From Silicon Valley to the Far Right: Future of Life Institute rally brings together AI luminaries and political commentators in call to pause systems that could outthink humans.

In early October 2025, the non‑profit research group Future of Life Institute (FLI) quietly circulated a new open letter—and by October 22 the letter was published with considerable fanfare. The subject: a call for an immediate moratorium on the development of artificial intelligence systems capable of “superintelligence,” defined here as systems that outperform humans at all cognitive tasks.
What makes this action striking is the coalition behind it. The signatories include AI leading lights such as Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton—both often dubbed pioneers of machine‑learning—as well as media and political figures from across the spectrum, including conservative U.S. commentators such as Steve Bannon and Glenn Beck. According to multiple outlets, the letter includes more than 700 signatories, with a broader coalition counted at over 800 in media reports.

WHY NOW?
FLI has long flagged the so‑called “superintelligence control problem”: the scenario in which a machine surpasses human reasoning and becomes impossible to contain or align to human values. Two years earlier, in March 2023, FLI published a letter calling for a six‑month pause on systems more powerful than GPT‑4. That earlier letter drew thousands of signatures—including major AI voices—but the current call ups the stakes, shifting from a pause to a fuller ban on developing systems they judge too dangerous to race ahead.

A STRANGE BED‑FELLOWS COALITION
Usually, warnings about high‑end AI come from academic or tech ethics circles—liberal, futurist, or left‑leaning in tone. What distinguishes the 2025 letter is the participation of prominent media and political voices from the right of the spectrum. For example, Steve Bannon is cited in news reports as a signer. At the same time, academic pioneers like Bengio join the same text, reflecting a rare moment of alignment across ideological lines: fear of capability, fear of speed, fear of losing control. The letter, coordinated by FLI, frames the issue not only as a technical or scientific risk, but as a civilisational risk.

WHAT THE LETTER DEMANDS
In essence, the demands are straightforward:

• A prohibition on further development of superintelligent systems until there is “broad scientific consensus” that such systems can be built safely and “strong public buy‑in.”
• A re‑orientation of AI investment toward narrower, well‑understood uses, rather than unbounded capability racing.
• Institutional oversight and governance frameworks to monitor AI development globally, including cross‑border coordination and enforcement.

INDUSTRY AND POLICY BACKDROP
The letter arrives at a moment when large technology firms and national governments are deep in an international arms‑race of sorts—albeit in the civilian AI domain. Firms like OpenAI and Meta Platforms are investing heavily in next‑generation models, while legislators are only slowly catching up. The gap between capability development and regulatory guardrails continues to widen. Analysts say that this kind of capability‑race is what the letter’s authors fear most: when “first mover advantage” trumps caution, incentives to cut safety corners grow strong.

COMMENTARY AND CRITIQUE
Unsurprisingly, the letter has generated both support and skepticism. Supporters hail it as a bold step toward global AI governance, especially praising the cross‑ideological coalition. On the other hand, critics say the call is too late, too vague, or impossible to enforce. Some technology stakeholders argue that an outright ban may be counterproductive—driving development underground or outside jurisdictions that agree to the moratorium.

WHAT COMES NEXT?
The open letter is a statement of intent rather than a binding policy. Its practical impact depends on what governments, corporations and regulatory bodies do in response. Key next steps include:

• Whether major AI labs sign on voluntarily or resist.
• Whether national governments (especially the U.S., China, EU) move to adopt treaties or laws reflecting the moratorium.
• Whether the public and media activism can pressurise private firms to slow down capability development.

IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS, SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY
If we assume the worst‑case scenario the letter contemplates—the loss of human control over superintelligent systems—then the stakes are existential. The authors argue that the path we choose now may determine whether advanced AI becomes humanity’s servant or its master.

CONCLUSION
In sum, the October 2025 open letter from the Future of Life Institute brings together an unlikely alliance of tech pioneers and media/political commentators to demand a halt to the pursuit of super‑intelligent AI systems. Whether their call leads to meaningful action remains to be seen—but one thing is clear: the debate has moved into a new phase, one where the question isn’t merely “Can we build it?”, but rather “Should we?”