Super PACs tied to the nation’s leading artificial intelligence giants have transformed the closing weeks of a race for a coveted New York City House seat by unleashing staggering amounts of money to shape its outcome and a national debate over regulating the industry.

Together, groups linked to the Silicon Valley rivals OpenAI and Anthropic have already spent more than $12 million stuffing mailboxes and blanketing TV screens with costly broadcast ads — including during the Knicks N.B.A. finals games. Other groups with ties to industry players have chipped in another $4 million, and more spending is expected soon.

With less than two weeks before the June 23 Democratic primary, the A.I.-related expenditures — alongside an unrelated $10 million infusion by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — could end up making the contest in Manhattan one of the most expensive in congressional history.

And all of it is most likely a preview of an even bigger battle to come in the midterms this fall, when groups tied to leading technology companies have pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars around elections that could determine whether Congress pursues new guardrails for the industry.

“It’s a real test of whether corporate interests from California, from A.I., from crypto can control an election,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, the liberal Democrat whose retirement from the New York House seat has prompted this spending spree in the race to replace him.

“I hate to see that happening here,” he added.

Interest groups and wealthy individuals have played an ever larger role in elections for years, since the Supreme Court got rid of limits on how much super PACs can raise and spend. Mr. Bloomberg, for example, has been one of the largest single funders, and his current spending will help a former aide in the race, Assemblyman Micah Lasher.

But the skirmish now playing out in the heart of Manhattan may be instructive of how quickly and thoroughly the new A.I. combatants can shape a political race, given the vast sums of money to be made.

The proxy fight began when a super PAC connected to OpenAI and other industry players generally opposed to greater government regulation singled out Assemblyman Alex Bores, one of the half-dozen candidates competing to replace Mr. Nadler. Mr. Bores had helped write a law seeking to regulate advanced artificial intelligence models in New York.

But the terrain has rapidly become more complex. Rather than sink Mr. Bores, 35, the attacks inadvertently helped elevate the little-known lawmaker into a front-runner. In the months since, other entities tied to OpenAI’s main rival, Anthropic, as well as other tech donors in favor of greater regulation, have generously come to his aid with their own millions of dollars.

By Thursday, spending in favor of Mr. Bores’s candidacy by industry players had actually narrowly exceeded spending against him from such groups, according to federal records. And that was without accounting for Nuestro PAC, which began burning another $2 million attacking Mr. Lasher, according to the records. (The group denies directly accepting the crypto of A.I. industry money, but has past ties to Silicon Valley players and has not disclosed its recent donors.)

Polls show Mr. Bores and Mr. Lasher, who is Mr. Nadler’s choice to succeed him, in a statistical dead heat. They are followed by Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of John F. Kennedy; George T. Conway III, the anti-Trump commentator; and Nina Schwalbe, a global vaccine expert.

The winner of the primary is expected to be a shoo-in in November to represent a remarkable district that is home to Broadway, Central Park, the Democratic donor class and more Fortune 500 companies than any other.

For months, the race had centered on which candidate was best equipped to check President Trump, strategies to bring down soaring housings costs and the United States’ relationship with Israel.

But the crush of outside attacks and counterattacks have thrust thorny questions about corporate influence, political power and the rapidly evolving technology of artificial intelligence itself onto the campaign trail. It has left many voters struggling to sort through them at a time when anxieties — and optimism — over A.I. disruption are already soaring.

Mr. Bores has sought to use the initial attacks to present himself as a crusading tech reformer who is being punished for standing up to “Trump megadonors” behind $6.5 million in attacks from Leading the Future and Think Big, the OpenAI linked groups. His A.I. positions have helped attract support from labor unions and progressive groups.

Josh Vlasto, the groups’ top strategist, has argued that Mr. Bores’s plans would choke American innovation and said his group had been motivated to spend because it believed Anthropic and its allies would find a way to put millions of dollars behind Mr. Bores.

But the groups, which favor fewer federal interventions than their rival, have expanded their attacks beyond Mr. Bores’s regulatory proposals. In a prominent example, they attacked his work for Palantir, a technology company “powering ICE,” as a narrator puts it in an ad.

Palantir, which has contracted with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has become toxic among many Democrats. Mr. Bores says he left the company in 2019, in part over concerns about its immigration work. (Ironically, the OpenAI PACs count a co-founder of Palantir among their biggest donors.)

Mr. Bores’s fellow candidates have watched all of it with mounting frustration. Most say they, too, want more regulation on the new technology, and argue that his underdog narrative is misleading now that a trio of tech-backed groups have stepped in to burnish his image.

The dynamic was on full display in a pair of debates this week.

Asked about the super PAC blitz, Mr. Bores said that he was the victim of powerful groups “sending a message that no one should regulate A.I. or you will become a big target.” Like other candidates in the race, he said he would favor outlawing the outside spending.

“All of my opponents are benefiting from that spending,” he said during one of the debates, hosted by the local news site Courier.

Laura Dunn, another candidate, pushed back, arguing that Anthropic’s support meant Mr. Bores was less of crusader against tech influence than a partisan in a corporate battle for influence.

“We will not have proper regulation as long as we keep accepting corporate funders,” she said.

At another point, Mr. Bores suggested that “every candidate on this stage has a super PAC,” drawing sharp pushback from his rivals.

“That’s not true,” interjected Mr. Schlossberg, who has labeled himself “No PAC Jack” to highlight his opposition to big money influencing politics. Others piled on.

“I would love to hear about my super PAC,” Ms. Schwalbe said ironically. (She, like Mr. Schlossberg, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Conway do not have super PACs supporting them.)

Mr. Bores clarified that he meant that his rivals were being indirectly helped because Leading the Future was spending so much to attack him. The group has not taken positions on any other candidate.

“That is actually OpenAI’s super PAC that is mad at you because you have an Anthropic super PAC,” Mr. Schlossberg shot back. “It has nothing to do with me. You cannot lie your way out of this.”

Mr. Lasher has sustained his own criticism for accepting support from Mr. Bloomberg’s super PAC. During the debate, though, he raised questions about one of the pro-Bores PACs, in this case funded by the billionaire cryptocurrency executive Chris Larsen.

While the donor has said he was spending because he found OpenAI’s attacks “really despicable,” Mr. Lasher pointed out that Mr. Bores had also proactively sought support from the crypto industry, where Mr. Larsen made his fortune.

After more debate, Mr. Bores accused his opponents of missing the bigger picture.

“We are going to lose to the A.I. industry if people keep playing these petty games,” he said. “A.I. is coming for all of us.”