Thursday, 15 October 2026European Markets
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

What we drew from this source

The claims Via News extracted from this document. We point to the source; we don't replace it.

  • 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
  • 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
  • 49% of surveyed Americans think expert-level AI will be developed within 2 years.

    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
  • 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
  • 40% of Americans think AI will have a negative impact on society, and only 29% expect it to have a positive impact.

    80% confidence
  • One-third (37%) of adults are concerned that AI could cause the end of the human race on earth.

    80% confidence
  • A majority of adults (59%) have little or no confidence in US companies to develop and use AI responsibly.

    80% confidence
  • 49% of surveyed Americans expect superhuman AI to be developed within 5 years.

    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
  • 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
  • Around half of respondents expect that advanced AI will be developed quickly with minimal safeguards, despite not wanting this outcome.

    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
  • 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 (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
  • There is a clear disconnect between the stated mission of leading AI companies and the wishes of the American public.

    80% confidence
  • AI companies and their leadership score significantly lower than scientific institutions in public trust for AI safety guidance.

    80% confidence
  • Almost half (44%) of Americans think AI will do more harm than good, while only 38% think the opposite.

    80% confidence
What we know · the intelligence behind this page
Live from the substrate
What we're seeing
Q4 2026 Biopharma Catalyst Cluster: Late-Stage Readouts and Regulatory Milestones
October 2026 brings a dense run of Phase 3 wins (ALOFT-IPF, RESTORE-3), new data presentations (Roche, Bayer, Lilly, Vertex, Galderma) and regulatory steps (FDA acceptance of Roche's vamikibart BLA, Scholar Rock's EMA resubmission). The next big catalyst is the ivonescimab FDA PDUFA date on 2026-11-14. Obesity combination studies (REDEFINE 4, TOGETHER-PsO) and the 2027 Maritime-1 completion point to more catalysts ahead. QAIAx's speculative AI-linked trial claims (the QIII pilot, targeted for 2027) are an unrelated micro-cap sideshow with weak evidence, and have little in common with the large-cap pipeline news.
Our read on the data ›
Signals we're tracking
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.
Patterns we're watching ›
Where sources disagree
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.
We flag conflicts openly ›
Recently verified
✓ Checked against the original source
4,986
facts traced to their source — and we flag the ones that don't hold up.
101 entities tracked4,986 facts checked against source5,377 source documents archived
Query this data → isubstrate.com
The U.S. Public Wants Regulation (or Prohibition) of Expert‑Level and Superhuman AI — Source | Via News | ViaNews EU