Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Republican|Oklahoma District 1
Kevin Hern
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 535
Yes77%
No20%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align97%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Congressional District 1
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Kevin Hern
U.S. RepresentativeRepublicanOklahoma District 1
SoupScore
Kevin's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 16 sponsored · 30 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Grew up Shepherd’s Bush, adult life in E3&15
Obviously I’m not cool but I’ve heard of lots of other cool things
I had never heard of Rowan’s before this morning, and I’ve lived in London 36 years
"LLMs aren't conscious" great "because LLMs can never be conscious" well mayb— "because silicon can never be conscious" I really don't think— "because only humans can be conscious" eek
weirdly he'd already read it
Yes! Exactly. I've been banging on this drum for a while because I've seen lots of people straightforwardly dismiss the idea that coding is/can be art and stop the conversation there, which is mad to me
bsky.app/profile/mtrc... mike as ever making my point more tactfully and carefully than me
I care if the words and pictures are shit too, obviously. I also care if the gamefeel and physics are shit. Does there need to be a labelling schema to mark the shit games out?
replies and qts to this basically split between "obviously you should just label the AI coders as made with AI too" and "obviously you should not do that" and both of them are shouting at me for thinking it's not obvious
I don't think there's a principle – that isn't dismissive of coding-as-art – for why I ought to label something if I use an AI fill in photoshop as part of a deeply involved asset pipeline, but not if I fully generate the player controls and physics on a platformer
But the labelling isn't "you must apply a label when you outsource creativity". It's "you must apply a label when you use AI [unless you use it to code]."
can a coding AI provably solve the problem of "do this elegantly", "do this beautifully", "do this so it's fun"?
I don't know if this is supposed to be a gloss on my thought or just riffing on the idea but for what it's worth I think you've taken exactly the opposite point to the one I was making
I think "you cannot express creativity in code", "you cannot create art in code" or "coders are always engineers and never creatives" is a strong position.
One thing to add to this good piece, for the games example in particular: it is hard to justify the existing practice of labelling games "made with" AI and not count people using AI to write code in that definition www.ft.com/content/bab5...
Reposted byAlex Hern
When you start a business, fund your start-up or buy property: the (mandatory) notary has to read, out loud, the entire contract to the involved parties.
They easily do 500 words per minute. Truly impressive. It can still take hours. www.linkedin.com/posts/nathan...
that was a really good round
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History535 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
535 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-14 | H. Res. 992 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-14 | H. Res. 992 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 4593 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 4593 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2312 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2270 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2262 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2262 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H. Res. 988 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H. Res. 988 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 6504 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 2683 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-09 | H.R. 5184 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 1834 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H. Res. 780 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 131 (119th) | Passage, Objections of the President To The Contrary Notwithstanding | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 504 (119th) | Passage, Objections of the President To The Contrary Notwithstanding | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Retaining Divisions B and C | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Retaining Division A | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-07 | H. Res. 780 (119th) | Motion to Discharge | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-07 | H. Res. 977 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-07 | H. Res. 977 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Call of the House | PRESENT | — | — | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 498 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 498 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 845 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 845 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 1366 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 1366 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 3492 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 3492 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 6703 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 6703 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 3616 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-17 | H. Con. Res. 64 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-17 | H. Con. Res. 61 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-17 | H. Res. 953 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-17 | H. Res. 953 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-16 | H.R. 3632 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-16 | H.R. 3632 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-16 | H.R. 4371 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-16 | H.R. 4371 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-16 | H. Res. 951 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.