On Equity, we discussed the AI industry's latest debate about whether it poses an existential threat to humanity.
Disrupt 2026: OpenAI, Anthropic, Replit, and more take over 6 industry stages. 25% off tickets now
The AI industry seems to be having its loudest debate yet about whether its technology poses an existential threat to humanity.
The current discussion began after AI researcher Jacob Coxon said that he's resigned from Anthropic because he's worried that the leading AI companies are "gambling with our lives." Then Anthropic's alignment leaned chimed in with a post declaring , "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" adding that he personally thinks the chance is ">10% within the next decade."
On the latest episode of TechCrunch's Equity podcast , Kirsten Korosec, Sean O'Kane, and I discussed the latest apocalyptic warnings. I tried to articulate why I'm skeptical of many AI doomer narratives, while Kirsten asked if this was "just a weird way of flexing to show how far advanced their company's AI model is," particularly as these companies prepare to go public.
And Sean wondered how these concerns might show up in Anthropic's S-1 filing for its IPO: "Are there junior lawyers right now who are going through and having to rewrite that entire section of the S-1 filing to say, 'It's a officially Anthropic's position that there's a more than 10% chance that we could develop something that would eradicate all of humanity and that would be materially bad for our business'?"
Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. (Note: We recorded this episode before Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published his plan for more cautious AI development .)
Sean O'Kane: I'm hard-pressed to think of something that blew up so fast. Not only did this warning shot come out from this young researcher who has also worked at OpenAI, but also was immediately shared on X by the alignment lead at Anthropic - who, in what might go down as one of the best misplaced exclamation marks ever, shared Coxon's post and and thread and said, "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Exclamation mark!
What a weird vibe. That was just a ton of accelerant on an already fraught post or series of posts. Coming after the Hugging Face hack from OpenAI's internal model, plus just the increased capabilities we've seen with the latest models released by Anthropic and and now OpenAI with with Astra a few weeks ago, I think this was just perfectly timed to be a powder keg type of thing for this young researcher to say.
Anthony Ha: Just to disagree with you, I do think that if you believe that AI could destroy all humanity, that does deserve an exclamation point. I would argue that that is a perfectly well used exclamation point!
My issue with that tweet was more the "we." Who is the "we" here? To what extent can we talk about sort of the AI community or AI research community as a monolith? And the greater than 10% chance - that's just a made up number, that doesn't mean anything. Sometimes [there is] this habit in both the tech industry and other places to just throw out these percentages, they're not based on anything or calculated based on anything. [In retrospect, I realize the tweet was probably referencing the concept of P(doom) , but I still think it's silly.]
One thing I will say about Coxon's statement and decision is - there's this recurring theme on Equity, when someone like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei is doing this doomer narrative, there's always this element of: Well, then, why are you doing what you're doing? If you actually believe that [AI could destroy humanity], you would not continue doing this.
[Whereas] this is actually somebody putting his professional trajectory where his mouth is. He's actually saying, "I believe this is really, really, really bad, and I don't want to keep working on it." And so, props for having the courage to do that, if nothing else.
Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, I put him in a separate camp than everyone else saying that and talking about the dangers.
I'm going to put my speculative hat on, because I want to ask both of you a question, which is: Is it possible that every single time we see the increasing number of blog posts about yet another incident in which one of their AI agents breaks through unintentionally, or they talk about how humanity is at risk, is this a weird way of flexing to show how far advanced their company's AI model is?
I mean, that sounds very cynical, but it does achieve that purpose. Which is: If these AI models weren't advanced and weren't capable and weren't breaking through, we wouldn't have to worry about these things, right? It's like a very weird way to brag about the capabilities of the models that you've created within your own company.
Reporting synthesized and verified under Nexvoro.tech editorial guidelines. Full primary records referenced via TechCrunch.
OpenAI has formed a new independent mathematics advisory group hosted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton following a surge in automated problem-solving. The move arrives amid mounting academic scrutiny regarding the rapid pace of artificial intelligence in advanced mathematical research.
As debate intensifies over the rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence, OpenAI has proposed a comprehensive framework for international safety standards, focusing heavily on alignment research and recursive self-improvement. The move follows recent high-profile departures and escalating concerns from industry insiders regarding humanity's long-term control over advanced frontier models.
As Washington fiercely debates artificial intelligence oversight, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has emerged as President Donald Trump's top confidant, successfully pushing back against growing regulatory pressures. While rival tech executives advocate for government slowdowns, the head of the world's most valuable chipmaker is charting a rapid course for American tech supremacy.
