Quinnipiac University’s September 2026 poll found that 77% of U.S. adults favored either slowing or stopping development of powerful AI systems until their safety can be evaluated. The two responses were distinct: 47% chose slowing development and 30% chose stopping it.
What did the poll ask?
Quinnipiac asked respondents which position came closest to their view of AI companies in the U.S.: stop developing powerful AI systems until their safety can be evaluated; slow development until safety can be evaluated; continue at the current pace; or move faster. The combined 77% figure adds the first two answers, not support for one uniform policy.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The question did not define “powerful AI systems” or specify how safety would be evaluated. Nor did it ask respondents to choose a regulator, a particular safety standard, or a time limit. The result therefore describes views on the pace of development under the question’s wording—not a vote on a detailed legislative proposal or a permanent ban.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchHow the responses break down
| Position | Share of respondents |
|---|---|
| Slow development until safety can be evaluated | 47% |
| Stop development until safety can be evaluated | 30% |
| Continue at the current pace | 14% |
| Move faster | 5% |
| Did not answer | 4% |
Quinnipiac described the combined slow-or-stop result as “nearly 8 in 10.” The poll’s figures show that the largest single response was to slow development; the 77% total combines that answer with the separate stop-development option.
#1 Best Overall
Who was surveyed, and when?
Quinnipiac surveyed 1,202 U.S. adults nationwide from September 24–27, 2026. The reported margin of error is ±3.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Quinnipiac says its surveys use probability-based samples, random-digit dialing, and live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The AI survey was conducted in collaboration with the university’s School of Computing & Engineering and School of Business. Quinnipiac’s release provides the question wording and full results.
Safety concerns and competition concerns coexist
The poll’s other findings suggest respondents did not see AI safety and international competition as mutually exclusive priorities:
Rank #2
- 86% supported requiring AI companies to meet independent safety standards even if development slows.
- 91% said establishing U.S. guardrails for AI systems was very or somewhat important.
- 69% said keeping up with China in AI development was very or somewhat important; 65% said both keeping up with China and establishing guardrails were important.
- 81% said safety was more important than staying at the forefront of AI innovation, while 14% chose innovation.
As Quinnipiac computer science professor Chetan Jaiswal put it, “The public is not neatly divided into a competition camp and a safety camp.” The overlap matters: support for safeguards does not, by itself, mean opposition to competing in AI development. At the same time, the poll does not show how respondents would resolve a specific trade-off between the two goals.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Other concerns in the poll are separate findings
Quinnipiac also found that 74% reported “not so much” or “none at all” trust in AI company leaders. A separate question found 53% expected AI to do more harm than good in day-to-day life, compared with 34% who expected more good.
On longer-term risks, 73% said they were very or somewhat concerned that future AI systems could potentially threaten human survival. In a different forced-choice question about harm, 52% were more concerned about humans using AI to harm humanity than about autonomous agents doing harm (33%). These findings concern trust, expected effects, and perceived risks; they are not additional measures of support for slowing or stopping development.
Views on local infrastructure were also negative: 72% opposed building an AI data center in their community, compared with 21% who supported it. Quinnipiac reported opposition at 65% in its March 2026 AI poll. That is a comparison between separate surveys and does not establish what caused the difference.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the result can—and cannot—tell us
The poll records what respondents said when offered four positions about U.S. companies developing powerful AI systems. Its margin of error describes sampling uncertainty under the survey’s stated methodology; it does not settle how people would respond to a different question, policy design, or definition of safety.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →For comparisons with another poll, check who was surveyed, when fieldwork took place, the exact wording and response options, whether “slow” and “stop” were reported separately or combined, and the sampling method and stated margin of error. The Quinnipiac findings do not establish why respondents hold these views, which specific rules they would accept, or how opinion would change under a concrete policy proposal.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
