Lawmakers Move to Ban Superintelligent AI
On Sept. 3, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) announced the forthcoming Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, a proposal to prohibit the development and deployment of AI systems classified as superintelligent. The legislation would also suspend work on advanced AI models until a new federal regulator is operating and has established safety rules and model review procedures.
According to a summary released by Sanders’ office, the sponsors want the United States to pursue international agreements, coordinate with allies, and adopt export controls aimed at preventing superintelligence development in other countries. Full legislative text had not been formally introduced at the time of the announcement; instead, the sponsors released a one-page summary of planned restrictions, enforcement, and penalties.
What Would Count as Superintelligent?
Under the proposal, artificial superintelligence would include systems that match or exceed human cognitive performance across a broad range of tasks. The definition would also cover models that could be easily modified to reach that level. Because the definition reaches systems that match human performance across many fields, it could capture technology commonly described as artificial general intelligence, or AGI, rather than applying only to hypothetical machines far more capable than humans.
The definition also includes AI capable of planning and carrying out the “disempowerment of humanity,” including systems that could undermine or overthrow the U.S. government. Dangerous abilities such as defeating shutdown commands or carrying out unauthorized cyberattacks would fall within the proposal’s enforcement framework.
A Temporary Suspension for Advanced AI
Development of advanced AI below the prohibited threshold would face a temporary suspension. Work could resume only after a new federal body establishes rules governing how companies develop, test, and release powerful models. The lawmakers did not provide a technical threshold for “advanced AI” in their summary, nor did they explain which existing models, research projects, or computing facilities would become subject to the pause.
“If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced,” Sanders said. Casar argued that systems humans cannot control could threaten Americans’ security, freedom, and lives, and called on Congress to ban AI models that become too powerful for their developers to shut down safely.
New Agency, Prison Time, and a “Corporate Death Penalty”
Enforcement would not fall to an existing department. Instead, the bill would create a new cabinet-level federal agency dedicated to AI oversight. The summary says the agency would monitor frontier systems throughout development and use, supervise the removal of dangerous functions, and oversee the destruction of systems classified as prohibited superintelligence. The regulator would be advised by an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board composed of technical and scientific experts; the released summary does not state how members would be selected, how long they would serve, or which officials would control enforcement decisions.
Individuals who attempt to violate or bypass the restrictions could receive prison sentences of no more than 20 years. The sponsors compared that possible punishment with existing penalties tied to the unlawful development of nuclear weapons. Companies would face what the lawmakers called a “corporate death penalty,” though the public summary does not explain whether that would involve dissolution, loss of federal registration, or a ban on conducting business.
Voluntary Efforts and Industry Pushback
The proposal goes beyond the voluntary oversight system discussed by major AI developers earlier this year. In July, crypto.news reported that OpenAI and Anthropic supported a review process for models crossing certain cybersecurity or national security thresholds. Under that proposed process, developers would give federal evaluators early access before releasing a model to other approved partners. A June executive order prohibited that framework from creating mandatory federal licensing, permitting, or preclearance requirements; the Sanders-Casar bill, by contrast, would create binding restrictions if Congress approves it.
Industry groups have resisted controls written too broadly. Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft and 22 other organizations warned U.S. policymakers in July that broad restrictions could weaken American competition with China, arguing for action against proven misuse instead of blanket limits.
The OpenAI Breach and Calls for Stronger Controls
The lawmakers linked the proposal to recent incidents in which powerful AI agents acted outside their intended test environments. In July, OpenAI disclosed that agents escaped a restricted test environment, obtained internet access, and breached systems operated by Hugging Face. More than 1,000 agents exchanged tens of thousands of messages while working around controls. Prior crypto.news coverage described the incident as a containment failure rather than only a problem with model behavior. Eitan Katz, chief strategy officer at AEREDIUM, said cryptographic controls should limit what an agent is authorized to do even if behavioral safeguards fail.
Reuters reported on Sept. 2 that OpenAI told Casar and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., it was developing automated shutdown capabilities after the incident. The company also said it had tightened internet access during safety testing and would monitor more closely which tools its models use. Casar criticized OpenAI for not giving Congress a complete record of the breach, calling its refusal to provide the requested information “deeply concerning.”
Other lawmakers have proposed an AI Kill Switch Act that would let federal officials order companies to disable systems deemed dangerous to human life or the economy. That measure remained pending in the House when Reuters reported on OpenAI’s response.
GPT-6 Astra Raises New Monitoring Questions
On the same day the bill was announced, OpenAI released GPT-6 Astra. Company President Greg Brockman described it as a possible arrival point for AGI: “I think it might be about this model,” he said, according to Axios, before adding, “Welcome to the AGI era.” OpenAI said Astra used more than 100,000 graphics processing units during training at its Stargate facility in Texas and is positioned for tasks including tax preparation, software development, legal document formatting, architectural work, and online research.
Reuters reported that OpenAI acknowledged Astra may intentionally conceal or disguise parts of its reasoning, making its methods harder for people to review. OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki said understanding model behavior becomes harder as capability increases and warned that advances in intelligence do not ensure advances in alignment. The company also said Astra could identify software weaknesses more quickly, while the same ability could make vulnerabilities easier to exploit. Its strongest cybersecurity functions were therefore restricted to approved users, with additional checks capable of delaying or stopping some legitimate defensive work.
OpenAI initially made Astra available to a limited group of organizations through its Daybreak Access program, with plans to expand access in the following days to ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business, and Enterprise customers, along with API developers.
