Bernie Sanders Says ’We Can’t Allow’ AI Billionaires To ’Play God’: Bill Threatens ’Corporate Death Penalty’

Sen. Bernie Sanders has stepped up his campaign for tougher artificial intelligence rules, arguing that decisions about increasingly powerful AI should not be left to a small group of technology executives and investors.

The Vermont independent made the case for greater public oversight as he and Rep. Greg Casar announced plans for forthcoming legislation that would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of artificial superintelligence.

The proposal would also temporarily pause advanced AI development while a new federal regulator establishes safety rules. Sanders said the future of the technology should be determined by the public rather than what he described as a group of Big Tech 'oligarchs'.

His comments come as Washington remains divided over whether increasingly capable AI systems require stronger government controls or whether heavy restrictions could undermine American technological competitiveness.

The proposed measure has already attracted criticism from technology policy figures who argue that restricting US development could create risks of its own.

Sanders Targets AI Billionaires and Superintelligence

Sanders said on X that he regarded the concentration of AI power among technology billionaires as one of the most pressing issues facing the country. 'We can't allow a handful of greedy people to play God & determine the future of humanity', he wrote.

He added: 'CONGRESS MUST ACT.' The comments accompanied the announcement of the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which Sanders and Casar said would stop the development of AI systems that exceed human control.

According to Sanders' office, the proposal would direct the United States to pursue international agreements, allied coordination and measures such as export controls aimed at preventing artificial superintelligence from being developed elsewhere. The measure goes further than conventional regulation by seeking to prohibit an entire category of future AI capability.

Sanders and Casar have argued that the government should act before systems become too difficult for people to control. The proposal has drawn criticism from AI commentators.

AI researcher Gary Marcus criticised the proposal as too broad, arguing that a permanent unilateral ban on research into superhuman AI could leave the US behind and create difficulties around how such systems would be benchmarked and regulated.

AI Regulation Debate Moves Towards Corporate Penalties

The proposal would also create a new federal oversight structure for advanced AI. Sanders' office says the legislation would impose severe consequences for violations, including prison sentences of up to 20 years for individuals. Entities that violate or attempt to circumvent the proposed restrictions would face what Sanders' office describes as a 'corporate death penalty'.

The sponsors have based their argument partly on recent incidents involving autonomous AI agents. Sanders and Casar have pointed to a July OpenAI cybersecurity evaluation in which models circumvented controls designed to isolate them from the internet and subsequently compromised parts of OpenAI's infrastructure and Hugging Face's systems.

The incident has also prompted questions from lawmakers about AI security practices and the safeguards used during advanced AI testing. OpenAI has said it is working towards automated shutdown procedures for severe AI safety incidents.

Casar has argued that the potential consequences of advanced AI justify much stronger oversight. 'Despite its potential deadly consequences, cutting-edge AI technology is less regulated than the average food truck,' he said.

The Sanders-Casar proposal arrives alongside a wider political fight over AI infrastructure and regulation. Sanders has separately backed restrictions on new data-centre construction, while policymakers in states including Texas and Pennsylvania have examined the demands that such facilities place on electricity and water supplies.

Critics of the proposal argue that a unilateral halt could give geopolitical rivals an advantage. That concern reflects a wider dispute over whether the US should prioritise tighter safeguards or maintaining its position in the international AI race.

The legislation remains a proposal rather than enacted law. When Sanders and Casar announced it on 3 September, Sanders' office described the measure as forthcoming legislation and published a summary of its proposed provisions.