Americans Express Growing Fear and Concern Over AI
Left 75%
Center 25%
Right 0%
3 left · 1 center · 0 right
What happened
Several recent public-opinion surveys have measured attitudes toward artificial intelligence in the United States and other countries. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 73 percent of U.S. respondents did not agree that AI companies have implemented safeguards to prevent serious harm. A POLITICO poll conducted by Public First from Sept. 13 to 15 surveyed more than 2,000 adults each in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany and found pluralities supporting a pause on further AI development; more than half of respondents in each country said there was at least a moderate risk that AI could destroy humanity. A Gallup survey of about 1,000 people in each of 37 countries, conducted between April and July and commissioned by Microsoft, found that 74 percent of Americans reported worry about AI and that 68 percent of Americans who use AI daily were worried about it. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order accelerating implementation of new AI oversight standards and directing state agencies to explore whether a mandatory kill switch is needed for the most advanced models.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 4 articles
1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Gallup
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: survey, poll
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 23, 16:49 UTC by TechCrunch, naming its source. First document in the first report, from TechCrunch (survey).
- Not counted 1
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
Fox News reported it on 2026-09-22.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered growing public anxiety over AI, so their readers miss the central poll findings. Left-leaning coverage reports that most Americans think companies have not done enough to prevent disaster and that pluralities in several countries want a pause on further development. Seventy-three percent of Americans do not agree that firms have implemented safeguards to prevent serious harm, The Hill reports. Pluralities in Western countries support a pause to reduce risks rather than keep going for added benefits, Business Insider finds.
Left-leaning outlets also disagree with one another on emphasis. Some pieces lead with a development pause and disaster risk. Vox instead opens on whether AI can save lives and quotes a doctor calling healthcare "ripe for disruption."
Would people who favor a pause still want one if AI were credited with a new treatment they needed?
Bottom line
The anxiety story exists on the left as The Hill's 73 percent safeguards finding plus a Vox interview on hospital use, and right-leaning outlets have not reported it at all.
The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
- 73 percent of respondents did not agree that technology companies have implemented safeguards to prevent serious harm
- More than half of adults in every country surveyed said there was at least a moderate risk that the technology could destroy humanity
- 70 percent of adults say they are personally more worried than excited about the technology, with one notable exception for scientific research and medicine
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets presented the polls as evidence of widespread, often cross-partisan public demand for caution and stronger rules. The Hill led with the Reuters/Ipsos finding that 73 percent of Americans do not believe AI firms have done enough to prevent disaster. Business Insider, carrying a POLITICO/Public First poll, reported that pluralities in six Western countries want to pause further development, that most see at least a moderate risk AI could destroy humanity, and that many would accept their country falling behind if it meant greater safety. That coverage also noted warnings from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Elon Musk; pushback from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and former White House adviser David Sacks; President Donald Trump calling the warnings a “HOAX”; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen inviting labs to discuss pacing the frontier after the EU’s 2024 AI rules; a Pause AI demonstration in Brussels; and Newsom’s California order. Vox cited an NBC News/Decision Desk poll finding 70 percent of U.S. adults more worried than excited about AI, while featuring physician Dhruv Khullar on AI already used in medical note-taking, patient navigation, clinical decision support, and early-stage drug discovery.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on named surveys with stated methods (Reuters/Ipsos; POLITICO/Public First, with sample sizes, field dates, and a ±2.2-point margin of error; Gallup across 37 countries; NBC News/Decision Desk) plus identifiable actions and quotes from named officials and executives. Established facts include the poll results as published—high reported worry, plurality support for a pause in the six-country survey, and skepticism that companies have adequate safeguards—and Newsom’s executive order and the public statements attributed to Trump, von der Leyen, Amodei, Altman, Musk, Huang, and Sacks. Not established by the polling itself are whether AI poses an existential risk, whether a development pause is warranted, or whether industry warnings are genuine safety concerns or marketing. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for release of full questionnaires and crosstabs, additional state or federal regulatory text, and on-the-record responses from AI companies and the White House to the survey findings.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.