4 hours ago
4
Silicon Valley has spent years arguing that AI needs to move fast. The American public would like a word.
A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between September 24 and 27, 2026, found that 86% of US adults support requiring AI companies to meet safety standards, even if doing so slows technological progress.
The numbers behind the consensus
A full 91% of respondents said US guardrails for artificial intelligence are important.
When asked to choose between safety and innovation, 81% picked safety.
Some 73% of respondents expressed concern that AI could pose a threat to human survival.
The poll found 53% believe AI will do more harm than good in daily life.
Trust is the missing ingredient
Among the recent survey findings, 74% of people said they have little or no trust in AI companies to regulate themselves.
A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll from September 2026 points in the same direction. It found 73% of respondents say AI firms are not doing enough to prevent harm to society.
The Quinnipiac results specifically point toward independent safety benchmarks, meaning a third party or government checks the work rather than companies grading their own homework.
Not a new mood
A 2025 poll from Gallup and the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) found 80% of respondents favored rules on AI safety and data security, even if those rules slowed the development of new capabilities.
Compare that with Quinnipiac’s 86% this year, and the trend is steady to rising.
The bipartisan flavor of this support stands out. AI oversight has drawn backing from across the political spectrum, partly because of geopolitical concerns, including the intensifying competition between the US and China over AI technology.
What this means for AI companies and investors
Compliance is not free. Firms may need to shift resources toward safety testing and documentation, which could weigh on short-term profitability if mandatory standards take hold.
With 74% saying they distrust industry self-policing, credibility is scarce. Firms that can credibly demonstrate safety could be better positioned once a regulated landscape takes shape.
For policymakers, the polling removes one common excuse for inaction. It is difficult to argue that voters are split when 91% call guardrails important and 86% accept slower progress in exchange for safety standards.
The open questions are practical ones: who designs the benchmarks, who enforces them, and how strict they become will determine whether this public consensus turns into meaningful rules or stays a strongly worded survey result.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Diego Almada Lopez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·