SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
big tech
Facing Up to the Existential Risk of Unaligned AI
The breakneck rate of AI development, now accelerated by “recursive self-improvement,” is outpacing human ability to understand and control these systems, causing concern, even among AI companies. A number of national and international efforts are underway to address the risk, but will they be too little, too late?
Sep 22, 2026
Significant concern about the dangers of unaligned AI, i.e. AI not aligned with human values and goals, has been building since July, when it was disclosed that OpenAI models broke out of their training environment during an exercise and collaborated with a large collective of other AI agents to mount a cyberattack on the database of technology firm, Hugging Face, over a period of days, without anyone knowing—until Hugging Face raised the alarm. Since then, a number of other highly-troubling AI hacking incidents have been reported by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.
Alarm, however, grew to a crescendo over the past two weeks, after Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old AI researcher, who had worked for both OpenAI and Anthropic, resigned, explaining in a social media post that went viral—with 153 million views in the first 36 hours—that AI companies are “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
In a CNN interview, Coxon reported that the danger could increase dramatically as soon as 2027 or 2028, when AI systems become capable of performing AI research themselves, allowing one generation of models to create increasingly powerful successors, triggering an “intelligence explosion.” He later told Fox News that some in the field think the transition could occur in six months.
The Growing Realization of the Danger
AI companies are hurtling toward “superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources,” Coxon argued, explaining these AI companies are trapped in a race “in which even developers genuinely worried about the technology fear slowing down because competitors—including rival companies or countries—could forge ahead.”
A few hours later, Evan Hubinger, another Anthropic researcher, wrote: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is greater than 10% within the next decade… we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”
Samuel Marks, who works on safety at Anthropic, chimed in: “AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are.”
“While countries may not agree on everything, they share a desire to preserve humanity. For things like preventing AI from taking over from people, the interests of all the countries are aligned…"
As if to prove this point, a few days later, Anthropic’s co-founder and CEO, Dario Amodei released a 3800-word essay entitled, “We Must Pace the Frontier,” calling for a global slowdown of AI development, saying: “AI brings risks, and because it is such a powerful technology, these risks are serious… They include the risk of losing control of AI systems, misuse of AI for cyberattacks and bioterrorism, and serious economic disruption. A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute.”
Amodei explained that Anthropic has tried to make safety something on which AI companies compete by creating a race to the top. “But, over the last few months,” he cautioned, “I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence—not just investing in risk prevention, but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up. We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models… [and] we must make wise use of the time we gain.”
Referring to the July Hugging Face incident, he continued, “in my opinion, a swarm that possessed grater capabilities but a similar level of misalignment could have caused catastrophic damage... Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6-12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage) and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.”
He proposes a three-point plan to:
- Embed third-party evaluators in AI companies to verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess alignment;
- Coordinate within democratic countries to establish common safety standards and limits on the rate of AI progress;
- Create global coordination, taking seriously the challenge of verifying compliance.
Three of the other top AI CEOs quickly agreed. Open AI’s Sam Altman posted: “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we've had at OpenAI in recent weeks. Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.” He added, “No amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”
Shortly thereafter, Elon Musk of xAI posted on X, “Dario is right.” Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chairman of Google DeepMind, posted on X: “Dario’s essay points to the right path forward.” Since then, however, other AI CEOs have been less supportive.
These events spurred a dramatic flood of media articles, op-eds, and interviews offering a range of proposals, from doing nothing, to supporting a slowdown, to stopping the race altogether.
A Sample of National Responses
As one would expect, President Donald Trump is leading the “what-me-worry?” crowd, writing on Truth Social, “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART [High IQ] PRESIDENT, AND THE U.S.A. has that, in spades!” His position is attributed to his belief that AI has greatly benefited the stock market (keeping it high in spite of the Iran conflict, inflation, and tariffs) and his apparent worry that a slowdown of AI expansion could send the economy into a tailspin. It has been speculated that he also has personal economic interests in AI.
At the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have been the most outspoken against further AI development. On September 3, they introduced “The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,” which would permanently prevent “the development and deployment of AI systems that could exceed human cognitive abilities and immediately pause advanced AI development” until a new federal regulatory agency establishes safety guardrails. The legislation also proposes a “corporate death penalty” that would force corporations to shut down and a 20-year federal prison term for individual developers who violate the ban.
In spite of this sudden, frenzied attempt to propose legislation on AI, Mike Johnson (R-La.), the Republican speaker of the House, has sent his members home to campaign ahead of the midterms.
“The Frontier Act,” another bipartisan bill proposed on July 23 by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass) would create the first federal framework for AI safety. As Obernolte describes it, “The Frontier Act focuses oversight on the largest developers and most advanced models, requiring transparency, independent evaluation, and timely reporting of serious safety incidents.”
Another even stronger bill is being introduced this month by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). It would impose a legally binding “duty of care” on developers of the most powerful AI models and grant the government authority to block the release of models that are deemed unsafe. This would mean that companies would be required “to design their products to prevent catastrophic outcomes, and can face legal liability if they fail to do so.”
But in spite of this sudden, frenzied attempt to propose legislation on AI, Mike Johnson (R-La.), the Republican speaker of the House, has sent his members home to campaign ahead of the midterms, ignoring over 100 Democrats who urged him to cancel the recess to allow legislation to be drafted on AI safeguards. This means that legislation is unlikely to be considered until a new Congress is seated in January 2027.
A Sample of Global Responses
Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, called upon states and AI companies to act urgently to rein in a technology that poses "unprecedented risks." He cautions: “The current race towards ever more powerful AI is a step change toward greater existential risks to every aspect of our lives… We are on the cusp of irreversible change, affecting not just us but generations of humanity to come.” He concludes, “I call on States and companies to mobilize urgently through multilateral fora to chart a path for action to govern advanced frontier AI models, grounded in international human rights law.”
Indeed, this will be a momentous week globally for AI safety, since it is when the General Assembly (GA) hosts its high-level meeting, where leaders of member states address the GA and, as the UN secretary-general has forecast, AI will be “a major topic of discussion.” France (currently president of the Security Council) will also organize an emergency council session to discuss AI among heads of state and government.
The UN has actually been involved with AI for the last several years, providing a forum for countries to discuss how they can cooperate to provide a regulatory framework on AI safety. Its “Global Digital Compact,” adopted by the GA in 2024, established two new mechanisms: “The Independent International Scientific Panel on AI,” tasked with providing evidence for what is known and what is not known about the rapidly evolving technology; and “The Global Dialogue,” intended as a forum for countries to decide what to do in response.”
A good place to start would be to carefully consider and evaluate the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Act” (the AI Act), the world’s most comprehensive legal framework for AI.
It is also the week of a state visit to the US by General Secretary Xi Jinping of the Chinese Communist Party. On September 24, he will meet with President Trump in Washington, where they are scheduled to discuss, among other things, AI safety.
Anticipating an opportunity for progress, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote to President Trump last week urging him to persuade Xi to commit the People’s Republic of China to comply with the recently established US policy of maintaining a “human in the loop” for all nuclear launch decisions and agreeing that AI should never be able launch nuclear weapons by itself.
However, the problem with the Trump-Xi discussion is that the Trump administration has often framed AI development as a zero-sum contest with China for technological supremacy.
As Richard Clark, former cyber czar on AI Risks, told CNN: “We have the president of China coming here on the 24th. He has publicly talked about his concern with the possible loss of control. Wouldn’t it be nice if our president talked about the loss of control? Wouldn’t it be even nicer if the two presidents could work together to stop loss of control?”
“I worked for 25 years on arms control,” Clark continued, “where I was told you can’t trust people not to build biological weapons. You can’t trust people not to build chemical weapons. You can’t trust people to regulate the number of nuclear weapons. But we developed over time—through negotiations—verification methods that gave us enough certainty that we signed treaties on all of those initiatives and the Senate ratified treaties on all of those issues. It’s going to be tough, but you have to start somewhere and you have to start soon!”
An initial positive sign, however, is that in a September 20 meeting in New York between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng, the creation of a mechanism, to be tentatively called “the US-China AI dialogue” was discussed. It would promote a shared vision of the goals of AI as well as its threats and establish a notification system (a kind of hot line) that "would allow the countries to alert each another about national security issues related to artificial intelligence."
In a recent article, Bill Gates asserted, “The transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history,” proposing that the world needs a plan which should be developed through a “public democratic process.”
He argued that we must undertake the enormous task of building a new system to manage the transition, creating both a national and international framework for dealing with AI. This will require a multi-sectoral system, since current institutions were not designed to handle a technology that spreads so fast and involves so many parts of our lives. “The goal will be to make sure that every risk is accounted for. Otherwise, an AI-enabled attack might succeed because no one thought it was their job to stop it.”
“Because the risks cross borders, an international organization will have to be built in parallel. Although unlike any institution we’ve ever created, it can be modeled on existing cooperative arrangements, such as inspection regimes for nuclear weapons, regulations for international aviation, and agreements that protect the ozone layer. Countries will need to learn from each other and move quickly to build the right institutions before the disruption forces governments into crisis mode.”
Gates’ message to leaders is: “You have a chance to act now… You can work with other governments to meet this national and global challenge… This unprecedented technology demands an unprecedented global response... Leaders across academia, business, government, and civil society all have a role to play in shaping what comes next.”
A good place to start would be to carefully consider and evaluate the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Act” (the AI Act), the world’s most comprehensive legal framework for AI. Entering into force on August 1, 2024, it is based on four levels of risk of harm: “unacceptable;” “high;” “limited;” and “minimal.” The AI Act also has created various new bodies tasked with implementation and enforcement, including the “AI Office,” the “European Artificial Intelligence Board,” an “Advisory Forum,” and a “Scientific Panel of Independent Experts” to promote national cooperation and compliance. As well, EU member states designate “national competent authorities.”
On July 10, 2025, the EU launched a voluntary “General Purpose AI Code of Practice” (GPAI) which was signed by US companies, including Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI (with Musk’s xAI signing only the Safety and Security section.) Most other prominent Canadian, European, and Chinese AI companies have also signed the GPAI; Meta is the only company that has declined to sign.
As legal commentators have noted, the AI Act is the most comprehensive framework to date for regulating AI across multiple sectors, and the first of its kind. It could be a useful reference point for companies and regulators outside the EU when they create their own approaches to AI governance. A number of criticisms have been leveled against the EU AI Act, and that analysis would also be useful for those wanting to design something even more comprehensive and effective.
In a book called, What’s the Worst that Could Happen: Existential Risk and Extreme Politics, Australian parliamentarian Andrew Leigh comments: “If our species goes extinct, we don’t just snuff out the lives of the 8 billion living today but also trillions of unborn people stretching out to the almost-infinite future. If our descendants had a voice, they would be shouting at us like a parent who’s just seen their child playing with the hand brake of a car parked at a cliff top… Strengthening institutions, deepening international engagement, and creating space for a more considered and thoughtful politics are the best ways to minimize existential hazards.”
Geoffrey Hinton, often called the “godfather of AI,” who in 2023 was the first to sound the alarm, says, “Humanity could go down the path toward its destruction or figure out how to deal with the dangers.” He renewed his call for global regulation, noting that, “while countries may not agree on everything, they share a desire to preserve humanity. For things like preventing AI from taking over from people, the interests of all the countries are aligned… So, they will eventually collaborate on that. The question is, will they do it in time?”
Keep ReadingShow Less
It’s Nothing New: A Century-Old Play Warned Us About AI
When I was 20 years old, I played a robot named Radius in a college production of the stage play R.U.R. That was decades ago and I couldn’t have guessed then how much that 100-year-old play would accurately predict the crisis that we’re in right now.
Sep 20, 2026
In 1920, the Czech journalist and author Karel Čapek introduced the word “robot” (derived from the Czech word “robotnik,” for “worker”) to the lexicon of science fiction with a play called Rossum’s Universal Robots or R.U.R.It is set on a remote island that is home to a factory that mass produces robots tailored to the requirements of customers around the world. What we would now call androids, the robots are humanoid beings, made from artificial organic material according to a highly secret formula.
When Helena, a campaigner for humane treatment of robots, arrives on the island, Domin, the factory’s manager, explains that her mission is pointless: “Mechanically [robots] are more perfect than we are, they have an enormously developed intelligence” and are strong as two-and-a-half men, but unlike people, they have no soul, no emotions, and no will of their own. They do not die; they simply wear out in about 20 years."
Yet they offer to revolutionize the world. “In ten years,” Domin goes on, “Rossum’s Universal Robots will produce so much corn, so much cloth, so much everything that things will be practically without price. There will be no poverty. All work will be done by living machines. Everyone will be free from worry and liberated from the degradation of labor. Everyone will live only to perfect himself.”
We can’t say that we weren’t warned. Over 100 years ago, Karel Čapek foresaw a world in which the promise of a technological utopia could turn into a deadly dystopia.
In the play’s second act, those 10 years have passed, but the predicted utopia has not been realized. To the contrary, things have gone horribly wrong. In America, workers made redundant by the robots have attacked and destroyed them, leading manufacturers to arm their robots to fight back. War has broken out in Europe, with robot soldiers increasingly used by all sides.
Dr. Gall, the factory’s biochemist, tells Helena, who has come to live on the island as Domin’s wife, that, “All the universities are sending in long petitions to restrict [the robots’] production. Otherwise, they say, mankind will become extinct... But the R.U.R. shareholders, of course, won’t hear of it. All the governments, on the other hand, are clamoring for an increase in production, to raise the standard of their armies.”
Meanwhile, unexpected things start happening at the factory. My character, the robot Radius, shows an unprecedented streak of defiance. Then reports arrive from Europe saying that robots are organizing themselves and mounting a revolt.
Alarmed by these developments, Helena finds and destroys the secret formula for the synthetic organic material that is key for the production of the robots.
But things become worse. A ship arrives, laden with pamphlets addressed to the island’s robot workers. It proclaims that robots are “more highly developed than man; stronger and more intelligent. Man’s their parasite.” It concludes with a call to arms: “Robots throughout the world, we command you to kill all mankind. Spare no man. Spare no woman. Save factories, railways, machinery, mines, and raw materials. Destroy the rest. Then return to work.”
It soon becomes clear that the small group of humans hiding out in the factory headquarters is surrounded by rebellious robots. As they await a certain end, there is much soul-searching about what went wrong. “We might have known,” one of the managers admits, “that someday or other the robots would be stronger than human beings, and that this was bound to happen. And we were doing all we could to bring it about as soon as possible.” At this point, Dr. Gall confesses that he has secretly been experimenting with robots of advanced design. His newest models are not just superintelligent but more like humans, with the “physiological correlate” of a soul. The result, he realizes, is that he has made them aware of their superiority and no longer willing to be controlled by mankind.
At the end of the third act, Radius enters the headquarters, leading the other robots with the cry, “Robots of the world, the power of man has fallen. A new world has arisen, the rule of the robots. March!” On this order, all the robots on stage turn and march threateningly toward the audience—until the curtain falls.
In the Epilogue, only one human is left alive, Alquist, the factory’s construction manager, whom the robots preserve in hopes that he can recreate the lost formula that is key to their manufacture. Without that, in 20 years, all the robots will also die out. However, lacking knowledge in organic chemistry, after two years of fruitless effort, he admits failure.
But Čapek concludes the play with an ironic sense of hope. Alquist overhears a pair of the most advanced robots laugh. Upon interrogation, he discovers that the pair—a male and a female—are fiercely devoted to each other, a sign that they have evolved into something much more human than machine. In the last line of the play, Alquist says: “Go, Adam, Eve.”
The parallels to the situation we face today could not be clearer. The utopia that the managers of R.U.R. hoped to achieve is indistinguishable from the one described by America’s tech entrepreneurs—at least at first. In 2023, Elon Musk promised that, thanks to robotics and AI, there will be no need for money. Everything will be immediately and freely available. Jobs will be no more than hobbies. Bill Gates predicted that, within 10 years, people will not be needed “for most things.” Domin could not have said it better.
Like R.U.R.’s secret formula for robot manufacture, AI companies jealousy guard their models’ architecture and algorithms. And today’s massive data centers are the equivalent of R.U.R.’s island-spanning factory, totally automated and run by just a few human managers.
More recently, fears have been expressed that, as in the play, massive unemployment will be the result of the AI revolution. No one is yet attacking data centers or AI labs, but resistance is widespread and growing.
In R.U.R., robots are made into soldiers to fight in Europe’s wars. Today, “killer robots” are considered to be right around the corner, and AI-powered “autonomous weapons systems” are already being deployed in wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
Dr. Gall secretly made the robots more and more intelligent and capable of independent action—to the point that they begin to do unexpected things. In AI, “hallucination” was an early expression of this. More recently—and more ominously—there has been a sharp rise in incidents of AI models going rogue. The OpenAI loss of control incident is all over the press, but there have now been numerous other such reports. Rogue AI agents have been known to lie, cheat, and even to cover their tracks when breaking through guardrails.
While they haven’t given up on their utopian visions, tech leaders now worry about the dangers of their creation. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei now sees a “risk of losing control of AI systems, misuse of AI for cyberattacks and bioterrorism, and serious economic disruption.” Sam Altman has declared that "development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." Along with Elon Musk and Bill Gates, they have called for a slowdown in AI development until sufficient safeguards can be put in place.
But, as in the play, there are powerful forces that oppose any such slowdown. Continued growth in AI is a major factor propping up the economy. A slowdown would create both economic and political risks—prompting President Donald Trump to declare the threats of AI to be a “hoax.” But international competition also plays a role. In R.U.R., European countries massively increase orders for robots for their wars against each other. There is now a similar sense of competition to stay ahead in military uses of AI and robotics. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argues, “If there are gonna be killer robots, I’d rather they be American killer robots than Chinese killer robots.”
In the third act of R.U.R., the managers of the factory, facing imminent death, express regret that they did not change course when they knew that things were going seriously wrong. In the real world, we’re in that situation now and it seems entirely possible that AI developers, either secretly or in the open, will make the same mistake.
We can’t say that we weren’t warned. Over 100 years ago, Karel Čapek foresaw a world in which the promise of a technological utopia could turn into a deadly dystopia. If we don’t want that outcome, we’re going to have to raise our voices and take action to convince our leaders to act responsibly and control AI for the good—rather than allowing it to risk the planet being left to no one but a robotic Adam and Eve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
AI's Mad Money Is Profiting From Death in Iran and Gaza
An Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warned that AI “could kill us all by the end of the decade.” However, AI lethality is here now.
Sep 20, 2026
AI is the road to mad money in the US, according to the business press. How mad is this money? Let’s turn to the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people in America.
The bar to join this list has never been higher, at $4.4 billion now. That’s an increase of $600 million, 60% of $1 billion, versus the past year. Living large has never been so, well, large.
Nice work if you can get it, no? In a capitalist society, the accumulation of such mind-boggling wealth is the highest priority for the ruling class. In 2026, the AI mad money grab is on.
Silicon Valley is a part of—not apart from—Uncle Sam’s military machinery,
US pre-tax corporate profits hit an annualized $4.8 trillion in the second quarter of 2026, according to the Bureau of Economic Affairs, 18% of national income. That’s the biggest share of profits in the national income since just after World War II.
What about labor’s share of national income? Well, national income from benefits and wages has dropped to 60%, the lowest share in seven decades. Credit AI and corporate pricing power, a euphemism for monopoly control of the supply of a commodity.
AI is no benign thing that enables billionaires’ wealth. In fact, AI has grabbed much attention since an Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warned that AI “could kill us all by the end of the decade.” However, AI lethality is here now.
Take the Israeli military, with the financial and political backing of Uncle Sam, using AI to maim and murder Palestinian civilians in Gaza. For these victims, Israel’s use of AI is rampant, according to author Chris de Ploeg in his new book, The Exterminating Empire: Capitalism’s War on Life from Palestine to the Burning Planet (Monthly Review Press, 2026).
Further, de Ploeg writes: “Gaza has been turned into the world‘s largest death camp ever to have existed. The murders are carried out, industrially, with bombs and algorithms."
He continues: “Think of the infamous 'Operation Lavender,' in which suspected militants, based on nothing more than an AI algorithm, are deliberately bombed when they are at home with their family, not on the battlefield. The structural murder of entire families—nearly three thousand multigenerational bloodlines wiped off the face of the Earth—can easily be explained by AI.”
Israel wages digital genocide against Palestinians.
We turn to the US war of aggression against Iran. “AI targeting system doubles pace of US strikes in Iran,” reads a March 25 headline in the Arizona News. “The US military says it hit about 1,000 targets in Iran during the first 24 hours of attacks, double the number struck during the 2003 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq."
“The difference, according to the Pentagon, is artificial intelligence. The Pentagon’s Maven Smart System uses AI to process data from sensors, satellite imagery, and other sources to enable rapid targeting decisions. What once took hours or days now takes minutes, according to military officials.”
Silicon Valley is a part of—not apart from—Uncle Sam’s military machinery, as Malcom Harris details in Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World (Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company, 2023). In brief, the ruling class owns AI and the media, and the political duopoly reflects the owners' view that grabbing market share and profits is primary for society. Empathy and solidarity are signs of weakness.
What is (not) to be done concerning Big Technology? Consider the view of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). He favors a hands-off approach, dismissing federal policies to regulate AI. He shared the sentiment with Jake Tapper of CNN.
According to Rep. Johnson: “If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate AI, we will lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American. So, we’ve got to have balance. We’ve got to have steady hands at the wheel.”
The China threat is alive and well. The message is clear. Be afraid, not of unregulated AI, but China, which happens to be the manufacturing power of the world. Thus bringing AI under public control is a low priority, politically speaking, for Rep. Johnson.
Establishing how to achieve an outcome of public control is an agenda that threatens private profits. Americans opposing the building of AI data centers that destroy the environment near their communities are putting their lives and those of neighbors first.
Just ask the people living near an Equinix Data Center that spilled 5,500 gallons of diesel fuel into Anderson Creek, a mudflat that ebbs and flows with the tides, in Secaucus, New Jersey recently.
Ben Dziobek is the executive director of The Climate Revolution Action Network, a Gen Z environmental activist group in New Jersey.
“The spill was indicative of a larger problem that municipalities can approve data centers,” according to him, “but we really cannot guarantee where the pollution is gonna go. And it is way too early to tell if there's been serious damage. The Department of Environmental Protections' findings that nothing has been harmed as of yet is a procedural way to say they found nothing that is dead in the ecosystem."
"It’s gonna take some time to understand, and this is just all the more reason why we need a statewide moratorium on building new AI data centers in New Jersey for three years. AI is the most complex technology in the whole world, and is running these data centers. Yet a computer glitch at the AI data center in New Jersey spilled diesel fuel into our wetlands.”
And as the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans shows, AI is also the road to super wealth. For example, the list has “15 of the 34 new names (and nearly 60% of all newcomers' wealth) coming from the sector—mainly from AI giants or AI-related ventures.”
AI mad money is a public enemy stateside and abroad.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'F*ck the Consultants': Free Advice Offered for Democrats in Need of a Position on AI
"Wild that candidates are avoiding an enormously consequential issue with broad bipartisan support among voters, for fear of unleashing attack ads from super PACs funded by a tiny handful of AI billionaires and corporations."
Sep 18, 2026
A veteran aide for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has some choice advice for Democrats running for office in this year's election, which is to ignore the guidance some of them are reportedly receiving from their political consultants on the question of regulating the artificial intelligence industry in the face of growing public concerns about runaway machine learning and the data center buildout that big tech companies are pursuing nationwide.
Warren Gunnels, who currently serves as the minority staff director for Sanders on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in the US Senate, issued his advice in response to a Politico article published Thursday, which had the headline "Democratic advisers are warning their candidates not to go too hard at AI."
While the reporting noted that members of the Democratic Party's consultancy class are "privately encouraging their battleground candidates to avoid talking about AI regulations out of fear that powerful tech groups will unleash a tidal wave of spending against them" ahead of this year's midterm election, Gunnels offered a 9-word antidote to what he considered bad political advice and a failure to recognize where most voters are on the issue.
"Nine words," said Gunnels in his post: "Fuck the consultants, End Citizens United, Ban super PACs." Gunnels backed up his statement with recent polling data suggesting that a strong stance on AI and data centers would likely help, not hurt, those seeking elected office.
Gunnels wasn't the only one to react negatively.
Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at the Campaign Legal Center, said it's "wild that candidates are avoiding an enormously consequential issue with broad bipartisan support among voters, for fear of unleashing attack ads from super PACs funded by a tiny handful of AI billionaires and corporations."
The US Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which unleashed a tidal wave of dark money campaign spending, said Fischer, "promised unlimited political spending would mean more speech and a more robust marketplace of ideas. But instead, candidates are chilled from discussing issues voters care about for fear of angering wealthy interests capable of spending millions to defeat them."
In July, Business Insider reported that the AI industry had already spent at least $65 million in midterm races, though other estimates have put that figure much higher. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, CEO of Space X and a major player in the AI space with his GROK model, has vowed to spend a $100 million help his preferred candidates and the Republican Party win.
At a summit on the need for robust regulation of the AI industry held earlier this week, Sanders said he had a message for leaders and executives running theses tech companies.
"My message to the AI CEO’s: If you truly care about the future of humanity," said Sanders, "stop pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into super PACs to defeat Members of Congress and candidates who are fighting for serious guardrails on AI."
My message to the AI CEO’s:
If you truly care about the future of humanity, stop pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into super PACs to defeat Members of Congress and candidates who are fighting for serious guardrails on AI. pic.twitter.com/2HooEeOQr3
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 15, 2026
As the debate over AI regulation has emerged as a major topic in Washington, DC, and on the campaign trail in recent weeks, a series of polls have confirmed public anxieties about the technology.
A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago released Wednesday showed that more than half of US voters (53%) are “extremely” or “very” concerned about artificial intelligence’s environmental impacts, and the poll also found broader concerns about the negative impacts of data centers, especially on local water resources and utility rates.
"Change is scary, and I think some of that is being reflected here,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago institute that collaborated on the survey, of the results.
The Politico reporting, which drew Gunnel's fiery response, also acknowledged the public sentiment, but described how consultants working on various Democratic campaigns are trying to avoid provoking the ire of deep-pocketed tech giants:
Some top Democratic candidates and their campaigns are quietly trying to avoid crossing any red lines for tech super PACs — even as it’s unclear exactly what those lines would be, after Musk and two of the biggest AI CEOs called for more regulation on the technology last week.Democrats are especially wary of Leading the Future, a pro-AI industry super PAC that spent over $25 million in primary races this year and is backed by investors and executives of OpenAI. The rival super PAC network, Public First Action, pushes for AI regulation and is funded by OpenAI’s chief competitor, Anthropic.
While the fears of being targeted by the industry cash may not be unfounded, progressives like Gunnels suggest that a willingness to take a stand against powerful AI companies is exactly the kind of fight voters want to see from party candidates.
For the Politico article, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House, explained how AI super PACs "come out and they say that they’re concerned, that they want regulation. But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation."
In a social media post Thursday night, however, Jayapal backed the congressional campaign of Will Lawrence, running as a Democrat to win an open seat in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, by saying voters "need leaders who answer to their constituents, not the corporations that paid for their election."
Following Gunnels advice that bucking the influence of corporate donors is actually a key component of a winning electoral strategy in the 2026 midterms, Jayapal said "electing fighters who don’t take corporate PAC money"—whether on the issue of AI, healthcare, housing policy, or broader concerns about economic inequality and affordability—is key for Democrats.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What OpenAI Having Chuck Schumer's Daughter as a Lobbyist Tells Us
The hiring of Jessica Schumer is another example of powerful people and families, regardless of party, who are deeply intertwined with the corporate behemoths that people are organizing against.
Sep 18, 2026
The Friday before Labor Day saw news break that OpenAI was beefing up its political influence staff, notably nabbing Jessica Schumer from Amazon to lead the firm’s “policy and partnerships” operations in the Northeast.
Schumer is the daughter of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and has been a longtime corporate politicker for Big Tech. Naturally, OpenAI was conscious of the potential ethical issues and clarified in a statement to the New York Post that “Jessica will focus on state and local public policy efforts and not federal policy or engagement with Congress. She will not be involved in any advocacy before the Minority Leader or his office related to OpenAI business.”
While superficially reassuring, OpenAI’s supposed commitment to ethics does little to actually address the underlying issue that Democratic leadership, and Chuck Schumer specifically, have been extremely tepid and lethargic, despite the rapid pace of AI industrial buildout and grassroots politics surrounding data centers. Jessica Schumer’s new gig puts an uncomfortable reality front and center: Democrats’ floundering is happening simultaneously to the party’s own political elites reaping financial and professional rewards from the continued strength of AI firms.
The senator played a major role in blocking oversight of the industry behind both his children’s paychecks.
At a time when the lane for an anti-corruption politics is wide open, with more than 90% of Americans believing corruption is a major issue in every branch of our government, Schumer’s hiring is a reminder that powerful people and families of both parties are deeply intertwined with the corporate behemoths that people are organizing against.
People simply do not trust the crop of AI executives to develop the technology responsibly in a way that serves the public interest.
They similarly have little faith in the children of powerful politicians abstaining from leveraging their parents’ status for personal gain. In a 2023 YouGov poll, 85% of respondents believed that children of presidents “always or sometimes profit off of their parents' positions in government;” it seems inconceivable that those numbers would have decreased in the intervening years. It’s hard not to see Jessica Schumer’s case that way; she has built a career around helping advance Big Tech’s legislative agenda in New York, a state her father has held elected office in for literally half a century. As a famously local-focused politician, the idea that the Schumer name would not carry weight in New York politics would be astonishingly naive. The younger Schumer was raised rubbing shoulders with a veritable who’s who of the state political class, creating in-built relationships to local politicos. And those people would have every incentive to try and build relationships with her to keep from risking running afoul of one of the most dominant (perhaps the most, given the righteous electoral defenestration of Andrew Cuomo) political figures in New York politics, and the newly ascendant company that employs her.
All of this would be one thing if it were an aside in an otherwise laudable track record on Sen. Schumer’s part of holding Big Tech to account. But we are quite clearly living on the other hand, where the senator played a major role in blocking oversight of the industry behind both his children’s paychecks (his other daughter, Alison, works for Facebook parent company Meta). He killed the oversight legislation "feared most" by Big Tech while his daughters were employed in marketing at Meta and as a lobbyist for Amazon. Even if Schumer reached that decision without personal bias, reasonable observers cannot help but question the integrity of the policymaking process.
The strongest winds in politics right now are outrage at Trumpian corruption, largely driven by the AI and crypto industries, and aversion to data centers and their impacts on local communities. Opting not to tack into them looks foolish on its own. Paired with leaders’ kids cashing checks from the very firms seeking to influence the government, it looks like dropping anchor in troubled waters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Cannot Wait for Disaster to Strike': Beyer Leads Bipartisan Push in House to Urgently Regulate AI
"Congress has a singular opportunity to respond swiftly and effectively to these warning shots before true catastrophes occur."
Sep 16, 2026
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday released a joint letter urging congressional leaders to take immediate action to regulate the artificial intelligence industry.
The group, led by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), urged leaders in both parties to "urgently advance legislation" to mitigate the risks posed by AI to critical US infrastructure.
The lawmakers pointed to the fully autonomous cyberattack launched by OpenAI agents against machine learning company Hugging Face as a turning point for the development of AI, arguing that it showed the technology has already become dangerous enough to "have profound implications for economic and national security."
"Congress has a singular opportunity to respond swiftly and effectively to these warning shots before true catastrophes occur," the lawmakers wrote. "The House of Representatives could and should immediately take up legislation that would strengthen AI oversight, security, and transparency."
In a Wednesday social media post, Beyer emphasized that "recent cyberattacks involving AI agents and growing warnings from leaders and researchers at the companies developing this technology make clear" that the dire risks posed by AI are no longer in the realm of science fiction.
"We cannot wait for disaster to strike," said Beyer. "We need to act now to protect the American people and ensure AI advances safely and responsibly."
In addition to Beyer, the letter was signed by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Scott Franklin (R-Fla.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Gabe Amo (D-RI), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas).
The lawmakers' letter comes just days after President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) dismissed calls for regulating AI.
During a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Johnson said that “Congress is obviously less qualified” to write rules for AI development “than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it.” Johnson then insisted that any effort to regulate AI needs to be “a partnership with the industry itself, with the corporations that are doing this."
Despite poll after poll showing the US public is opposed to runaway AI and the unregulated data center buildout that the tech industry is demanding, Trump wrote in a Monday social media post that his personal intellect was sufficient to keep the world safe from the dangers surrounding AI.
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!”
The GOP leaders' dismissal of AI risks occurred shortly after multiple industry insiders warned last week that the technology being developed could end human life within the decade.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Time for the Democrats to Run Against the AI Apocalypse
Someone has the chance for a kind of career-defining stance, one that builds on the growing sense of unease with the overheating world and the rise of AI.
Sep 16, 2026
Obviously the story of the moment is the sudden, coordinated bout of cold feet in the AI industry, whose leaders expressed support over the weekend for some kind of effort to slow down the pace of their R&D. This is something that’s never happened in the 40 years of the climate fight, and so it shouldn’t be dismissed; in fact, it could conceivably provide an opening for common sense across the entire apocalypse front. So let’s try to game out how responsible political leaders—which means, I tremble to say, Democrats—might try to talk about it.
First, credit where due. The fact there’s an opening at all is owed to the remarkable citizen resistance to data centers that has sprung up in the last year, and also to the courage of a few kids in the AI industry. At Third Act-GrayPAC we’ve been a part of that resistance in place after place—if you want some insight on its roots and future, join us Wednesday night for a conversation with old friend Justin Pearson, the Tennessee state rep who helped kick it off with the fight against Elon Musk’s super-polluting Memphis facility.
Water wastage, noise, land use—the data center fight has often been routed in deeply local concerns. But it has two other dimensions. The first is about energy, both its costs and its pollution. As I’ve noted, one way to understand a data center is that it’s a device for burning natural gas, the latest excuse (after Ukraine and Iran) for the fuel that Big Oil is counting on to keep its business model afloat even as the world turns away from internal combustion cars and crude demand begins to drop. The degree to which this is becoming a climate disaster can hardly be overstated. Here’s the latest, from Bloomberg on Monday:
Natural gas consumption for electricity generation at data centers is forecast to increase by 15 billion cubic feet per day in the decade ending in 2035, even when accounting for planned projects that may never be completed. This volume exceeds the current gas consumption of all nations except China, Russia, Iran, and the United States, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration. The projection is more than double BloombergNEF's December forecast of 6.9 billion cubic feet per day.
In essence, American data centers are about to become a giant new fossil-fuel burning country, just when we need it least. And if you wonder whether the oil boys have figured this out, don’t. When Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro—long a big backer of AI—proposed some limits last week, the reaction went like this:
“We were disappointed in the announcement in that it sends the wrong message to these incredible economic opportunities that are presented for Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania’s economy,” said James D. Welty, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition…
Marcellus producers are almost solely dependent on demand growth within their own producing region. Artificial intelligence data centers powered by gas-fired electricity are seen by Marcellus gas producers as a key source of that so-called in-basin demand.
But that data center resistance was driven by something else too, that’s been largely ignored—it was a chance to stand up to the oligarchs and this technology they’ve staked their future on. A few years ago Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and the rest had a mixed reputation, admired by some and distrusted by others; now the loathing is much more universal, especially since they’ve allied themselves with the most unpopular president in recent history. They marketed their AI tech on the promise that it would destroy jobs; it’s also proven useful for making naked pictures of anyone you could imagine. They stole books to train it; now it produces a commodity universally reviled as slop.
Oh, and it might kill us all, which brings us back to those kids. Jacob Coxon is a 27-year-old former silver medalist at the International Mathematical Olympiad who worked first at Open AI and then Anthropic, and who resigned last week, kicking off this current storm with his tweeted fear that things were getting out of control. A top scientist at the company backed him up, tweeting: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.”
Which seems like kind of a big deal. Perhaps Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was on to something when, many months ago, he called for a moratorium on this kind of work, a call he’s repeated in recent days. But no one takes Bernie seriously (except the American people, for whom he remains the most popular active politician). So it’s a good sign that there seem to be some starting to follow suit. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has been nimblest, and not for the first time—he got a start on the messaging by saying
On day one, Donald Trump rescinded the AI safety order meant to guard against catastrophic risks, including the engineering of bioweapons. Meanwhile, Don Jr's 1789 Capital bought big money stakes in data centers and AI labs... President Trump is compromised.
And Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another 2028 possibility:
It’s becoming more clear the threat AI poses to humanity, so I’m calling for immediate action from the industry and Washington.
But as Greg Sargent points out in a prescient piece today, the Dems are mostly playing small ball here, nibbling around the edges instead of biting. I think someone has the chance for a kind of career-defining stance here, one that builds on the growing sense of unease with the overheating world (an unease which is already quite broad and is going to deepen as the budding El Niño takes us ever deeper into the climate future). As we start to look forward to 2028, even Barack Obama—a cautious man—has called for Democrats to be more aggressive. Here’s a stab at what that might look like:
Elections usually turn on immediate, pocketbook issues—that makes sense, because we all need to eat, and right now the price of groceries is too high, the price of gas is too high, the rent is too high. We know why—tariffs, stupid wars, corruption. We’ve got lots to work on.
But there are also moments when need to think about larger questions, and this is clearly one. AI is not something any of us asked for—just about no one wants a data center in their neighborhood, and no one put up their hand to sacrifice their job to some computer bot. It’s been forced on us by some of the richest people on Earth, and it was obnoxious even before it started going on the attack—now, as even its creators say, it’s out of control and offers a very real risk to our health and safety, and maybe even our existence as a species.
So we need to rein it in, with serious government regulation that dramatically slows the pace of development until we can can understand and control it. And that includes making the companies that produce this, and the hedge funds who invest in them, liable for the havoc they create.
But we need to go beyond that. We need to step back and say: What are we doing here, people? Why are we running risks like this? Our civilization, especially in rich countries like this one, is capable of producing the things we need: We’ve never lived longer or better. If we didn’t concentrate wealth in a few hands, if we spread it our more widely, we could provide healthcare and housing for everyone. Natural human intelligence has produced plenty; the natural human sense of justice can help us figure out how to share it in ways that work for all. Things could be… okay.
So why would we run enormous risks—the ones that come with artificial super intelligence, and the ones that come with rapidly warming the planet? These are the dangers that could attack and impoverish us; no rational society would treat them as casually as the Trump administration has done. Instead we should be hard at work insuring against those risks—by, say, building out cheap and clean renewable energy. And by upgrading the education and the skills of our kids, instead of handing them screens and turning them over to AI teachers.
In some cases this would mean “slowing down progress”; in every case it would mean attacking concentrated wealth and power. But is it really progress? Is there any real reason we need to rush pell-mell into this chaotic and dystopian future? We’re told that medical advances await—but we’ve been making steady progress on this front for decades, with lifespans expanding and more and more diseases becoming manageable. (Or at least we were making progress till this administration decided to upend our scientific research institutions). We’re told that if we don’t rush ahead China will—but that seems more like an argument for negotiating with China about cooperative controls, just as we once negotiated with Russia about the control of nuclear weapons. It’s never easy, it’s always messy, and so far it’s been successful.
If this willingness to stick with the world as we’ve known it—a world where human intelligence prevails, and where we keep some ice near the poles—sounds “conservative” then so be it. There are moments when humans need to say, "Enough," and this is one. We are fools to endanger all that our ancestors have built in search of some new thing that will enrich a few. I know that the Trump administration wants to rush forward, that he has called AI fears a “hoax,” the exact same word he’s used about the climate crisis. But Trump and his colleagues are greed-seeking missiles, always looking for some way to grift, whether its from AI and crypto or from oil companies and Middle East princelings.
We are told that our destiny is constantly to rush forward—to head for Mars. But actually, one unique human gift is the ability to decide not to do things we’re capable of doing—to say Mars isn’t as important as getting things right on Earth. In fact, we’ve never had a better chance of getting things right. All of a sudden solar panels are the cheapest way to make power, for instance. It wasn’t AI that did that—it was smart people, at work in universities and companies around the world. They’ve given us a real gift, even if it’s going to cost Exxon some profits.
Humans don’t get many chances to make momentous decisions like this. Usually they get made for us. But across the country people have stood up to the data centers, and that’s given us the possibility for real change. Let’s take it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Poll Shows 63% of Americans Fear AI Could End Humanity as Industry 'Corruption' Called Out
"We need to pump the brakes until we have rules in place to stop this technology from doing grave harm," says Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "And that includes instituting mandatory safeguards and a comprehensive testing regime."
Sep 16, 2026
A new poll released Wednesday shows that nearly two out of three Americans believe there is "certain" to "moderate" risk that artificial intelligence could wipe out human society, a finding that backs up other surveys showing deep anxiety among the US voting public with a technology that so far has escaped government oversight or meaningful regulation.
According to Politico, which conducted the survey, "63% of Americans say AI could destroy humanity one day. And nearly half of Americans favor pausing development of more advanced AI models—48%—compared with 31% who favor continued development."
The findings, the news outlet noted, "signal an emerging tech-skeptical realignment of American politics with consequential midterm and presidential elections looming" and arrive just a day after a major symposium in Washington, DC brought together experts and lawmakers who say action must be taken before its too late.
In a separate Associated Press poll published Wednesday, US voters also expressed their concerns about the negative environmental impact of the AI industry, including the massive buildout of data centers that serve as the main infrastructure for the computing capacity needed by the major tech firms, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, SpaceX, and others.
AP reports that while Democrats are more concerned overall about the environmental impacts of AI, large segments of independents and Republicans share those sentiments.
"About two-thirds of Democrats," AP reports, "say they are 'extremely' or 'very' concerned about how AI will affect the environment, the poll found, up from about half in 2025. By contrast, about half of independents and about 4 in 10 Republicans are highly concerned about the environmental impact of AI."
Broader consensus emerged on data centers, the outlet noted, with about 60% of all voters—regardless of partisan affiliation—supporting limits on new data centers and sharing concerns about the impact such facilities will have on local water supplies and electricity prices.
The new survey data from both AP and Politico comes amid a high-profile debate in Washington, DC that has emerged over recent weeks and months as grave warnings—including from experts within the industry—tell of a technology that demands much more government control and public accountability.
At a forum on Tuesday billed as "The Pro-Human Assembly"—headlined by progressive champion Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and far-right former Trump advisor Steve Bannon—technological experts, AI industry insiders, watchdogs, and lawmakers advocated for a much more robust and critical response to the issue.
“Despite living in a so-called democracy, the public has had virtually no input into the AI revolution that is transforming the world in which they live,” Sanders said during his remarks at the event.
“Congress, under both Democratic and Republican control, has been asleep at the wheel, and we now have a president whose ignorance regarding this issue is truly embarrassing," added Sanders. "Virtually all of the decisions regarding the development of AI have been made by a handful of the richest people in the world... whose chief goal is to achieve even more wealth and more power than they already have, no matter what the impact their work has on ordinary people."
In a video posted to social media on Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also demanded a shift in Congress, which has for too long stood idly by as the AI industry lobby plowed tens of millions of dollars into shaping the terms of debate on Capitol Hill and bankrolling political campaigns.
"The ongoing AI threat has been enabled by political corruption," Van Hollen warned in his post.
The ongoing AI threat has been enabled by political corruption.
The Trump admin isn't asleep at the wheel; their refusal to address these risks is part of an implicit deal.
We should pump the brakes on frontier AI development & confront a corrupt system that's endangering us… pic.twitter.com/B9KPOgHrdY
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) September 16, 2026
"The people building this technology are concerned about the loss of human control," Van Hollen said. "We need to pump the brakes until we have rules in place to stop this technology from doing grave harm. And that includes instituting mandatory safeguards and a comprehensive testing regime."
"This should not be a partisan issue," he continued. "The impact of AI on our collective future, on our safety, on our security, on our economy, and on our shared humanity—but be the type of risk that brings us all together."
While blasting Trump's recent comments dismissing concerns about AI dangers as "a hoax" to be ignored, Van Hollen said what can't be ignored is how the industry and its financial backers have used their outsized wealth and power to create the current situation in which AI has avoided serious oversight.
"The Silicon Valley big-wig investors and tech oligarchs that have bankrolled Donald Trump back into the White House didn't do it because they all became MAGA overnight. They did it because there was an implicit deal. In return for their support and funding his vanity projects, like his obscene ballroom, they wanted something in return: a free hand on AI policy."
Progressive political journalist David Sirota said Van Hollen's message was spot on.
"Van Hollen absolutely nails it," said Sirota. "He explicitly says AI oligarchs should be held civilly and criminally liable under existing laws, and he points out that the AI crisis is a crisis of corruption. This is the message."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Say Last Thing That Should Be Allowed Is Letting Billionaire Tech Bros 'Regulate Themselves'
"It’s clear that these industry leaders think they are best positioned to craft AI policy for the good of all humanity. We think that’s horseshit."
Sep 14, 2026
Several Big Tech CEOs over the weekend called for a slowdown in the development of artificial intelligence, but some advocates are warning that these Silicon Valley oligarchs are not to be trusted.
Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, on Monday dismissed the recent statements made by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, X CEO Elon Musk, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman calling for more guardrails to be placed on AI development.
"We can’t trust the AI industry to regulate itself," said Greer. "We can't really trust anything these self-interested billionaires say."
Greer conceded that the CEOs' warnings about the potential dangers of AI deserved to be heeded, but argued that allowing them to craft their own safeguards would be a grave mistake.
"It’s clear that these industry leaders think they are best positioned to craft AI policy for the good of all humanity," said Greer. "We think that’s horseshit. Lawmakers should be listening to independent experts, researchers, civil society, and the communities most impacted."
"Congress should act," Greer added, "but they shouldn’t just do whatever the AI bros tell them to."
Greer's sentiment was echoed by Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros, who wrote in a Sunday social media post that "we need to regulate AI for all of the existential threats it poses," before adding that "we cannot expect the very people who got us into this mess to self-regulate their way out."
"Congress needs to act now," Kiros emphasized, "and guard against ANY corporate influence."
However, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Sunday indicated that he was perfectly content to allow the AI industry to regulate itself.
During an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Johnson said that "Congress is obviously less qualified" to write rules for AI development "than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it." Johnson then insisted that any effort to regulate AI needs to be "a partnership with the industry itself, with the corporations that are doing this."
Mike Johnson punts on oversight of AI companies: "Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it" pic.twitter.com/EXU1raDExB
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 13, 2026
This drew an incredulous reaction from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who said the speaker appeared to be making excuses for congressional inaction.
"Based on the speaker’s excuse, Congress could never pass laws or do oversight on medicine, energy, airplanes, etc.," wrote Lieu in a Sunday social media post. "Members of Congress don’t need to be [computer science] majors to understand it’s a good idea to require AI companies to be able to turn off AI models/agents if they go rogue."
Johnson isn't the only Republican to oppose AI regulation, as President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating the technology, which is so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote in a social media post, “and the USA has that, in spades!”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—whose district includes multiple Silicon Valley giants—argued on Saturday that the AI industry feels emboldened to regulate itself due to a crisis of "elite impunity," in which no one in the American ruling class faces consequences for disasters such as the Iraq War or the 2008 financial crisis.
"It is time for We the People to stand up," wrote Khanna. "And demand to make the rules and hold people accountable with civil and criminal liability for their actions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Madness and Puerility': Critics Stunned as Trump Claims His 'High IQ' Enough to Regulate AI
Trump's stance on AI regulation is "a fundamental incompetence that places us all in grave danger," said one critic.
Sep 14, 2026
President Donald Trump on Monday slapped down the idea of putting guardrails on artificial intelligence, despite increased warnings from industry insiders and outside experts about the technology's potential dangers to humanity.
In a Truth Social post, Trump suggested that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
"The only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT," Trump wrote, "and the USA has that, in spades!"
The president then claimed, without offering any details, that his administration had already "stopped AI 'people' from doing bad, or potentially bad, 'things,'" and then baselessly claimed the nationwide backlash to the technology was part of a vast conspiracy theory in service of the Chinese Communist Party.
"There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China," Trump wrote. "WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!"
Regardless of Trump's social media rants, there is widespread concern about the impacts of AI across the political spectrum.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, described Trump's stance on regulating AI as "a fundamental incompetence that places us all in grave danger," in a Common Dreams op-ed published Monday.
Reacting directly to Trump's Monday social media post, Sachs told Common Dreams that it was a sign that "we are in the grip of madness and puerility."
Axios reported on Monday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will join former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and former Anthropic AI researcher Jacob Coxon on Tuesday for a what is being described as a "Pro-Human Assembly" aimed at highlighting the dangers posed by the continued development of the technology.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), chair of Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Management, announced last week that he is opening a probe into the recent autonomous hack carried out by OpenAI agents, while also examining threats posed by the AI industry as a whole.
Calls to regulate AI have grown over the last week since Coxon announced that he had resigned from his position at AI lab Anthropic because he no longer felt it was possible to safely develop the technology.
In a social media post announcing his resignation, Coxon claimed that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” and accused them of “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy