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
Amid AI and tech startups, Eastseabrother proved the power of demand and trust.
Updated
January 23, 2026 10:41 AM
Cats having a jolly good time with a can of tuna. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
At a Silicon Valley pitch event crowded with AI, SaaS and deep-tech startups, the company that stood out was not selling software or algorithms. It was selling pet treats.
Eastseabrother, a premium pet food brand from South Korea, ranked first at a Plug and Play–hosted investor pitch competition in Sunnyvale. The product itself is simple: single-ingredient pet treats made from wild-caught seafood sourced from Korea’s East Sea. The company follows a principle it calls “Only What the Sea Allows”, working directly with regional fishermen while avoiding overfishing. With no additives and minimal processing, what sets Eastseabrother apart is not novelty, but control—over sourcing, supply chains and consistency.
That clarity helped the company walk away with both Best Product and Best Potential. “Investors asked detailed questions about repeat purchase rates and customer feedback, not just our technology or supply chain”, said Eunyul Kim, CEO of Eastseabrother. “That told us the market is shifting—real consumer trust now carries as much weight as a compelling tech narrative”.
What truly caught investors’ attention was not an ambitious vision of the future, but concrete evidence of traction today. Eastseabrother has already secured shelf space in specialty pet stores across California, New York and North Carolina, including an exclusive partnership with EarthWise Pet, a national specialty retail chain. At a consumer showcase at San Francisco’s Ferry Building, the brand recorded the highest on-site sales among all participating companies.
At its core, the pitch was built on simplicity: one ingredient, clear sourcing and a defined customer need. In a market saturated with complex products and abstract claims, that focus and transparency stood out.
The judges’ decision also reflects a broader shift in venture capital thinking. Not every successful startup is built on complex software or high-tech innovation. In categories like pet care—where trust, quality and transparency shape buying behavior—execution and credibility can matter more than technical sophistication.
Today, Eastseabrother has extended its reach beyond the U.S., expanding into Singapore and Hong Kong, with additional plans to grow further in North America as demand for premium pet food rises. And the broader takeaway from this pitch is not that consumer brands are overtaking tech startups. It is that investors are increasingly focused on fundamentals: who is buying, why they are returning and whether the business can sustain itself beyond the pitch deck.