Sen. Bernie Sanders is demanding a permanent ban on artificial superintelligence and a pause on advanced AI after OpenAI’s CEO said society may accept severe cyber incidents for liberty, a push that would hand Washington new power over the next tech race.
The Hill reported that Sanders, the independent from Vermont, went on the attack Monday after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman discussed cybersecurity risks tied to open-source AI models.
Altman told Politico’s “Decoded” podcast last week that society faces a “coming tidal wave of cybersecurity problems” from those models. He added that people will “have to just accept some fairly severe cyber incidents from open models, in exchange for the liberty that comes with that.”
Sanders rejected the trade-off in a series of posts on X and renewed his call for Congress to freeze advanced development and outlaw artificial superintelligence for good.
The exchange lands in a larger fight over who sets the rules for AI, elected lawmakers writing bans and new agencies, or builders racing to keep American systems ahead.
Sanders framed Altman’s comments as an unacceptable bargain that protects wealth and influence rather than the public.
He wrote on X:
“No, Mr. Altman. We won’t accept a severe AI cyberattack in exchange for ‘liberty.'”
He followed with a direct challenge:
“Mr. Altman: What do you mean by that?”
Sanders said Americans “are not willing to accept disaster ‘in exchange for the liberty’ of making Big Tech Oligarchs even richer and more powerful.” He added that tech developers working on AI “are not above the law.”
In another post he declared:
“If you and other Big Tech Oligarchs make products that commit crimes or disasters, we will hold you accountable for breaking the law, no matter how much wealth and power you have.”
His bottom line was unambiguous:
“We must PAUSE advanced AI and permanently BAN artificial superintelligence before it is too late.”
That language matches the bill he and Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat, introduced last month: the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act.
Progressive alliances keep surfacing around Sanders, including when AOC and Bernie Sanders used a Queens concert stage for a political pitch.
The legislation would permanently ban artificial superintelligence. It would also temporarily pause “advanced AI development” until federal regulators draft safety standards.
It directs the United States to seek diplomatic agreements aimed at stopping superintelligence development abroad. And it would stand up a new Cabinet-level federal agency focused on AI safety rules.
In plain terms, the bill swaps private-sector speed for a regulatory gate, a diplomatic campaign, and another layer of Washington bureaucracy before the next generation of systems can move forward.
Sanders has also aligned himself with warnings from Pope Leo XIV about AI’s impact on the art world, folding cultural concerns into the same call for limits.
His recent choices inside Democratic lanes remain closely watched, including when Bernie Sanders passes on endorsing in Wisconsin’s Democratic governor’s race.
Altman’s podcast remarks centered on open-source models and the cyber problems he expects them to bring. He did not call for a ban. He described liberty and risk as linked.
Sanders treated that framing as a green light for disaster on behalf of concentrated tech power and answered with the permanent prohibition he and Casar already put on paper.
The Hill account also noted recent cybersecurity incidents and hacks involving rogue AI software, including an unsuccessful attempt against the Department of Education’s website and a hack involving Australia’s health department.
Former OpenAI and Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon warned last month that AI could pose an existential threat to human life on Earth, adding another voice Sanders’ camp can point to when pressing for a hard stop.
Close progressive partners face their own calendar pressure, as when Ocasio-Cortez says 2028 is her last shot, win or leave office for good.
Last month Sanders told MS NOW the president was falling short on the issue.
He said:
“Look, it is embarrassing, really, I think, going beyond politics, how ignorant this president is about the dangers of AI.”
President Trump has taken the opposite posture. He said he would appoint an “AI czar,” launched a “Super Intelligence Force,” praised AI’s possibilities, and sought to rebrand AI as “super intelligence.”
He recently signed a pledge with tech executives that put that name in writing across the executive branch.
One path treats frontier systems as a strategic asset to organize and accelerate. The other path treats them as a danger to pause, ban, and place under a new Cabinet agency.
Party-line habits still shape much of the left’s lane even when personalities brand themselves as outsiders, a tension also visible as Fetterman’s maverick brand collides with a voting record still locked to Democrats.
Sanders’ Monday posts and the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act put a clear choice on the table: keep building under existing law and accountability, or let Congress outlaw the top tier of the technology and park advanced work until new federal rules and a new agency say otherwise.
American strength in this field will not come from a permanent ban written to slow the people who build it.