Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In a Quinnipiac University poll released September 30, 2026, 77% of U.S. adults chose either slowing or stopping the development of powerful AI systems until their safety can be evaluated. The figure combines two distinct answers: 47% said companies should slow development, while 30% said they should stop it.
What did the poll find?
Quinnipiac asked respondents which position came closest to their view of AI companies in the U.S. developing powerful AI systems. The four choices were to stop development until safety can be evaluated, slow development until then, continue at the current pace, or move faster.
| Response | Share of U.S. adults |
|---|---|
| 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 give an answer | 4% |
The combined 77% is the sum of the “slow down” and “stop” response categories, which Quinnipiac described as “nearly 8 in 10.” It does not mean that 77% supported a permanent ban: both answers tied a pause or slowdown to evaluating safety.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What does “slow or stop” mean—and what does it not mean?
The poll asked for the closest of four broad positions. It did not ask respondents to select a particular law, regulator, safety standard, duration, or definition of “powerful AI systems.” The result therefore describes views on the development pace as framed in this survey, rather than public approval of a specific policy proposal.
#1 Best Overall
The distinction between the two leading answers matters. Nearly half chose slowing development; three in ten chose stopping it until safety could be evaluated. Combining them is useful for describing the share favoring some restraint, but it should not erase the difference between those positions.
How many people were surveyed?
Quinnipiac surveyed 1,202 U.S. adults nationwide from September 24–27, 2026. The university reported a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points, including the design effect. It 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 Quinnipiac’s School of Computing & Engineering and School of Business.
Rank #2
As with any poll, the reported margin of error describes sampling uncertainty; it does not account for every possible source of survey error. The result is a snapshot of responses during those field dates, not a measure of opinion at all times.
Safety concerns coexisted with interest in AI competition
The other answers in the poll suggest that respondents did not view safeguards and international competition as mutually exclusive priorities. Sixty-nine percent said keeping up with China in AI development was very or somewhat important, while 91% said establishing U.S. guardrails for AI systems was very or somewhat important. Quinnipiac reported that 65% considered both important.
Separately, 86% supported requiring AI companies to meet independent safety standards even if doing so slows development. That question addressed a requirement for standards, distinct from the four-choice question about development pace. Chetan Jaiswal, a Quinnipiac computer science professor and associate chair, said the overlap shows that valuing competition should not be mistaken for opposing safeguards; it does not, by itself, show how people would settle every trade-off.
On a direct safety-versus-innovation question, 81% said safety was more important than staying at the forefront of AI innovation, and 14% chose innovation. These results add context to the pace finding but remain answers to separate questions.
What else did respondents say about AI?
- Trust in company leaders: 74% reported “not so much” or “none at all” trust in AI company leaders.
- Expected day-to-day effects: 53% expected AI to do more harm than good in daily life, compared with 34% who expected more good.
- Potential threat to human survival: 73% said they were very or somewhat concerned that future AI systems could potentially threaten human survival.
- How harm might occur: In a separate forced-choice question, 52% were more concerned about people using AI to harm humanity than about autonomous agents doing harm (33%).
- Local data centers: 72% opposed building an AI data center in their community, while 21% supported it. Quinnipiac reported 65% opposition in its March 2026 AI poll; that comparison alone does not establish why opposition changed.
These findings address different concerns and should not be treated as explanations for the development-pace answers. The poll reports what respondents said; it does not establish why they hold those views or predict their response to a specific policy trade-off.
How to compare the result with another AI poll
A headline percentage is only comparable when the surveys measure similar things. Check the population and field dates, the exact question wording, whether respondents could choose “slow” and “stop” separately, the sampling approach, and the reported margin of error. Quinnipiac’s 77% combines two categories; another survey may ask a different question or combine answers differently.
Best Value
Source: Quinnipiac University Poll, released September 30, 2026.
Quick Recap
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.
