A fundamental rift is brewing within the American establishment over the regulation of artificial intelligence. On one side stands Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, defending the interests of Silicon Valley giants; on the other, Senator Bernie Sanders, demanding decisive and stringent action from the state. This clash reflects a fundamental question: who will control a technology capable of altering the course of history?
Zuckerberg: Overregulation — a Path to Losing Leadership
During a confidential conversation with the U.S. President on August 17, the Meta chief sharply criticized the idea of creating a single federal oversight body for AI modeled on FINRA (the financial markets regulator). Zuckerberg warned that such a bureaucratic machine, forced to vet every new model for risks before its market release, would become a brake on innovation.
Zuckerberg's position is clear: any policy that slows the release of American AI models is a strategic mistake. In August, he directly stated that such measures "could pose a serious risk to U.S. leadership and give an edge to foreign competitors, including China." He has also previously insisted that superintelligence should be accessible to everyone, not just a narrow circle of select laboratories.
Sanders: Humanity Cannot Be Handed Over to Oligarchs
The opposite pole is represented by the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, introduced by Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar. This document proposes a radical step — a complete ban on creating AI systems that could reach or surpass the level of human intelligence. The bill demands an immediate halt to developments in this area until a new federal regulator and clear rules of the game are established. Violators would face serious liability — up to 20 years in prison.
Sanders does not hide his motivation: "The future of humanity cannot be handed over to a handful of Big Tech oligarchs," he stated in an official address. This is not the senator's first attempt to raise the issue of regulation, but it is the first time it has been framed in such stringent legislative form.
Notably, there is also no unity within the U.S. administration. Technology advisor David Sacks, judging by his public statements, leans toward a softer scenario — voluntary consolidation of industry participants — calling the panic over AI safety exaggerated.
Thus, the discussion has shifted from the plane of "is control needed" to the plane of "what kind of control and when." Both sides acknowledge the need for some arbiter, but diverge on the key point: whether to pause the development of technology while the oversight system is being built, or to allow the market to move forward, risking ending up in a catch-up position.
My analysis: For the crypto industry, this dispute is an important precedent. The outcome of the debate will determine whether Washington follows a path of strict restrictions or soft self-regulation, which will directly impact adjacent sectors, including decentralized computing and AI agents on the blockchain. Keep an eye on developments — the stakes are higher than ever.