martes, 22 de septiembre de 2026
BuscarExplore
Source trace. Via News points to the documents behind its reporting and shows what we drew from each — so you can check any claim. How we source
Source document

The U.S. Public Wants Regulation (or Prohibition) of Expert‑Level and Superhuman AI

View original at futureoflife.org
Future of Life Institute - Ai Safety Title: The U.S. Public Wants Regulation (or Prohibition) of Expert‑Level and Superhuman AI Date: 2025-10-19 19:08 Source: https://futureoflife.org/recent-news/americans-want-regulation-or-prohibition-of-superhuman-ai/ <p>A new national survey of 2,000 U.S…
Opening lines of the source · short snapshot — read the full document at the original

Lo que extrajimos de esta fuente

The claims Via News extracted from this document. We point to the source; we don't replace it.

  • Only 5% of surveyed Americans support the status quo of fast, unregulated AI development.

    80% confidence
  • 49% of surveyed Americans think expert-level AI will be developed within 2 years.

    80% confidence
  • Two-thirds of adults worry that advanced AI is likely (61% or greater chance) to cause significant harm to humanity if developed without proper safeguards.

    80% confidence
  • Two-thirds (69%) of surveyed Americans trust AI researchers at universities and non-profits, and international bodies most for AI safety guidance.

    80% confidence
  • Top reasons cited for not developing advanced AI centered around human extinction or enfeeblement and concentration of power.

    80% confidence
  • Three-quarters (74%) of adults are concerned about the possibility of AI resulting in the concentration of power in technology companies.

    80% confidence
  • AI companies and their leadership score significantly lower than scientific institutions in public trust for AI safety guidance.

    80% confidence
  • One-third (37%) of adults are concerned that AI could cause the end of the human race on earth.

    80% confidence
  • Respondents with higher AI knowledge tend to appreciate both upsides and downsides of advanced AI and demand tighter safeguards.

    80% confidence
  • OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Google, Meta, and others have openly declared they are racing to expert-level or superhuman AI, while many actively hamper efforts to create meaningful guardrails.

    80% confidence
  • International scientific organizations ranked first among entities the public believes should determine the trajectory of advanced AI, with national government agencies a close second.

    80% confidence
  • 73% of surveyed Americans support slow, heavily regulated AI development, approximately matching the proportion wanting pharmaceutical-style regulation with extensive testing before deployment.

    80% confidence
  • 40% of Americans think AI will have a negative impact on society, and only 29% expect it to have a positive impact.

    80% confidence
  • This is the first public large-scale survey specifically addressing U.S. public attitudes toward the development of advanced AI systems of the type referred to as AGI and superintelligence.

    80% confidence
  • A majority of adults (59%) have little or no confidence in US companies to develop and use AI responsibly.

    80% confidence
  • A majority of adults (57%) are not bought in to the development of expert-level AI under current conditions; 17% feel it should never be developed and 40% feel it should be halted until proven controllable and safe.

    80% confidence
  • Almost half (44%) of Americans think AI will do more harm than good, while only 38% think the opposite.

    80% confidence
  • Almost two-thirds (64%) of surveyed Americans feel that superhuman AI should not be developed until it is proven safe and controllable, or should never be developed.

    80% confidence
  • Top reasons supporting development of advanced AI included solving major social and scientific challenges and creating abundance.

    80% confidence
  • 69% of Americans think the government is not doing enough to regulate the use of AI.

    80% confidence
  • Two-thirds (64%) of surveyed adults would like to see an immediate pause on the development of advanced AI until the technology is proven to be safe.

    80% confidence
  • Around half of respondents expect that advanced AI will be developed quickly with minimal safeguards, despite not wanting this outcome.

    80% confidence
  • There is a clear disconnect between the stated mission of leading AI companies and the wishes of the American public.

    80% confidence
  • There is overwhelming support (73%) for robust regulation on AI among surveyed Americans, with only 12% opposed to strong regulation.

    80% confidence
  • 49% of surveyed Americans expect superhuman AI to be developed within 5 years.

    80% confidence
Lo que sabemos · la inteligencia detrás de esta página
En vivo desde el sustrato
Lo que estamos viendo
Frontier AI Slowdown Call Splits Industry, Rattles Capex-Sensitive Markets
Anthropic's Dario Amodei publicly called for a coordinated global slowdown in frontier AI development, a stance Microsoft echoed with a 'humanist' AI code of conduct, but Nvidia and Meta's CEOs rejected any coordinated pause days later, exposing a widening rift between safety-focused and growth-focused AI leaders. The dispute landed amid growing financial scrutiny of AI infrastructure spending — a hyperscaler capex analysis, FTC warnings against antitrust waivers for AI firms, and an 8.6% single-day stock drop in GE Vernova tied directly to the slowdown remarks — signaling investors are newly nervous about whether the AI capex boom (including Alphabet's projected $701B revenue narrative) can be justified if the pace of development itself becomes contested.
Nuestra lectura de los datos ›
Señales que seguimos
Satellite-Terrestrial Network Integration Acceleration
Increased investment and launches in hybrid satellite-cellular networks across telecom industry; competitive responses from other carriers; regulatory activity around satellite spectrum; expansion of emergency/rural connectivity use cases
Patrones que observamos ›
Donde las fuentes discrepan
ING Group
Both facts record the same metric (shares_outstanding) for ING Group at the identical observation date (2025-12-31). FACT A states 2,902,437,688 shares; FACT B states 2,902 million shares (2,902,000,000). The difference is 437,688 shares (~0.015%). This is a genuine value conflict, though the discrepancy appears to result from FACT B rounding to the nearest million while FACT A provides the precise count.
Señalamos los conflictos abiertamente ›
Verificado recientemente
Verificado con la fuente original
4,983
hechos rastreados a su fuente — y señalamos los que no se sostienen.
101 entidades seguidas4,983 hechos verificados con la fuente5,304 documentos fuente archivados
Consulta estos datos → isubstrate.com
The U.S. Public Wants Regulation (or Prohibition) of Expert‑Level and Superhuman AI — Source | Via News | es.VIA.NEWS