A rare policy consensus emerges as AI’s impact moves beyond innovation into governance and societal risk
Updated
May 5, 2026 5:42 PM
A mechanical hand reaching for the hand of flesh. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
A new survey from Povaddo, a policy research firm, suggests that concern about artificial intelligence is no longer limited to industry or academia. It is now firmly present within the policy community.
The survey draws on responses from 301 public policy professionals across the United States and Europe, including lawmakers, staffers and analysts involved in shaping and evaluating public policy. A majority of respondents—61%—say governments are falling short in addressing the negative impacts of AI.
There is also broad agreement that regulation needs to increase. In the United States, 92% of respondents support stronger AI regulation, compared to 70% in Europe. At a time when consensus is often difficult, the findings point to a shared view across policy circles that current frameworks are not keeping pace with technological development.
Differences emerge when looking at how AI is affecting national contexts. In the U.S., 57% of policy experts believe AI is already harming the labor market. In Europe, 34% say the same. U.S. respondents are also more likely to see AI as a greater threat to jobs than immigration, with 63% holding that view compared to 47% in Europe.
On misinformation, responses are closely aligned. A large majority of policy experts in both regions expect an AI-driven misinformation crisis within the next one to two years—87% in the U.S. and 82% in Europe. Many also believe that AI-generated or AI-amplified misinformation could affect elections and public health information.
Some respondents frame the risks in more fundamental terms. In the United States, 41% of policy experts say AI poses an existential threat to humanity. In Europe, 29% share that view. U.S. respondents are also more likely to believe that advances in AI could harm global security and stability.
The findings come as policymakers begin to respond more actively. In the U.S., Senators Josh Hawley, Richard Blumenthal and Mark Warner have introduced bipartisan legislation focused on AI accountability, including measures aimed at protecting workers and children.
In Europe, the introduction of the EU AI Act marks a more advanced regulatory approach. The framework sets out rules based on levels of risk and is widely seen as the first comprehensive attempt to govern AI at scale.
William Stewart, President and Founder of Povaddo, said: "What makes these findings so significant is who is saying it. These are the practitioners who work inside the policy process every day, spanning every corner of the policy world from defense to healthcare to finance, not activists or everyday citizens. These findings foreshadow real action. The current path of governments accelerating AI deployment while falling short on governance is not sustainable, and the people who know that best are the ones in this survey. You cannot have nine-in-ten policy insiders demanding more regulation and four-in-ten calling AI an existential threat without that eventually moving the needle in Washington and Brussels in terms of legislative or regulatory action".
Taken together, the survey reflects a shift in how AI is being discussed within policymaking circles. Concern is no longer limited to future risks. It is increasingly tied to current gaps in governance and the pace of deployment.
Keep Reading
Quantara AI launches a continuous platform designed to estimate the financial impact of cyber risk as companies move beyond periodic assessments
Updated
March 17, 2026 1:02 AM
A person tightrope walking between two cliffs. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
Cyber risk is increasingly treated as a financial issue. Boards want to know how much a cyber incident could cost the company, how it could affect earnings, and whether current security spending is justified.
Yet many organizations still measure cyber risk through periodic reviews. These assessments are often conducted once or twice a year, supported by consultants and spreadsheet models. By the time the report reaches senior leadership, the company’s systems may have changed and new threats may have emerged. The way risk is measured does not always match how quickly it evolves.
This gap is where Quantara AI is positioning its new platform. Quantara AI, a Boise-based cybersecurity startup, has introduced what it describes as the industry’s first persistent AI-powered cyber risk solution. The system is designed to run continuously rather than rely on occasional assessments.
The company’s core argument is straightforward: not every security weakness carries the same financial consequence. Instead of ranking issues only by technical severity, the platform analyzes active threats, identifies which company systems are exposed, and estimates how much money a successful attack could cost. It uses statistical models, including Value at Risk (VaR), to calculate potential losses. It also estimates how specific security improvements could reduce that projected loss.
The timing aligns with a broader market shift. International Data Corporation (IDC) projects that by 2028, 40% of enterprises will adopt AI-based cyber risk quantification platforms. These tools convert security data into financial estimates that can guide budgeting and investment decisions. The forecast reflects growing pressure on security leaders to present risk in terms that boards and regulators understand.
Traditional compliance and risk management systems often focus on meeting regulatory standards. Vulnerability management programs typically score weaknesses based on technical characteristics. Consultant-led risk studies provide detailed analysis, but they are usually performed at set intervals. In fast-changing threat environments, that model can leave decision-makers working with outdated information.
Quantara’s platform attempts to replace that periodic process with continuous measurement. It brings together threat data, internal system information and financial modeling in one system. The goal is to show, at any given time, which specific weaknesses could lead to the largest financial losses.
Cyber risk quantification as a concept is not new. What is changing is the expectation that these calculations be updated regularly and tied directly to financial decision-making. As cyber incidents carry clearer monetary consequences, companies are looking for ways to measure exposure with greater precision.
The broader question is whether enterprises will shift fully toward continuous, AI-driven risk analysis or continue relying on periodic external assessments. What is clear is that cybersecurity discussions are moving closer to financial reporting — and tools that estimate potential loss in dollar terms are becoming central to that shift.