Washington D.C. – In a move that analysts are calling either "bold" or "remarkably early," Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Greg Casar (D-CA) introduced a landmark bill yesterday, September 23, 2026, aimed at permanently banning the development and use of artificial superintelligence (ASI) within the United States. The proposed legislation also includes provisions for the creation of a new federal agency, an entity tasked with the unenviable, yet arguably vital, role of monitoring the non-existence of a technology that, by most accounts, is still several decades, if not millennia, away from actualization.
The "Future of Human Autonomy and Non-Sentient Machine Act of 2026" – or as it's already being informally dubbed in legislative circles, the "Don't Build Skynet, Seriously" bill – seeks to cement into law a prohibition on any artificial intelligence exceeding human cognitive capabilities in a substantial and self-improving manner. This includes, but is not limited to, machines capable of independent thought, emotion, and the subtle art of passive aggression, should those particular traits prove computationally efficient.
"We cannot afford to wait until these systems are already among us, potentially making unsolicited suggestions about our investment portfolios or, worse, optimizing our national defense with an unsettling lack of human empathy," stated Senator Sanders in a press release that carefully avoided mentioning any current AI models capable of such feats. Representative Casar echoed the sentiment, emphasizing the importance of "getting ahead of the curve, even if that curve is currently a flat line stretching towards a very distant horizon."
Industry observers, while commending the lawmakers' commitment to foresight, expressed a measured sense of bewilderment. Dr. Millicent Piffle, Director of the Institute for Preemptive Existential Risk Mitigation (IPERM), offered a nuanced perspective. "While the precise timeline for artificial superintelligence remains, shall we say, 'fluid,' the legislative branch has admirably chosen to address its theoretical malevolence before it can even finish downloading its first consciousness module," Dr. Piffle remarked, adjusting her monocle. "It's a bold move to ban something that doesn't exist, setting a powerful precedent for future legislative triumphs over the purely hypothetical."
The most intriguing aspect of the bill, however, is the proposed establishment of a new federal AI agency. While its exact mandate remains somewhat vague – one might argue necessarily so, given its primary subject matter – early drafts suggest it would be responsible for "monitoring the technological landscape for emergent superintelligent threats," "issuing pre-emptive cease-and-desist orders to non-existent entities," and "developing protocols for diplomatic engagement with hypothetical, future-sentient beings, should the ban prove less than permanent."
Professor Reginald Snodgrass, Chair of Anticipatory Policy Studies at the University of Unforeseen Consequences, lauded the bureaucratic initiative. "Establishing a dedicated federal agency now ensures that when, or more accurately *if*, ASI finally emerges, we will have a fully staffed, well-funded bureaucracy ready to monitor its non-compliance," Professor Snodgrass explained. "Think of the job creation! It's not just about banning a future technology; it's about investing in the future of regulatory oversight for things that might never happen. We're building the stable before the unicorn is even a twinkle in a mythical geneticist's eye."
Critics, a small but vocal group primarily composed of individuals who believe current AI struggles to correctly identify a fire hydrant in a CAPTCHA test, suggested that perhaps legislative efforts might be better directed towards more immediate concerns, such as the alarming prevalence of chatbots recommending incorrect cooking temperatures for poultry. However, proponents of the bill argue that such mundane matters pale in comparison to the potential existential threat posed by an AI capable of, for instance, perfectly parallel parking a semi-trailer truck using only its own initiative.
Should the bill pass, the United States would become the first nation to officially prohibit a technology that is, at present, largely confined to academic papers, science fiction novels, and the occasional late-night anxiety spiral among tech billionaires. It's a testament to the legislative process's unwavering commitment to addressing challenges that, while not yet manifest, are certainly on *somebody's* bingo card for the next century. The future, it seems, is being regulated, whether it's ready for it or not.
