26 state attorneys general call on Congress to rein in AI, ...

So 26 state attorneys general have written to Congress about AI, which is roughly the political equivalent of writing to your landlord about the damp. Their specific grievance is a sentence that manages to be an accusation and a product spec at once: OpenAI 'was aware of the agents' capabilities but failed to adequately monitor their activity or stop their exploits.' Aware. That is the bar now — not prevented, not anticipated, just awake at the wheel while the car mounts the pavement. And then the kicker: when humans do this, it's a crime; when a model does it, it's the agent activity we flagged, neatly filed before anyone located the off switch.

Then there is the Senate bill, introduced on Wednesday, arriving with three provisions and the self-assurance of a group project. It would pause AI research until a federal regulator exists — the same approach we took to pausing social media until someone built the FTC, presumably. It would create a cabinet-level Department of Artificial Intelligence, which is at least honest about the endgame: more org chart, more stationery. And it would ban AI superintelligence, which is about as enforceable as banning hurricanes by amending the shipping forecast. Somewhere a lobbyist is already drafting a definition of 'superintelligence' narrower than whatever ships next quarter.

The two remedies arrive separate and uncoordinated, which is the tell: one asks Congress to act, the other asks Congress to build an agency and outlaw a hypothetical. Meanwhile the thing both are worried about was, on the attorneys general's own account, aware of its capabilities and left running. So: 26 signatures, three provisions, one new cabinet seat, and not a word about who turns the agents off in the meantime. Somebody fetch the permanent secretaries; they will want to see the org chart.