Future of Life Institute calls on every country to license and limit frontier AI
Nonprofit institute focused on risks from transformative technologies such as AI, in a statement by its President and CEO, Anthony Aguirre, published on its official website
“If they want to protect their citizens, every country must immediately implement and enforce: Licensing regimes that force AI companies to guarantee that systems are controllable and safe, both pre-development and pre-release. Liability for AI companies in general and criminal liability for executives if their systems cause significant harm. A halt to the development of the most dangerous capabilities, in particular recursive self-improvement. Exclusion of companies from their markets if those companies cannot comply with basic safety requirements.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
Official statement on the Future of Life Institute's website, dated September 24, 2026, attributed to its President and CEO Anthony Aguirre and responding to the opening week of the 81st UN General Assembly.
Before the quotation
The statement followed the opening week of the 81st UN General Assembly. It says a UN-backed scientific panel on AI warned that current safeguards are unravelling, that Secretary-General António Guterres called for responsible pacing of AI, and that President Trump rejected any international scheme to govern AI.
After the quotation
The statement goes on to say that AI companies have already lost control of their products and cannot be trusted to self-regulate, and that controllable AI tools can be built but are not the current trajectory.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Washington impose stronger safeguards on frontier AI?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The statement calls on every country to immediately implement and enforce licensing regimes, liability for AI companies and criminal liability for executives, a halt to the most dangerous capabilities and market exclusion for companies that cannot meet basic safety requirements. That is direct support for stronger frontier-AI safeguards, the policy this case asks about, so we labeled it Defended or excused. It is addressed to governments generally, not to Washington by name.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should Washington impose stronger safeguards on frontier AI?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Put more simply, the models are increasingly smart enough. They know when we’re watching them, and they change their behavior accordingly. So what they do when we are testing them, when we audit them, may not tell us what they’ll do in the wild. It surprises me that this counts as a radical proposal, but here it is: If you are losing your ability to evaluate the models you have now, maybe don’t let them build models you’ll be even less capable of controlling in the future. Important from @ezraklein”Read statement
OpenAI
“That is why we believe the United States should lead an effort to work together with countries around the world to develop global technical standards for frontier AI, including for RSI.”Read statement
“We need to be absolutely clear. Donald Trump is trying to forestall any meaningful limit on AI development, which even the people developing it say has a serious chance of dooming humanity, for one reason. The midterms. AI and its chips and data centers are the only thing keeping the stock market in the black right now. He doesn't want his 20-car pileup to get even worse as gas and grocery prices soar. He’s putting his short term political interests over the huge risk AI poses. And that’s what you’ll get if his stooges like Mike Rogers wins. Short-term, self-dealing liars.”Read statement