In Washington and Silicon Valley alike, the question of how fast humanity should move toward artificial intelligence is no longer merely technical — it has become a matter of national strategy and political identity. David Sacks, a senior technology adviser to President Trump, told CBS News that fears of AI posing an existential threat are being amplified beyond reason, and that the burden of safety belongs to the companies building these systems, not to governments imposing restraint. His argument arrives at a moment when some of the industry's own leaders are sounding alarms, creating a rare
Trump AI adviser says safety fears are 'panic,' urges companies to self-regulate
If you can't control it, then don't do it.
Mark
So Sacks is saying the safety concerns are just political theater?
Mimi
Not entirely. He acknowledges risks exist and need managing. But he thinks the panic is being amplified for election purposes, and that companies themselves—not regulators—should handle the controls.
Luke
But here's the thing: he's assuming companies *can* control what they're building. Amodei and Coxon are saying they're not sure they can. Those are two different factual claims, and we don't actually know which one is right.
Mark
What does Sacks think should happen if a company can't control its AI?
Mimi
He says they should step aside. "If you can't control it, then don't do it." But he also says he doesn't want to stop development—he wants to proceed safely.
Luke
That's the gap. He's saying companies should self-regulate and manage risks, but he's not saying what happens if they fail. Is there a backstop? Is there enforcement?
Mark
And the China argument—is that real?
Mimi
It's a real concern in policy circles. China is advancing quickly. If the U.S. slows down unilaterally, it does create a competitive gap.
Luke
True, but that's a strategic argument, not a safety argument. They're different things. You can believe both that China is a threat *and* that AI safety is urgent. Sacks seems to be using one to dismiss the other.
Mark
So what's actually at stake here?
Mimi
Whether we regulate AI development now, before we fully understand what we're building, or whether we trust companies to police themselves while racing to stay ahead of China.
Luke
And whether those two things are actually compatible.
Le Pouls
- A senior White House technology adviser is publicly dismissing AI existential fears as politically manufactured panic, putting him in direct conflict with the CEOs of the very companies building the technology.
- Anthropic's Dario Amodei and OpenAI's Sam Altman have both called for slower development, with a former Anthropic researcher warning that the race toward self-improving superintelligence is already reckless.
- Sacks fires back at Amodei directly: if you cannot control what you are building, stop building it — but do not use public fear as cover for your own failures of management.
- The geopolitical stakes sharpen the debate considerably, as Sacks argues that any American pause hands China a strategic advantage it will not hesitate to exploit.
- The fault line is now clear — safety as precaution versus safety as competitiveness — and U.S. AI policy is being shaped by which side of that line holds more political weight.
In Washington and Silicon Valley alike, the question of how fast humanity should move toward artificial intelligence is no longer merely technical — it has become a matter of national strategy and political identity. David Sacks, a senior technology adviser to President Trump, told CBS News that fears of AI posing an existential threat are being amplified beyond reason, and that the burden of safety belongs to the companies building these systems, not to governments imposing restraint. His argument arrives at a moment when some of the industry's own leaders are sounding alarms, creating a rare and consequential split between those who see caution as wisdom and those who see it as surrender.
David Sacks, a senior technology adviser to President Trump and co-chair of the administration's science and technology council, sat down with CBS News to deliver a pointed message: the alarm surrounding artificial intelligence has crossed from reasonable caution into something closer to panic, and that panic is being used in ways that serve neither the public nor the country.
Sacks acknowledged that some care is warranted, but he argued that the current climate has allowed fear to crowd out clear thinking. His prescription is not to slow down but to assign responsibility correctly — placing the obligation for safe AI squarely on the companies developing it. "If they can't do that, they should step aside for people who can," he said. He was equally critical of companies that, in his view, stoke public anxiety as a way of deflecting from their own inability to manage what they have built.
His position puts him in direct tension with some of the industry's most prominent voices. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told CBS News that real dangers exist and that the public has been misled about them. A former Anthropic researcher warned that both Anthropic and OpenAI are moving recklessly toward superintelligence. Sam Altman has also called for a slower pace. When pressed on whether AI systems might be beyond human control, Sacks was unsparing in his response to Amodei: "If you can't control it, then don't do it."
Yet Sacks stopped short of calling for any halt. "I think these risks can be managed, and I do not want to stop. I want to proceed safely," he said. Beneath that position lies a geopolitical calculation that has become central to the Trump administration's thinking: if the United States pauses, China will not. Sacks sees any constraint on American AI development as a strategic concession to a competitor that is closing the gap rapidly. In that framing, speed and safety are not opposites — hesitation is the real danger.
David Sacks, a senior technology adviser to President Trump, sat down with CBS News and made a direct argument: the fear that artificial intelligence could harm humanity is being blown out of proportion, weaponized by political actors, and used to justify caution where none is needed.
"I think this is becoming a panic," Sacks told CBS News senior business and technology correspondent Jo Ling Kent. He acknowledged that some caution is warranted, but he framed the current moment as one where rational thinking has given way to election-season fear-mongering. The solution, in his view, is not to slow down. It is to calm down and look clearly at what is actually happening.
Sacks' position puts him at odds with some of the industry's most prominent voices. In early September, Jacob Coxon, a former researcher at Anthropic, warned that both Anthropic and OpenAI were moving recklessly toward developing self-improving superintelligence. Around the same time, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told CBS News that real dangers exist with AI technology, and that the industry had misled the public about the risks involved. Amodei and other tech leaders, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have called for the industry to slow its development pace as a precaution against potential harms.
But Sacks rejects the premise that companies need government to step in. Instead, he places the burden squarely on the AI developers themselves. "First and foremost, it is on them to make their products safe," he said. "They should tell us how they should do that. If they can't do that, they should step aside for people who can do that." He added a sharper critique: companies should not be using public fear as a way to justify their own inability to manage the technology they have built. "What they should not be doing is making the public afraid that they're doing a bad job," he said.
When pressed on the idea that AI companies might not be able to control the systems they are developing, Sacks was blunt. "Why are you acting like this is something that you can't control?" he said, directing the comment at Amodei. "If you can't control it, then don't do it." Yet he stopped short of calling for a halt to AI development altogether. "I think these risks can be managed, and I do not want to stop. I want to proceed safely," he said.
Sacks brings a particular perspective to this debate. As a venture capitalist and co-founder of Craft Ventures, he has invested in some of technology's largest companies, including Airbnb, SpaceX, and Facebook. He currently serves as co-chair of Trump's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, though he stepped down from his role as the president's AI and cryptocurrency czar in May.
Underlying Sacks' argument is a geopolitical concern that has become central to how the Trump administration views AI development. He contends that if the United States pauses or significantly slows its AI work, China will not follow suit. China has been closing the gap with American AI companies at a rapid pace, and Sacks sees any constraint on U.S. development as a strategic gift to a competitor. "If we just pause all development, they will race ahead. It's pretty clear they're not going to stop," he said. This framing—safety versus speed, caution versus competitiveness—has become the central tension in how policymakers and industry leaders are thinking about AI's future. Sacks has positioned himself firmly on the side of speed.
Citations marquantes
I think this is becoming a panic. We're in an election season, and there is an incentive for political actors to try and amplify the fear.— David Sacks, Trump technology adviser
First and foremost, it is on them to make their products safe. If they can't do that, they should step aside for people who can do that.— David Sacks
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur CBS News ↗
Technology