The American establishment is split over a fundamental question: how to rein in rapidly advancing artificial intelligence without stifling innovation. At the center of the debate are Meta CEO (recognized as extremist and banned in Russia) Mark Zuckerberg and Senator Bernie Sanders, who offer diametrically opposed scenarios for the industry's future.
The disagreements escalated after a phone call between Zuckerberg and former President Donald Trump on August 17. During the conversation, the Meta chief criticized the idea of creating a single federal regulator for AI modeled on FINRA, a self-regulatory organization overseeing American brokers. Under the plan backed by proponents of this model, the new body would be tasked with vetting model risks before they hit the market. Notably, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis has previously promoted a similar concept.
Arms race and the "window of opportunity"
Zuckerberg's position is transparent and pragmatic: excessive bureaucratization would only slow the development of American AI models and hand the lead to Beijing. He has repeatedly stressed that superintelligence should be accessible to everyone, not a privilege of a narrow circle of labs. "Any policy that slows the release of American models is a serious risk to U.S. leadership and a gift to foreign competitors, including China," he said in August.
In essence, Zuckerberg is voicing the fear of all of Silicon Valley: in the race for artificial superintelligence, where every month of delay can prove decisive, any administrative hurdles are perceived as an existential threat to business.
Sanders' legislative ultimatum
Senator Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar have chosen the opposite vector. Their proposed bill, the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, does not merely seek to tighten oversight but introduces an effective ban on creating systems that surpass human intelligence. The document demands an immediate pause in advanced AI development until a new federal regulator and industry rules emerge. Violators face serious criminal liability, up to 20 years in prison.
Sanders' rhetoric carries a clear populist tone: "The future of humanity cannot be handed over to a handful of Big Tech oligarchs." However, despite the loud statements, such initiatives have previously never reached the voting stage, as the lobbying resources of tech giants in Washington are enormous.
Cryptalist analysis
It is telling that even AI advisor David Sacks, who leans toward a softer scenario, publicly calls fears about AI safety a "fabrication." Both sides agree on one thing: an arbiter is necessary. The whole question is who that arbiter will be, an independent body with veto power over product launches or a voluntary association of market players. In this struggle between fear of technology and fear of losing leadership, the future regulation is being born, one that will determine the balance of power in the global digital economy for decades to come. For the crypto industry, this is a precedent: exactly how the state will share responsibility with private capital in high-tech fields.