miércoles, 7 de octubre 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.

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

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

    80% confidence
  • Only 5% of surveyed Americans support the status quo of fast, unregulated AI development.

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

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

    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
  • 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
Lo que sabemos · la inteligencia detrás de esta página
En vivo desde el sustrato
Lo que estamos viendo
Autumn 2026 Biopharma Catalyst Season: Late-Breaking Data, FDA Milestones and the Rise of AI-Designed Drugs
Late-September and early-October 2026 conferences (EASD, EADV, IGCS) brought a cluster of positive late-breaking trial readouts. These covered obesity and metabolic disease (Novo Nordisk's CagriSema), immunology (Lilly's EBGLYSS, tulisokibart) and oncology (Rina-S, Agenus BOT+BAL). Ahead lie hard regulatory catalysts, led by the 14 Nov 2026 FDA PDUFA date for ivonescimab. At the same time, Insilico-style AI-designed drugs such as rentosertib are showing anti-aging signals. That points to AI-driven drug discovery moving from concept toward clinical validation. Unrelated tech and regulatory items (Tesla Cybercab probe, xAI litigation, OpenAI agent incident) and the speculative QAIAx claims are peripheral to this story.
Nuestra lectura de los datos ›
Señales que seguimos
EPKINLY Regulatory-Clinical Success Cascade
High probability of expanded label indications, additional combination approvals, and competitive positioning strength in follicular lymphoma market. Predicts positive commercial uptake and potential accelerated review for related indications.
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
4,986
hechos rastreados a su fuente — y señalamos los que no se sostienen.
101 entidades seguidas4,986 hechos verificados con la fuente5,362 documentos fuente archivados
Consulta estos datos → isubstrate.com