The question of regulating artificial intelligence in the United States has turned into an arena of fierce confrontation between technology industry leaders and politicians. At the center of the conflict lies the fate of an industry that, in my deep conviction, will determine the global balance of power for decades to come.
Zuckerberg: "Strict measures would hand leadership to China"
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken an uncompromising stance, opposing the creation of a single federal oversight body modeled on FINRA. In a private conversation with President Donald Trump on August 17, the company head made it clear: pre-certification of models would strangle innovation in its cradle. His argument is simple and pragmatic—any artificial slowdown in the release of American AI systems would be a gift to foreign competitors, primarily Chinese ones. The idea of an independent regulator, which, incidentally, is being lobbied by Google DeepMind head Demis Hassabis, would, in Zuckerberg's view, only create unnecessary bureaucratic barriers.
Sanders: "Humanity cannot be handed over to oligarchs"
Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar think on an entirely different plane. Their proposed bill, the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, is not merely a call for caution but an attempt to erect a hard barrier against the development of superintelligence. The document proposes criminalizing the creation of systems that reach or surpass the level of human intelligence. Violators would face up to 20 years in prison, and the entire industry would be required to freeze work on advanced models until a new regulator and clear rules of the game emerge.
It is telling that both sides acknowledge the need for an arbiter. The dispute is not over whether oversight is needed, but over its cost. White House advisor David Sacks, leaning toward a soft scenario, calls the panic over AI safety a fabrication. However, in my view, such polarization is dangerous in itself. While politicians and business wage ideological wars, technological progress does not stand still, and the market itself begins to seek balance. The question is whether the legislator will manage to find that point of equilibrium before events spiral out of control.