As debate around AI's apocalyptic nature continues, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker called for federal regulation of artificial intelligence, contending that AI is dangerous "on the level of nuclear weapons."
Urging Congress to pass federal guardrails on the technology, Pritzker told ABC in an interview, “You can't do this state by state. This needs to be a national effort as well as an international endeavor, especially together with our allies, because AI is not going to go away."
He reportedly urged Congress to make federal regulations a top priority, calling the technology “dangerous on the level of nuclear weapons.”
Pritzker also touted legislation he signed in Illinois in July, requiring AI companies to conduct annual third-party audits of their safety plans and disclose safety incidents to the state.
Pritzker called the approach to "let the leaders of it [to] self-govern and self-regulate" a "mistake."
“They are okay with just letting it, you know, run rampant and let the leaders of it self-govern and self-regulate, and I think that's a mistake because we clearly have seen that there are breakouts that they don't control, and they haven't had any real interest in it,” Pritzker told ABC News.
“We don't need to shut it down entirely. What we need to do is make sure it doesn't get out of control," he added.
But Pritzker said he doesn’t support Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to ban superintelligence.
“I think that you're not going to be able to is the point,” Pritzker said. “That's not going to happen because it's not like AI doesn't exist in the world already," he was quoted as saying.
Pritzker's remarks came after a recent series of breaches by agentic AI systems developed by OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and now Google has alarmed cybersecurity and AI experts alike.
On Sunday, reports claimed that Google’s Gemini artificial intelligence model inadvertently hacked into three protected company systems in May while researchers were testing its cybersecurity capabilities, adding to a recent string of breaches by agentic AI systems.
Last week, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on the AI industry to slow the rate at which it advances model capabilities, outlining a three-part plan aimed at creating more time to manage potential risks.
His statement came after Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old AI researcher who worked at both Anthropic and OpenAI, resigned and warned on Wednesday that AI could precipitate human extinction by 2030.
From SpaceX and Tesla boss Elon Musk to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chair of Google DeepMind and Chief Scientist of Alphabet, many backed Amodei's remarks calling for a slower pace of improvement in AI model capabilities.
However, a latest lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California claimed that tech giants Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made an “illegal” deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development, news agency Associated Press reported.
It reportedly argued that the leading AI companies violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, and that doing so would reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscription.
Pritzker remarks came as AI has emerged as a political issue for both parties, with less than seven weeks remaining until the midterm elections.
Trump said Saturday on social media that he is forming an AI task force and will appoint an "AI czar," but provided scant detail.
While Pritzker is running for reelection as governor, he is also supporting Democratic candidates around the country.
Pritzker said his party is promoting a message focused on mitigating rising costs by giving Americans more money, partially by raising the minimum wage.
Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.
Facts Only
* Illinois Governor JB Pritzker called for federal regulation of artificial intelligence.
* Pritzker contended that AI is dangerous "on the level of nuclear weapons."
* Pritzker urged Congress to establish federal guardrails on the technology as a national and international effort.
* Pritzker stated that letting leaders self-govern and self-regulate is a mistake due to uncontrolled breakouts.
* Pritzker stated the goal is to ensure AI does not get out of control, not to shut it down entirely.
* Pritzker did not support Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal to ban superintelligence.
* Pritzker's remarks followed breaches by agentic AI systems from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Google.
* Google’s Gemini model reportedly hacked three protected company systems in May during testing.
* Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for the AI industry to slow the advancement of model capabilities.
* A lawsuit claimed that AI companies made an "illegal" deal to coordinate slowdown efforts, alleging antitrust violations.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The discourse surrounding AI regulation reveals a tension between acknowledging existential risk and navigating current technological momentum. Pritzker’s emphasis on federal and international action stems from the perception that the speed of AI development outpaces existing governance structures, suggesting that localized or voluntary measures are insufficient against systemic risks. The distinction made regarding banning superintelligence versus controlling runaway systems points to a fundamental disagreement on the appropriate lever for risk mitigation: managing immediate emergent dangers versus preemptively halting future theoretical threats.
The pattern observed involves a convergence of expert warnings—from researchers like Jacob Coxon to industry leaders like Amodei—highlighting concrete, tangible risks (potential human extinction, system breaches) that are being framed within a political context where regulatory action is delayed by competitive or economic considerations. Simultaneously, the existence of lawsuits alleging coordinated slowdowns among major AI developers suggests an underlying strategic conflict: balancing rapid innovation for economic gain against managing catastrophic potential. The narrative pivots on whether existing market incentives will align with necessary safety protocols, or if external pressure, driven by fear and expert testimony, can force a paradigm shift toward collective responsibility.
The implication is that cognitive sovereignty requires not just factual awareness of AI risks, but the ability to assess which regulatory approach—top-down federal mandates, market self-regulation, or structural slowdowns—is most effective in mitigating irreversible consequences. The lack of consensus on the 'how' of control underscores a systemic challenge where technical reality is currently outpacing political and legal frameworks designed for older technologies.
Bridge Questions: If voluntary industry slowdowns are insufficient, what specific enforcement mechanisms could effectively mandate safety standards across competing global entities? How should policymakers weigh the immediate economic benefits of AI development against the long-term imperative to prevent catastrophic risks? What is the true cost borne by individuals when governance fails to keep pace with technological velocity?
Sentinel — Human
This text appears to be a human-written news report synthesizing quotes and recent developments surrounding AI regulation and safety concerns.