A fundamental dispute has erupted in Washington over who will control the development of artificial intelligence and how. On one side is Mark Zuckerberg, defending the interests of Silicon Valley giants; on the other, Senator Bernie Sanders, demanding decisive action from the state. This is not just a discussion, but a fundamental question about the pace of technological progress and its cost to society.
The core of the conflict lies in the approach to regulation. Zuckerberg categorically opposes the creation of a single federal oversight body modeled on FINRA (the U.S. financial markets regulator). He believes that such a structure, which would vet every new AI model for risks before it hits the market, would only slow down innovation. In his view, any bureaucratic barriers are a gift to foreign competitors, primarily China. He never tires of repeating: slowing down American AI development directly threatens the country's technological leadership.
Sanders's position, by contrast, is a call for maximum caution. Together with Congressman Greg Casar, he has introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which proposes a strict ban on creating systems that surpass human intelligence. Moreover, the document requires a complete halt to work on advanced AI models until an adequate federal oversight system is established. Violators face serious penalties—up to 20 years in prison. Sanders does not hide his distrust of corporations, stating that the future of humanity cannot be handed over to a handful of oligarchs from Big Tech.
It is telling that even within the presidential administration there is no unity. Advisor David Sacks, for example, considers the panic over AI safety to be exaggerated and leans toward softer, voluntary self-regulation of the industry.
Thus, both sides acknowledge the need for some kind of arbiter, but they diverge on the main point: whether development should be paused while the control system is being built, or whether to move forward, relying on the responsibility of the companies themselves.
My view: Sanders's initiative looks more like a populist gesture than a realistic plan. Freezing development in the global AI race means voluntarily ceding leadership. However, Zuckerberg's position is also vulnerable: history shows that self-regulation in the technology sector rarely works effectively, especially when billions are at stake. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between, and how quickly politicians find that balance will determine not only the future of the American economy, but also the global balance of power in technology.