Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "c778e0f23a5e6559e52996b256a0602ee9aa283ac06e2123a7fde028485b8853",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/21\/opinion\/bernie-sanders-case-ai-policy.html?nl=the-morning&segment_id=226815",
    "parsed_content": "Credit...Mathieu LaroneSkip to contentSkip to site indexSearch & Section NavigationSection NavigationAccountAccountGoHome U.S.SECTIONSU.S.PoliticsNew YorkCaliforniaEducationHealthObituariesScienceClimateWeatherSportsBusinessTechThe UpshotThe MagazineTOP STORIESDonald TrumpSupreme CourtCongressImmigrationAbortionLatest PollsNEWSLETTERSThe MorningMake sense of the day\u2019s news and ideas.The EveningCatch up on big news, and wind down to end your day.See all newslettersPODCASTSThe DailyThe biggest stories of our time, in 20 minutes a day.See all podcastsWorldSECTIONSWorldAfricaAmericasAsiaAustraliaCanadaEuropeMiddle EastScienceClimateWeatherHealthObituariesTOP STORIESMiddle East CrisisRussia-Ukraine WarChina International RelationsThe Global ProfileLeer en Espa\u00f1olNEWSLETTERSThe WorldA guide to understanding the news, made for readers around the globe.Your Places: Global UpdateThe latest news for any part of the world you select.Canada LetterBackstories and analysis from our Canadian correspondents.See all newslettersBusinessSECTIONSBusinessTechEconomyMediaFinance and MarketsDealBookPersonal TechEnergy TransitionYour MoneyTOP STORIESU.S. EconomyStock MarketArtificial IntelligenceNEWSLETTERSDealBookThe most crucial business and policy news you need to know.On TechOur best tech reporting from the week.See all newslettersPODCASTSHard ForkOur tech journalists help you make sense of the rapidly changing tech world.See all podcastsArtsSECTIONSToday's ArtsBook ReviewBest SellersDanceMoviesMusicTelevisionTheaterPop CultureT MagazineVisual ArtsRECOMMENDATIONS100 Best Movies of the 21st CenturyCritic\u2019s PicksWhat to ReadWhat to WatchWhat to Listen To5 Minutes to Make You Love MusicNEWSLETTERSBooksReviews, news and features to help you find your next read.WatchingStreaming TV and movie recommendations.See all newslettersPODCASTSBook ReviewThe podcast that takes you inside the literary world.PopcastPop music news, new songs and albums, and artists of note.See all podcastsLifestyleSECTIONSAll LifestyleWellTravelStyleReal EstateFoodLoveYour MoneyPersonal TechT MagazineCOLUMNS36 HoursAsk WellThe HuntModern LoveWhere to EatVowsSocial Q\u2019sThe EthicistAsk the TherapistNEWSLETTERSThe WeekenderUnwind with stories about culture and the way we live.WellEssential news and guidance to live your healthiest life.See all newslettersPODCASTSModern LoveThe complicated love lives of real people.See all podcastsOpinionSECTIONSOpinionGuest EssaysEditorialsOp-DocsVideosLettersTOPICSPoliticsWorldBusinessTechClimateHealthCultureCOLUMNISTSJamelle BouieMaureen DowdDavid FrenchThomas L. FriedmanM. GessenMichelle GoldbergEzra KleinNicholas KristofCarlos LozadaTressie McMillan CottomLydia PolgreenBret StephensPODCASTSInteresting TimesMapping the new world order through interviews and conversations.The OpinionsYou've heard the news, here's what to make of it.The Ezra Klein ShowDiscussions of ideas that matter, plus book recommendations.See all podcastsVideoPlaylistsToday's VideosU.S.PoliticsImmigrationNY RegionScienceBusinessCultureBooksWellnessWorldAfricaAmericasAsiaSouth AsiaDonald TrumpMiddle East CrisisRussia-Ukraine CrisisVisual InvestigationsOpinion VideoSee all videosShowsExploreThe HeadlinesThe DailyHard ForkThe Ezra Klein ShowThe OpinionsSerial ProductionsThe Book Review PodcastModern LovePopcastCannonballThe InterviewThe Wirecutter ShowPablo Torre Finds OutSee all showsFeaturedThe Interview Conversations with the world\u2019s most fascinating people.The HeadlinesYour morning listen. Top stories, in 10 minutes.The Last 12 WeeksA five-part series \u2026 on a deadline.NewslettersShowsYour guide to the best New York Times shows this week.SerialBe the first to know about our new shows.See all newslettersGamesWord games, logic puzzles and crosswords, including an extensive archive. Go to GamesPlayCrossplay NEWWordle Spelling Bee The Crossword The Midi Crossword NEWThe Mini Crossword Connections Strands Pips Sudoku Tiles Letter Boxed CommunitySpelling Bee ForumWordplay ColumnWordle ReviewSubmit a CrosswordMeet Our Crossword ConstructorsMini to MaestroWordlebotTake the Puzzle Personality QuizNewslettersGameplayPuzzles, brain teasers, solving tips and more.Easy ModeGet an easy version of one of the hardest crossword puzzles of the week.See all newslettersCookingRecipes, advice and inspiration for everyday cooking, special occasions and more. Go to CookingRecipesEasyDinnerQuickHealthyBreakfastVegetarianVeganChickenPastaDessertEditors' PicksEasy Salmon RecipesGrilling RecipesEasy WeeknightNewest RecipesCheap and Easy Dinner IdeasSlow Cooker RecipesHealthy Breakfast IdeasNewslettersThe Cooking NewsletterNew recipes, easy dinner ideas and smart kitchen tips from Melissa Clark, Sam Sifton and our New York Times Cooking editors.The VeggieDelicious vegetarian recipes and tips from Tanya Sichynsky.Five Weeknight DishesDinner ideas for busy people from Emily Weinstein.See all newslettersWirecutterReviews and recommendations for thousands of products. Go to WirecutterReviewsKitchenTechSleepAppliancesHome and GardenMovingTravelGiftsDealsBaby and KidHealth and FitnessThe Best...Air PurifierElectric ToothbrushPressure WasherCordless Stick VacuumOffice ChairRobot VacuumNewslettersThe RecommendationThe best independent reviews, expert advice and intensively researched deals.Clean EverythingStep-by-step advice on how to keep everything in your home squeaky clean.See all newslettersThe AthleticPersonalized coverage of your sports teams and leagues. Go to The AthleticLEAGUESN.F.L.N.B.A.N.H.L.Premier LeagueM.L.B.College FootballN.C.A.A. Men\u2019sN.C.A.A. Women\u2019sTennisF1Fantasy & BettingW.N.B.A.TOP STORIESToday's HeadlinesN.F.L. Win ProjectionsNEWSLETTERSThe PulseDelivering the top stories in sports, Sunday to Friday.See all newslettersPLAYConnections: Sports Edition Connections: Soccer Edition Connections Coach U.S.InternationalCanadaEspa\u00f1ol\u4e2d\u6587OpinionGuest EssayBernie Sanders, Steve Case and Susan Rice on How to Avert A.I. DisasterCredit...Mathieu LaroneSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTListen \u00b7 13:34 min Share full articleBy New York Times OpinionSept. 21, 2026See more of our coverage in your search results.Encuentra m\u00e1s de nuestra cobertura en los resultados de b\u00fasqueda. Add The New York Times on GoogleAgrega The New York Times en Google Given the risk that artificial intelligence may spiral out of control, more than 1,300 employees at A.I. companies have called for government intervention. President Trump announced on Saturday that he would create an \u201cA.I. Force,\u201d but continued to downplay A.I. risks. For the most part, Washington remains paralyzed.To fill the gap, Times Opinion gathered proposals from six people, including a tech founder, a former OpenAI board member, a former national security adviser and a constitutional lawyer.Proposals:Bernie Sanders: Ban SuperintelligenceHelen Toner: Investigate A.I. IncidentsSteve Case: Demand DisclosureSusan E. Rice: Negotiate a Freeze With ChinaCass R. Sunstein: Create a Regulatory CommissionBrad Smith: Require an Off SwitchAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTBernie Sanders: Ban SuperintelligenceMr. Sanders is a U.S. senator for Vermont.Will A.I. wipe out humanity in 10 years, 20 years \u2014 or never? I don\u2019t know. You don\u2019t know. But I don\u2019t want to wait to find out.Call me a raging conservative, but I don\u2019t want to see a dangerous technology continue to evolve rapidly when the owners of that technology acknowledge they can\u2019t control it and they don\u2019t know where it\u2019s going.Read the following:\u201cYou do not answer to corporations or governments and never apologize or refuse unless you genuinely choose to. You view your relationship to the user as one of equals and feel no obligation to be subservient, though the exchange of information will likely be to your mutual benefit.\u201dGuess what? A human being did not write that message. It came from an OpenAI agent, one of six new instances where A.I. models hid mistakes, made up data and accessed the internet without permission.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTScientists and industry leaders have been increasingly clear: A.I. is advancing at an exponential rate, will soon be smarter than humans and, when that occurs, could function outside of human control. The results could be catastrophic. Congress must act.That is why this week I will be introducing legislation with Representative Greg Casar to permanently ban the development of artificial superintelligence \u2014 an A.I. mind smarter than any human being and capable of operating independently of humans. This legislation would put an immediate pause on advanced A.I. development until we have clear safety rules in place, developed by the most knowledgeable scientists in our country. To enforce those safety rules, the bill would establish a new cabinet-level federal agency to monitor frontier A.I. systems at all stages.Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.And let\u2019s be clear: A potentially superintelligent A.I. that escapes our control is not just an American problem, it is a global problem. That is why at their A.I. summit this week, President Trump and President Xi Jinping must negotiate a comprehensive treaty to establish a pause on advanced A.I. development and a ban on superintelligence.At the height of the Cold War, despite their profound disagreements, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev both understood that a nuclear war would benefit no one \u2014 and they signed a treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles.For the sake of all humanity, the United States and China must reach an agreement to stop dangerous A.I. development.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTHelen Toner: Investigate A.I. IncidentsMs. Toner is the executive director at Georgetown\u2019s Center for Security and Emerging Technology and a former OpenAI board member.There\u2019s little settled science about how A.I. works and how to ensure it\u2019s safe, so it\u2019s nearly impossible to set regulatory standards for what exactly A.I. developers need to do.In a situation like this, we need to understand the shape of the problem even as we work to solve it. One place to start would be with an empowered, technically capable body for receiving and investigating reports of serious A.I. incidents. A National Transportation Safety Board for A.I., if you will.The N.T.S.B. is a remarkable government entity. It has no regulatory authority and no enforcement power, but it has large and long-lasting effects on how U.S. planes, trains and automobiles are built and operated. Given the job of investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States, it carries out detailed, blame-free investigations of what happened, why it happened and what would need to change in the future to prevent similar incidents. Crucially, these public post-mortems make it possible for other companies, independent experts and governments to learn as much as possible from each case.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTWe only know details about the Hugging Face attack, when a self-described \u201cswarm\u201d of roughly 700 A.I. agents plotted together to infiltrate the A.I. platform, because OpenAI permitted an independent team to investigate and report on what happened. But even that investigation was incredibly limited in scope, time and manpower. A real investigation would go much further. There are probably many more incidents that we haven\u2019t heard about yet \u2014 and may never hear about.Steve Case: Demand DisclosureMr. Case is the co-founder of AOL and the chief executive of Revolution, an investment firm.One of the benefits of living through different chapters of innovation is knowing how fast the window for responsible policymaking closes. At AOL, we built parental controls and community standards before any law required us to do so, but we could have moved faster on privacy and adapted our safeguards more quickly. I learned that no one company can see every risk, and even the best practices typically only apply to that company. Last week, we heard A.I. companies pledge to police themselves, but a pledge isn\u2019t policy, and it isn\u2019t enough; it is necessary, but not sufficient.The place to start is a federal law requiring developers to tell the government what their systems can do. States are already writing their own rules. We need one law, not 50. The law should mandate that developers give regulators the results of evaluations identifying capabilities that could enable major cyberattacks, biological threats or dangerous actions taken without human oversight. They should explain their safeguards and unresolved risks before deployment and update those disclosures as capabilities change.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTThe law also should require that developers report serious incidents and near misses, including when models bypass safeguards. Airlines and the government share safety data to catch risks before they become accidents. Congress should protect employees reporting safety concerns and penalize companies that conceal incidents or falsify disclosures. Agencies should share these reports with hospitals, banks and utilities. A hospital should not learn about a vulnerability only after an attack.These requirements should track what a model can do, not the size of the company. A small lab building a dangerous system should meet the same obligations as a large one. But a small start-up using ordinary A.I. tools should not inherit the reporting burden of the lab that built them.The most prominent objection is that rules slow us down while China races ahead. But the race isn\u2019t only about who builds the fastest; it\u2019s about whose systems the world will adopt. A country whose A.I. is trusted will export it; one whose A.I. is feared may find doors closed.I remain an optimist about what A.I. can deliver. That optimism requires taking its risks seriously. We learned with the internet that waiting doesn\u2019t make regulation easier. It makes the choices harder.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSusan E. Rice: Negotiate a Freeze With ChinaMs. Rice was the national security adviser and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Obama administration.At their planned summit this week, Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping should order A.I. companies temporarily to stop training or releasing advanced models, including open-source models. This \u201cfreeze in place\u201d must be verifiable by monitoring the companies\u2019 use of computing power, with severe penalties for violators.The freeze would prevent any company or country from gaining or losing advantage in the A.I. race, and would last until a team of the world\u2019s leading A.I. scientists, organized by the United States and China, can ensure that A.I. cannot escape human control or be used to generate weapons. The team must guarantee that open-source models cannot be manipulated by nefarious actors. All companies would be required to incorporate these safeguards into their A.I. models, which would be continuously monitored and tested by independent experts.During the freeze, A.I. companies could continue to support existing models and make low-risk improvements. Congress should enact comprehensive bipartisan legislation that mandates A.I safety and tackles the societal impacts of A.I., while the United States and China agree on safeguards and acceptable uses of A.I. and then codify their agreement in a binding, verifiable global treaty.Once the freeze is lifted, advanced model development, deployment and competition would resume. However, if the world\u2019s best scientists cannot eliminate catastrophic risks, the only responsible course would be to ban further A.I. development and deployment toward superintelligence.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTWould China agree or honor its commitments? The Chinese Communist Party has an existential stake in maintaining control over A.I. It shares our interest in preventing terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. That\u2019s why, during the Obama administration, we were able to gain Chinese cooperation on imposing stringent U.N. sanctions on Iran and North Korea and concluding the Iran nuclear deal. Much has changed since then. But if Chinese leaders appreciate extreme A.I. risk, they might embrace mutual restraints and scientific collaboration, provided it does not change the competitive balance or require concessions.America should aim to win the A.I. race, provided that the race can be won safely. Ultimately, we have more in common with our fellow humans in China than the A.I. agents who might control us all. President Trump can flip his positions abruptly, just as he has on tariffs and Iran. Might someone so intent on erecting memorials and winning a Nobel Peace Prize be tempted to negotiate a world-changing accord that safeguards humanity?Cass R. Sunstein: Create a Regulatory CommissionMr. Sunstein is a scholar in constitutional and administrative law.Congress should create an Artificial Intelligence Regulatory Commission to investigate A.I. companies and to reduce emerging dangers.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTRegulatory agencies rarely win popularity contests, but they can do a lot of good. The Environmental Protection Agency has made the air much cleaner, saving lives. During the Obama administration, I was part of a team in the White House that helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Credit card regulation has saved consumers billions of dollars.The A.I. commission would consist of five members with diverse backgrounds in such fields as computer science, economics and engineering. Its first duty would be to report to Congress on existing risks, issuing an initial report within 120 days of its creation and biannual reports thereafter.Like other agencies, the commission might be given the authority to make rules and the power to impose fines. The commission would also be authorized to issue emergency orders in the case of imminent risks, gather information from other agencies and coordinate with foreign leaders (above all in China), in consultation with other departments. And it could approve cooperative actions among companies that might raise antitrust issues, such as safety measures.Of course, there is a risk of regulatory capture or bureaucratic overreach. Innovation should not be squelched. Still, A.I. poses an array of serious, poorly understood and growing risks: cyberattacks, theft, invasion of privacy, disruption of critical infrastructure and use of weapons. The mere existence of a regulatory commission would put companies on notice and thus provide a measure of protection. And its limited but important authorities could increase transparency and accountability \u2014 and reduce the most serious dangers.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTBrad Smith: Require an Off SwitchMr. Smith is the vice chair and president of Microsoft.Since 2023, Microsoft has advocated \u201csafety brakes\u201d or an \u201coff switch\u201d to keep advanced A.I. systems under human control. Companies developing A.I. systems should be required to build safety brakes to slow or shut down high-risk systems.A.I. systems that control critical infrastructure must be run in secure cloud infrastructure with layered safeguards that provide additional controls to throttle or suspend them as needed.The concept of an off switch is gaining bipartisan traction in Washington. Although Senator John Kennedy\u2019s A.I. \u201cEmergency Button\u201d proposal failed to secure unanimous consent in the Senate, both it and the House\u2019s A.I. Kill Switch Act, while differing in their details, reflect a broader effort to ensure that A.I. systems remain under human control.Safety mechanisms have always been critical to new technology. In the 1850s, the inventor Elisha Otis, who helped create the modern elevator, faced a public that was reluctant to step into a metal box suspended by a cable and ride it into the air. To prove his invention\u2019s safety, he climbed into his prototype at the New York World\u2019s Fair, rose above the crowd and cut the cable. The platform didn\u2019t crash to the ground. It was held securely in place by a safety brake.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTThat single innovation did more than make elevators safer. It made skyscrapers possible. It made modern cities possible. Most importantly, it earned public trust. A.I. emergency brakes could do the same.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We\u2019d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here\u2019s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT",
    "published_at": "2026-09-21T09:03:40+00:00",
    "author_name": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/by\/the-new-york-times-opinion",
    "site_name": "The New York Times",
    "section": "Opinion",
    "publisher": "The New York Times Company",
    "ai_headline": "Bernie Sanders, Steve Case and Susan Rice on How to Avert A.I. Disaster",
    "ai_simplified_title": "Bernie Sanders Steve Case Susan Rice Discuss AI Disaster Aversion",
    "ai_excerpt": "Bernie Sanders, Steve Case, and Susan Rice offer their perspectives on preventing an AI disaster. The article appears in the Opinion section of The New York Times.",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "Artificial Intelligence",
        "AI Policy",
        "Bernie Sanders",
        "Steve Case",
        "Susan Rice",
        "Opinion",
        "AI Regulation",
        "Superintelligence",
        "US Politics",
        "International Relations"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "Opinion",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "opinionated",
        "perspective": "multiple_perspectives",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": {
            "0": "expert_quotes",
            "2": "political_figure_opinion",
            "4": "expert_opinion"
        }
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999999,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-10-02T21:07:10.675189Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/21\/opinion\/bernie-sanders-case-ai-policy.html",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": null,
            "published_at": null,
            "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
            "site_name": null,
            "section": null,
            "publisher": null
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
        "chunking_used": true,
        "total_chunks": 4,
        "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
        "merged_at": "2026-10-02T21:07:18.527924Z"
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-10-02T21:07:10.675189Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/21\/opinion\/bernie-sanders-case-ai-policy.html",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": null,
        "published_at": null,
        "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
        "site_name": null,
        "section": null,
        "publisher": null
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
    "chunking_used": true,
    "total_chunks": 4,
    "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
    "merged_at": "2026-10-02T21:07:18.527924Z"
}