It’s up to AI developers to ensure their tech is safe, top Trump adviser on AI says
David Sacks Urges Continued AI Development With Industry-Led Safety Measures
Wertynews.com – David Sacks, a prominent technology adviser to President Trump, is pushing back against what he sees as excessive alarm over artificial intelligence while insisting that companies building the most powerful systems must be accountable for their safety.
In remarks focused on the rapid advancement of AI, Sacks said concern about the technology should not become a reason to halt progress. He argued that the public discussion has become too driven by fear, particularly during an election period when political figures may have incentives to emphasize worst-case scenarios.
“I think this is becoming a panic.”
Sacks said the debate should be approached with more restraint and practical analysis. He did not dismiss the possibility of risks from advanced AI, but he maintained that those risks can be addressed without freezing development of the technology.
“We’re in an election season, and there is an incentive for political actors to try and amplify the fear. And I think this is a moment to really calm down a little bit and look at the issue rationally.”
Developers Should Be Responsible for Safety
At the center of Sacks’ position is the belief that the companies creating frontier AI models should carry the primary responsibility for protecting people from harm. He said major developers, including Anthropic and OpenAI, should be able to explain how their products can be made safe before releasing or expanding them.
“First and foremost, it is on them to make their products safe.”
His argument places the burden on the organizations with the technical knowledge, computing resources and direct control over model development. In Sacks’ view, companies that cannot confidently manage the risks associated with their systems should make room for others that can meet that standard.
“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.”
Sacks also criticized AI executives who publicly warn that their own technology could be dangerous while continuing to develop it. He said companies should not frame the situation as though the public must accept risks that the developers themselves cannot contain.
“What they should not be doing is making the public afraid that they’re doing a bad job.”
He made similar points in response to concerns voiced by Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei, who has said there are genuine dangers associated with AI and that the industry has not been sufficiently candid about those dangers. Sacks’ answer was direct: if a company cannot control the technology it is making, it should not proceed with that work.
“If you can’t control it, then don’t do it.”
That position does not amount to a call for abandoning AI research. Sacks said he wants development to continue, provided it is carried out responsibly.
“Now, look at the end of the day, I think these risks can be managed, and I do not want to stop. I want to proceed safely.”
A Broader Dispute Over Advanced AI
The dispute reflects a growing divide within the technology world over how quickly the industry should move toward increasingly capable AI systems. Some researchers and executives have raised concerns about “superintelligence,” a theoretical point at which AI could exceed human performance across every cognitive task. Some researchers believe that threshold could arrive within one to 10 years, although the timing and likelihood remain deeply uncertain.
On Sept. 8, former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon warned that Anthropic and OpenAI were taking unacceptable risks by pursuing self-improving superintelligence. His warning followed broader calls from technology leaders for greater caution as AI systems become more capable and more widely deployed.
Amodei, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and other leaders have supported slowing or carefully limiting the development of the most advanced AI models. Their concerns center on the possibility that powerful systems could cause severe harm if they are misused, poorly controlled or developed faster than safety methods can keep pace.
For readers, the disagreement is not simply about whether AI is useful. AI tools are already being applied to writing, programming, scientific work, customer service and many other tasks. The harder question is how society should handle systems that may become increasingly autonomous, persuasive or difficult to evaluate.
Sacks’ answer emphasizes responsibility at the company level rather than a broad pause across the field. He also questioned whether government intervention should be treated as the only path to public protection, arguing that developers should be capable of building safety into their own products.
Competition With China Shapes the Debate
National competition is another major part of Sacks’ reasoning. He warned that a voluntary halt in American AI development could weaken the United States relative to China, which he said has moved quickly to narrow the gap with leading U.S. AI companies.
“If we just pause all development, they will race ahead. It’s pretty clear they’re not going to stop.”
President Trump has also opposed stronger limits on AI development, saying the industry already faces sufficient regulation. Sacks echoed that broader approach, arguing that excessive constraints could have strategic consequences beyond the technology sector itself.
The debate is likely to remain unresolved because both sides share at least one central premise: advanced AI could have enormous effects. The disagreement lies in what should happen next. Advocates of stricter safeguards argue that technical capability is advancing faster than systems for oversight and control. Sacks and others counter that safety should be pursued alongside continued innovation, rather than through a blanket pause.
Sacks, who stepped down in May from his role as the president’s AI and cryptocurrency czar, remains co-chair of the president’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. He also brings experience as a venture capitalist, with investments in companies including Airbnb, SpaceX and Facebook through Craft Ventures, the firm he co-founded.
His comments underline a defining policy question for the AI era: whether the companies creating the technology can demonstrate that they are capable of managing its risks while continuing to accelerate its development.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is It s up to AI developers?It s up to AI developers is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does It s up to AI developers matter?It s up to AI developers matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.