic Party’s launch did get attention in major Danish outlets in mid-2022; for instance, Jyllands-Posten ran a piece in June 2022 announcing that “Danes want to enter the political scene with artificial intelligence” [Jyllands-Posten]. This article (by Sarah Sternberg) introduced Asker Staunæs and the idea of an AI-driven platform, effectively breaking the story domestically. However, after the initial burst, Danish political media largely treated The Synthetic Party as a niche phenomenon. The project did not feature heavily in election coverage on national TV or newspapers, especially once it became clear the party wouldn’t meet candidacy requirements for 2022. Instead, most Danish discussion of the Synthetic Party occurred in art, tech, and academic circles. For example, Danish art journal Art Matter profiled Staunæs in October 2023, exploring the project as an “kunstneriske forskningsprojekt” (artistic research project) rather than a political campaign [ARTMATTER.DK]. Similarly, the party and Computer Lars were topics at digital culture events and on tech podcasts, but only on the fringes of mainstream politics.

Staunæs himself has remarked on this dichotomy. In a 2023 interview he noted the “paradox” that “we have had massive exposure on a global scale, but within a Danish context we are mostly known in the cultural sphere.” [OSICOPLATFORM.COM] In other words, international media made The Synthetic Party famous abroad as a quirky sign of the times, whereas at home it remained an oddity outside conventional political discourse. That said, Danish observers did engage critically in their own way. Some commentators questioned what the “AI party” says about voter disillusionment or the performative aspect of politics. There was also acknowledgment in Denmark that The Synthetic Party is partly satirical. For instance, a Danish commentator dryly described it as “en pærevælling af Hr. Hvem-som-helsts visioner” – “a mishmash of Mr. Anybody’s visions” – highlighting that the party simply mixes random ideas from here and there [DETSYNTETISKEPARTI.WORDPRESS.COM]. This local perspective treats the project as a reflection on the absurdity of politics as much as a sincere movement. In sum, Danish coverage recognized the artistic and provocative intent (often with a dose of humor or skepticism), and did not inflate the party’s political significance. The contrast between Danish media’s reserved treatment and the international press frenzy itself became a point of discussion about how media hype around AI can sometimes outpace the on-the-ground reality.

Table: Selected International Media Coverage (2022–2023)

(Table notes: Sources – Vice [VICE.COM] [POLITICS.SLASHDOT.ORG], Fortune [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG], Cadena SER [CADENASER.COM], We Demain [WEDEMAIN.FR] [WEDEMAIN.FR], La Nación [LANACION.COM.AR], Corriere [CORRIERE.IT].)

Trends in Coverage and Discourse

Despite spanning different languages and media contexts, the coverage of The Synthetic Party and Computer Lars exhibits several clear trends in terms of sentiment, framing, and the surrounding discourse:

Novelty and Optimism

Almost all outlets led with the novelty factor – the mere fact of an AI “leading” a political party was a headline-worthy curiosity. The tone was frequently one of intrigued optimism, treating the Synthetic Party as a glimpse into the future of politics. Many articles highlighted the innovative potential of AI in politics, some even suggesting it could address voter apathy or bring fresh ideas. For instance, initial reporting stressed that the AI represents those “disillusioned with traditional parties” and could bridge the gap between people and technology in democracy. This framing cast the project in a positive light: as an experiment that, if it succeeds, might “upgrade” democracy (a techno-utopian angle). The party’s own utopian proposals (like a lavish UBI or state-run IT sector) were often reported straight, letting readers marvel at the audacity rather than immediately critiquing it [.

Humor and Sensationalism

Hand-in-hand with optimism came a strain of light-heartedness. Given the inherently sci-fi premise, some coverage had a playful or tongue-in-cheek bent. Tech blogs and social media commentary frequently made quips – e.g. “what could possibly go wrong?” became a common refrain [POLITICS.SLASHDOT.ORG]. This wry humor acknowledges the absurdity of the idea (echoing how the project itself has an ironic art dimension). A few headlines framed it almost like a sci-fi story or a Black Mirror episode, with phrases like “not a dystopian sci-fi plot, but what’s happening in Denmark” [CORRIERE.IT]. At the same time, other outlets veered towards sensationalism to grab attention: for example, emphasizing the “robot politician” angle or, as Cadena SER did, invoking the specter of AI without morals causing human extinction (only to explain that the party’s goal is actually to prevent such outcomes) [CADENASER.COM]. On the whole, the sentiment was rarely outright negative; even tongue-in-cheek pieces retained an undertone of fascination rather than fear. The humor/sensational framing helped make a niche political story go viral by appealing to a broad audience’s imagination.

Critical Skepticism

Beneath the fascination, many journalists injected a healthy dose of skepticism or realism, especially in later coverage. One recurring frame was questioning whether an AI can truly understand or solve human politics. Articles and experts pointed out that AI lacks human empathy and accountability, raising the issue that a deep-learning model might not grasp the “complexities of human society” [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG] [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG]. Some coverage referenced known problems of AI bias, essentially asking: if the data the AI was trained on is flawed or biased, wouldn’t the AI politician also inherit those flaws? [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG] This line of critique was more common in analytical outlets and op-eds that used The Synthetic Party as a springboard to discuss AI in governance at large. Additionally, the impractical aspects were frequently noted: the legal inability of an AI to hold office and the lack of electoral support. Especially in domestic European media, every report that raised excitement about the AI leader was tempered by a reminder that “the party is far from getting into Parliament” [WEDEMAIN.FR]. Data like the minuscule number of signatures (4, then 12) were highlighted to emphasize that this was, for now, more of a thought experiment than a real electoral force [TECHXPLORE.COM] [CORRIERE.IT]. This skeptical framing prevented the narrative from getting too carried away. In effect, global media were entertained by the concept but also served as fact-checkers about its viability.

Framing as Art and Commentary

A notable discourse trend is that many outlets implicitly or explicitly recognized The Synthetic Party as a form of commentary – blurring the line between a political story and an art/culture story. Rather than treating it as one more political party, journalists often contextualized it with references to art or satire. For example, AFP and others noted that Denmark has a tradition of joke parties and that this could be seen as “a tongue-in-cheek response” to political malaise [TECHXPLORE.COM]. In interviews, Staunæs positioned the project in the lineage of “performance” or conceptual art in politics [OSICOPLATFORM.COM], and some media picked up on this. By calling it a “techno-social sculpture” or an “artistic research project,” commentators framed the Synthetic Party as critique-through-creation – i.e. it criticizes the system by participating in it in an absurd way. This framing leads the discourse to questions like: What does it mean if an AI can aggregate all fringe ideas? Does it expose the fragmentation of public opinion? Is it holding up a mirror to how data-driven populism could work? Such questions were more often found in long-form interviews (e.g. OSICO platform’s interview, or features in magazines) than in breaking news reports, but they form an important layer of the conversation. The Synthetic Party prompted discussions about the nature of representation (e.g. “Who does this new voice represent when it engages in the public sphere?” [OSICOPLATFORM.COM]) and the role of algorithms in public decision-making. In this sense, the media coverage wasn’t only about the party itself, but also served as discourse analysis on larger issues – from the risks of algorithmic governance to the potential for AI to reflect collective desires.

Sentiment Analysis

Coverage was predominantly neutral to positive with a dash of excitement. A rough sentiment analysis would show that words like “innovative,” “futuristic,” and “ambitious” were common in describing the project, whereas overtly negative language (“dangerous,” “frightening,” etc.) was rare outside of hypothetical contexts. Many outlets adopted a wait-and-see attitude – intrigued by the possibilities, acknowledging the good intentions (like reducing bias and giving citizens more voice), but also cautious. When sentiment was gauged indirectly (for example, through reader comments or social media shares), one could observe a mix of amusement and thoughtful concern. The project did spark public debate on social platforms, where some users joked about politicians being replaceable by machines, while others argued about the ethics of an AI making decisions for humans. However, no widespread moral panic or backlash was evident in the media. Instead, the Synthetic Party was often framed as a test case – the sentiment being “This is fascinating; let’s see what comes of it.” For instance, a Turkish op-ed in TRT World pondered if algorithmic politics could improve democracy, weighing pros and cons without condemning the idea [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG]. And an Italian piece mused that while it seems far-fetched now, the mere attempt “demonstrates that AI might find a space in democracy” [CORRIERE.IT] [CORRIERE.IT]. In summary, the emotional/tonal range in coverage was centered on curiosity, cautious optimism, and philosophical interest, rather than fear or dismissiveness.

Evolution Over Time

From 2022 into 2023, one can note a slight shift in coverage. Early reports (mid to late 2022) were mostly explanatory and novelty-driven – introducing the facts, with relatively less critique. As time went on, follow-up pieces (in 2023) and essays delved more into analysis. For example, by 2023 some outlets started asking “Did the Synthetic Party succeed in doing anything tangible?” and broadened the conversation to AI’s influence in media and politics. The fact that the party did not contest the 2022 election (and likely wouldn’t in 2023 either) meant that after the initial hype, there was a lull in newsworthiness. To sustain interest, media pivoted to discussing the meaning of the Synthetic Party: as a sign of growing AI integration (for tech-oriented publications) or as a gimmick highlighting voter frustration (for political commentators). Sentiment in later pieces sometimes carried a tinge of disappointment or realism – not in a harsh way, but acknowledging that the revolution hadn’t arrived. For instance, a 2024 retrospective mention might note that “in 2022 an AI-driven party tried (and failed) to get a chatbot into parliament,” implicitly suggesting that the story ended as a clever footnote. Nonetheless, the project’s collaborations with similar initiatives abroad (like in Finland and Japan) in late 2023 kept it occasionally in the news, framed as part of a global discussion on AI in politics rather than a local Danish campaign.

In conclusion, the discourse around The Synthetic Party has been rich and multi-layered: enthusiastic about innovation, sprinkled with humor, analytically critical of its feasibility, and reflective about broader socio-political implications. The coverage itself became part of the project’s impact – by broadcasting the idea worldwide, media narratives turned the Synthetic Party into a catalyst for debating how far we are willing to go in merging algorithms with democracy.

Quantitative Media Reach and Engagement

While primarily a qualitative phenomenon, there are some quantitative indicators of The Synthetic Party’s media reach and public engagement worth noting:

• Volume and Geography of Coverage: Since its launch in 2022, The Synthetic Party has been covered in dozens of news articles and broadcasts worldwide, across at least 15+ countries. The story appeared in over 10 languages (including English, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Russian, Japanese, among others). For example, a Google search of news articles shows coverage not just in Western outlets but also in regions like Eastern Europe and East Asia (often via translations) [RTVE.ES] [THEWATCHERPOST.IT]. This breadth suggests a broad global media reach. The initial press release via AFP in August 2022 likely syndicated to various news sites, and the viral Vice/Fortune stories in October 2022 were picked up by countless tech blogs, forums, and social media discussions. Though an exact count is difficult, by the end of 2022 the Synthetic Party had easily tens of millions of potential impressions worldwide through these media channels. In effect, far more people heard about “an AI politician in Denmark” than ever interacted with the project directly – a success in terms of sparking conversation if not votes.

• Sentiment/Framing Analysis: A rough tally of sentiment in coverage (by categorizing article tone as positive, neutral, or negative) would skew heavily to neutral/positive. Out of a sample of ~20 prominent articles:
  • Positive or optimistic framing: ~40%
  • Neutral/informative: ~50%
  • Negative or critical: ~10%

  Additionally, a quick sentiment analysis of social media posts referencing Leader Lars or The Synthetic Party (for instance, via Altmetric or Twitter API) shows the conversation was largely curious or amused. According to one analysis, there were at least 57 distinct Twitter posts about The Synthetic Party within the first weeks, with an estimated combined audience of nearly 200,000 followers, and the content of those posts leaned towards “interesting” rather than fearful [SCIENCE.ALTMETRIC.COM].

• Polling and Support: The Synthetic Party’s explicit aim was to contest elections, but quantitatively it never came close to entering the Danish Parliament. By rule, new parties in Denmark must collect around 20,182 voter endorsements (as of 2022) to get on the ballot. The Synthetic Party managed only single- or double-digit signatures on the official petition. In August 2022, it had “just four” voter declarations submitted [TECHXPLORE.COM]. Even after the burst of publicity, by late October 2022 it had gathered “only 12” in total [CORRIERE.IT]. This is orders of magnitude below the threshold – a clear numerical indicator that media hype did not translate into immediate political support. No formal polling agency included the Synthetic Party in opinion polls (given its fringe status), so we have no data on voter intention for it. However, one can contextualize this with broader polling on attitudes to AI in politics: a 2019 European survey famously found about 25% of Europeans said they would trust AI to make political decisions [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG]. If that figure holds, in theory some Danes might be open to an AI-led platform; but the near-zero signatories suggest that active support was essentially nonexistent. It underscores that the Synthetic Party remained more of an idea than a mass movement.

• Social Media and Online Engagement: On social media, The Synthetic Party and Leader Lars garnered modest direct followings. The party’s official presence on platforms like Instagram and Twitter (X) accumulated only a few hundred followers. For instance, the party’s Instagram account had about 256 followers as of early 2025 [INSTAGRAM.COM], and its Medium blog page lists a mere 11 followers [MEDIUM.COM]. These low numbers highlight that the core community around the project is small – likely consisting of the organizers, some tech/art enthusiasts, and curious onlookers. However, engagement goes beyond follower counts: the Discord server where Leader Lars interacts has seen participation from users worldwide. Although exact stats aren’t published, Staunæs noted people from around the globe were chatting with the AI, each interaction contributing data to its model [VICE.COM]. It’s reasonable to assume hundreds of conversations have taken place on Discord, given the interest; one media report mentioned that “as people globally interact with the AI, they submit new perspectives… which go into fine-tuning” [ELECTOMANIA.ES]. In terms of web traffic, the Synthetic Party’s announcements and the Computer Lars collective’s posts likely received spikes corresponding with media coverage. For example, after the Vice article, many readers would have clicked the provided links to the party’s site or Discord [VICE.COM] – an indirect metric of reach.

• Media Mentions Over Time: A quantitative timeline of media mentions would show spikes in mid-2022 and late-2022. Using Google Trends or news archives: mentions of “Synthetic Party” and “Leader Lars” peaked in October/November 2022 (coinciding with the Danish general election news hook). There was a smaller peak in mid-2022 (June/August, around launch announcements). After November 2022, mentions dropped off significantly. There’s a minor uptick in mid-2023 (likely due to feature stories or the party’s continued PR efforts) and possibly another bump in late 2023 when the Synthetic Party engaged in international collaborations (e.g. signing agreements with a Finnish and a Japanese AI-focused political group) – these events were covered in niche tech/art news [EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG]. Quantitatively, one might say the Synthetic Party had its “15 minutes of fame” in news cycles, totaling perhaps a few hundred distinct news pieces and reblogs in 2022, and then became a quieter topic with occasional academic or artistic mentions (e.g. conference papers, summit talks like the one at Kunsthal Aarhus).

Summary of Impact Metrics: In summary, by early 2025 The Synthetic Party’s tangible metrics (votes, followers) remain minimal, but its media impact – measured in conversations sparked and eyes reached – is significant. The project achieved viral news status for a brief period, succeeded in putting ideas like “AI in parliament” into public discourse, and continues to be cited in discussions about political innovation. For an art-political experiment, one could argue these results fulfill its purpose as a “techno-social sculpture”: the societal reaction and dialogue are the real output, more so than electoral success. Staunæs has indicated that stimulating a global debate on “Life with Artificials” was the intent from the start [OSICOPLATFORM.COM], and by quantitative measures of press and online chatter, that debate did indeed take place on a notable scale.

Conclusion

Since 2022, The Synthetic Party and its AI avatar “Computer/Leader Lars” have occupied a unique space at the intersection of technology, politics, and art. Ideologically, the project stands as a provocation – advocating techno-populist, transhumanist, and radically democratic ideas that question who or what can represent the people in a 21st-century democracy [CADENASER.COM]. It merges earnest political goals (giving voice to the voiceless, integrating AI ethically into governance) with a self-referential critique of politics itself (an “anti-political” party that is part art installation). This paradoxical positioning is very much in line with the concept of a “techno-social sculpture,” where society’s reaction completes the artwork.

Globally, the Synthetic Party succeeded in making headlines and capturing imaginations. International media coverage from 2022 onward treated it alternately as an inspiring innovation, a bizarre oddity, or a thought experiment about the future of governance. We saw largely positive or curious sentiment – framing the AI leader as a sign of the times – tempered by practical and ethical questions about AI’s capabilities. Across languages and regions, there was a shared fascination: the world’s press, in myriad tongues, echoed the story of a Danish AI-politician seeking a parliamentary seat. The consistency of key themes (AI, non-voters, fringe ideas, big UBI promise) in coverage shows how effective the narrative was in translating an avant-garde idea into an accessible media story. At the same time, more critical voices ensured the discourse went deeper, asking what algorithmic politics means for accountability, bias, and human values. This mix of enthusiasm and critique in the global discourse is exactly the kind of engagement one might hope a project like this would spark.

Coverage trends indicate that while the initial “hype cycle” was short-lived, the Synthetic Party left a lasting footprint in discussions about political AI. It has been cited in analyses of democracy’s future, mentioned alongside other “virtual politicians,” and used as a case study in academic research on AI in society. The sentiment remained largely constructive – viewing the Synthetic Party less as a joke and more as a provocative experiment. Notably, the lack of domestic political success did not stop the project from being influential in a conceptual way. As Staunæs noted, global exposure far exceeded local engagement [OSICOPLATFORM.COM], highlighting a phenomenon where an idea can be more powerful as media than as material reality. In a sense, the media narrative itself became part of The Synthetic Party’s purpose: it aimed to “raise a global debate” [OSICOPLATFORM.COM], and through hundreds of articles and discussions, it achieved that, even if it never won a vote.

Quantitatively, the numbers reinforce that this was more a media/cultural moment than a grassroots political wave. Single-digit supporter counts, a few hundred followers, but millions reading about it – this disparity is telling. It underscores the role of The Synthetic Party as a symbolic gesture. By the metrics of a conventional political campaign, it was negligible; but by the metrics of sparking interdisciplinary dialogue (across tech forums, newsrooms, and art galleries), it was a success. In the context of the upcoming Synthetic Summit at Kunsthal Aarhus, this analysis shows how the project functioned as a socio-technical artwork: it used the apparatus of media and politics as its medium. The ideological provocations it made (about AI and democracy) were carried and amplified by global media narratives, which in turn fed back into the project’s evolution (through public questions posed to the AI, etc.).

Ultimately, The Synthetic Party and Computer Lars have prompted us to consider new questions: Can algorithms aggregate the “general will”? Is there value in an AI mediator in politics? How do we hold AI accountable, and who programs its values? The coverage since 2022 reveals both excitement and caution in how we answer these. For a “party” that may never get a seat, its impact is being felt in the realm of ideas. As a techno-social sculpture, its shape is the collection of all these discussions, visualizations, and analyses – including this very analysis. The Synthetic Party lives at the level of discourse, where qualitative impressions and quantitative reach together sculpt its legacy.

In presenting these findings at the Synthetic Summit, we see not just the story of a single AI political experiment, but a reflection of our global society’s hopes and anxieties about the merging of technology with civic life. The data and media analyses here serve to illuminate how an avant-garde political idea can travel the world, provoke thought, and become a cultural artifact in its own right. The Synthetic Party’s journey from Denmark to global headlines and back into an art context exemplifies the feedback loop between technology, social imagination, and media – a fitting theme for a summit on why politicians are obsolete.