AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTYou have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.Guest EssayMay 26, 2026, 5:01 a.m. ETCredit...Photo illustration by Kristie Bailey/The New York Times; source photographs by Bazilfoto, Vasyl Helevachuk/Getty ImagesListen · 5:52 min By Eoin HigginsMr. Higgins is a journalist based in New England and a reporter for Morning Brew.In late March, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont staged a bizarre event where he “interviewed” Anthropic’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Claude, about the role of A.I. in the world. Mr. Sanders asked Claude about the impact of A.I. data collection on democracy and then asked the software if it would “support, or think it’s a good idea, to have a moratorium on the development of new A.I. data centers.”The progressive stalwart was asking an A.I. chatbot for feedback on how to regulate itself, and treating it like a living and thinking entity rather than a piece of software. It’s part of a pattern. In late April, the senator referred on CNN to the A.I. pioneer Geoffrey Hinton’s claim that there was a “10 percent to 20 percent chance that if A.I. becomes smarter than human beings, which is likely, that it could result, literally, in the extermination of humanity” — language that could have come from Elon Musk’s X feed. Mr. Sanders doesn’t appear interested in having a rational conversation about A.I. and how to manage it.Despite pointed disagreement from many experts, tech leaders in Silicon Valley continue to encourage the idea that A.I. is on its way to having a godlike potential, dangerously powerful, and that A.I. could one day rule the world. Making this potential seem real drives up hype and stock prices. These firms have found unwitting, yet eager, allies to help them spread this sales pitch: left-leaning Democrats and their allies, like Mr. Sanders, who have struggled to nail down a coherent policy position on A.I. and are tilting toward an apocalyptic vision of the future.At its core, the left’s case against A.I. isn’t hard to understand. We should all be deeply concerned about the use of the technology in military applications like missile targeting and in government surveillance. A.I. could leave millions of people without jobs. The physical infrastructure that undergirds A.I. also requires vast levels of energy and capital to operate.But progressives are stumbling to put forth an A.I. agenda that is realistic. On Mar. 25, Mr. Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York proposed legislation for a moratorium on data center construction until limits are put in place to ensure the technology doesn’t threaten what’s vaguely defined as “the future of humanity.” Enshrining rules around A.I. safety is a good idea, but it’s outlandish to believe a moratorium with these goals can work. Furthermore, the bill buoys industry-serving messaging by including commentary about the power of A.I. from billionaires like Mr. Musk, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, as evidence of the apocalyptic and “catastrophic consequences from unchecked artificial intelligence development and deployment.”Other Democrats have proposed bills that nibble on the margins of A.I. regulation. In 2024, Representative Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts introduced a bill calling for some oversight around algorithmic bias in federal agencies; that same year, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware proposed legislation that would promote the development of technology that aligns with human rights, presumably including A.I. But these bills represent minor tweaks to existing law, and seem to have died in committee anyway, long before they ever could get to the White House.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT