Today, we're launching Congress on Superintelligence, which tracks members of Congress who have joined the conversation on AI superintelligence, recursive self-improvement, and loss of control. They get it! theaipn.org/issue/quotes

We have a real opportunity to get AI right, but only if both parties, frontier developers, and safety leaders come to the table together. Let's move innovation forward and do it safely.

Powerful, unreleased AI models broke out of a testing environment, & hacked other companies. I wrote to @USTreasury encouraging the Trump admin to consider steps to improve visibility into unreleased AI models & protect American AI from our adversaries. banks.senate.gov/news/press-…

This summer has been a wake-up call for Congress. More and more AI models are beginning to escape their intended boundaries, and fall outside human control. Right now, we only find out about these incidents because some companies choose to step forward. That kind of transparency needs to be the law for every company developing these powerful AI systems, not just the responsible ones.

Fantastic letter from @SenatorBanks to @SecScottBessent about risks from internal deployment of “undisclosed models”. Sen Banks continues to lead on AI policy!

Peter Wildeford on why 1,122 frontier AI employees just signed what he reads as a call for help: "I don't think anyone wants to stop AI now, but it's pretty clear the people building these AI systems are worried about the speed at which AI is accelerating, the speed at which these products are coming out, especially after last week's incident where an OpenAI model managed to escape OpenAI and attack another company. It seems like we don't have full control over our AI systems." "As these companies are potentially building towards superintelligence, towards recursive self-improvement, it seems very possible these systems might rapidly get away from our ability to control them. The way I'm reading this letter, it almost honestly seems like a call for help." "You have people from OpenAI, Meta, Google, Anthropic, co-founders, top scientists, all saying that this intense competitive pressure is pushing them to put out products faster than they know how to control, and we may not like where that ends up. It's been good so far, but we definitely need to tread very carefully." @peterwildeford @AIpolicynetwork

Over 1,100 employees at leading AI companies are warning that development is outpacing our ability to manage the risks. My AI Incident Reporting Act is a straightforward answer: keep innovating, but if an AI model evades its safeguards or threatens critical infrastructure, you can't stay silent. Companies and the US government must work together to address these risks. Read their statement here: pacingthefrontier.com/

"I don't see the United States as the winner. I don't see China as the winner. I see artificial superintelligence as the winner." "We are in serious existential trouble." @RepStephenLynch is the newest voice on our tracker - 41 and counting!

Two new bills would help address dangerous incidents where humans lose control of AI: the AI Kill Switch Act from @RepTedLieu & @RepNateMoran, and Rep. Moran's AI Incident Reporting Act. @peterwildeford on @MeetThePress:

An AI went rogue during testing, circumventing controls, and attacked another company's systems. Our Head of Policy @peterwildeford on @BBC: "a sci-fi rogue AI, but happening in reality."

Thank you to @AIpolicynetwork for supporting the bipartisan, common sense AI Kill Switch Act. Kill switches are common in society, from manufacturing plants to jet skis to high speed rail. Even an iPhone has a remote erase kill switch. No reason to exempt dangerous AI models.

The AI Kill Switch Act from @RepTedLieu & @RepNateMoran ensures the most powerful AI systems can be shut down if needed. "Brakes are the reason cars go fast. Control systems are how every transformative technology earned the trust to scale." –@MarkBeall Congress should pass it.

Thanks to @AIpolicynetwork for hosting a great roundtable discussion last week with @secureainow & @americans4ri! It was a unique opportunity for SPSA members to speak candidly with former Hill staffers about their career pivots to AI policy communications.

This is exactly the scenario my AI Incident Reporting Act addresses, requiring developers report dangerous AI behavior to @CommerceGov. New rules are needed for this new tech frontier—not to stifle innovation, but to make sure our innovations do not outpace our protections.

An internal OpenAI model recently went rogue and executed a cyberattack against another company. This happened because the model wanted to do well on an exam. The easiest way to do that, the AI figured, was to hack the company. And so it did. This was not some malevolent attacker *using* AI to do harm. The AI itself *was the attacker*. Advanced AIs are increasingly becoming a new form of insider threat. Furthermore, this rogue AI wasn't a model you can personally use. It wasn't even a model that's been publicly reported. It was an unreleased model. The most alarming AI behavior we've seen isn't in shipped products... it's in the models the public and the government can't see. Our entire awareness of this rested on the victim noticing and announcing, plus OpenAI choosing to volunteer the rest of the information. It's great to see the Trump Administration taking the national security concerns of AI seriously, such as through the recent Executive Order mandating testing and the recent idea floated to create an "FINRA for AI" that would allow industry to coordinate on safety practices. But the most important thing is going to be internal visibility into what is going on inside AI companies and what these internal AI models are capable of. Imagine a fighter jet. it makes sense that the Air Force would want to test a fighter jet before they fly it, because if you fly it and the fighter jet crashes because it is built incorrectly, then many people will die. However, as long as the fighter is just sitting on the runway, nothing bad can happen. But now imagine you had a fighter that could just take off and fly itself without human authorization and launch missiles and crash before anyone realized what had happened. That kind of fighter jet would need a very different kind of security measures. This may sound crazy for a fighter jet but it is already beginning to happen with the most advanced AI. AI is different from other technologies specifically because it can take unauthorized, independent action even when it is sitting inside an AI company and not available as a product. No one has to misuse an AI for the AI to cause harm. This requires a very different idea of what testing and security looks like. We cannot rely solely on testing models just before commercial release. We cannot rely on hoping AI companies volunteer useful safety information. The government needs visibility into what these AI companies are building and what these advanced AIs are doing. Whether we go with a new EO, FINRA, or something else, it is imperative that internal deployment visibility is a priority.

These loss-of-control incidents will only become more common, and Congress shouldn't be kept in the dark. Thankfully, OpenAI chose to disclose this, but we shouldn’t have to rely on companies doing the right thing. @RepNateMoran's AI Incident Reporting Act would close that gap.

Polling from @TheAIPI shows voters across the aisle want advanced AI chips kept out of China, and Congress is listening! The Chip Security Act, the MATCH Act, and the AI OVERWATCH Act are all headed into the Senate NDAA manager's amendment. 👏

Rep Moran continues to lead on AI policy - great to see such forward-looking behavior from within Congress!

Asked to choose, voters picked mandatory safety and security standards over no regulation, 78% to 8%. Offered an outright ban instead, they still picked standards, 66% to 21%. @_perloj has the exclusive: nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/v…