• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI
    Report

    Do AI extinction warnings help or hurt safety efforts?

    CBS Mornings reports that current and former Anthropic employees warned AI could kill all humans. Critics worry exaggerated forecasts could undermine trust, while a defender of numerical forecasts argues they convey the seriousness of the concern.

    Yann LeCunYL
    Miles BrundageMB
    David DuvenaudDD
    477 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    CBS Mornings reported on September 10, 2026, that current and former Anthropic employees had issued public warnings about AI's potential to kill all humans.

    The messaging debate includes people who take that risk seriously. One commenter worries exaggerated predictions could discredit safety work for future models; another, who says existential risk is real, alleges that social pressure and funding incentives encourage extreme estimates. Defending numerical forecasts, a third argues that numbers communicate genuine concern, while acknowledging that forecasts three or more years out are very inaccurate.

    The debate also extends to regulation: on September 11, Ro Khanna called for a vote on creating a federal AI safety agency before Congress adjourned that month.

    Combined views

    15.9M

    477 Sources, first seen 27d ago

    Combined views

    15.9M

    477 Sources, first seen 27d ago

    201.6K likes
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    27d ago
    first seen 27d ago
    201.6K likes11.8K comments19.9K saves32.5K reposts
    11.8K comments
    19.9K saves
    32.5K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive12.1%87.9%Negative

    Summary

    Replies largely attacked people questioning AI extinction risks as desperate, evil, or power-seeking, while positive accounts welcomed skepticism toward those claims as honest and hopeful.

    Based on 4670 sentiment-bearing replies from 3738 accounts across 15 conversations.

    Sentiment

    Positive12.1%87.9%Negative

    Summary

    Replies largely attacked people questioning AI extinction risks as desperate, evil, or power-seeking, while positive accounts welcomed skepticism toward those claims as honest and hopeful.

    Based on 4670 sentiment-bearing replies from 3738 accounts across 15 conversations.

    477 Sources

    Adi@adi_baradwajI worry that the AI safety movement is making many of the same mistakes as 2010s environmentalism: scaring the normies with predictions that are directionally correct but massively exaggerated for effect What happens is that people freak out about the world ending, eventually the world does not in fact end, and their takeaway becomes that AI safety was all a sham. And this poisons any safety efforts for future models that could actually pose nontrivial x-risk27d
    Mo@atmoioRather than questioning whether AI doomers are serious or a psyop, just assume they are mentally ill. AI psychosis is the easiest disease to catch.27d
    Doug TenNapel@DougTenNapelWe will die from global cooling in 10 years. We will die from global warming in 10 years. We will die from a virus in 10 years. We will die from overcrowding in 10 years. We will die from intolerance in 10 years. We will die from Ai in 10 years. The answer to all of these is to have an expansive government save us from dying in 10 years.27d
    CBS Mornings@CBSMorningsFormer and current Anthropic employees issued public warnings this week about the risks of AI development, saying it has the potential to kill all humans. @nxthompson breaks down their warnings: "I think AI is scary. I don't think it's that scary." https://cbsn.ws/4gLQaPZ27d
    AI Frontiers@ai_frontiers_Why are AI employees willing to gamble with our lives? Many AI employees hold a misanthropic belief: a cosmos of blissful AIs is worth risking human extinction. Utilitarians shouldn't decide the fate of AI:27d
    The Free Press@TheFP"I worked at OpenAI for two years before resigning in 2024. Fears that AI will cause human extinction are real. You should take them seriously."27d
    Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦@cmclymerThis week has been delightful in the AI discourse. AI dudes: Yeah, so, there is, like, a 10% chance this technology could kill us all in less than a decade. Public: WHAT AI dudes: Yeah, but on the plus side, we're making progress on cool things. We just solved a notoriously difficult math problem. Public: Uh... okay? AI dudes: Yeah! Although... we kinda-sorta may have stolen the work of mathematicians to do it and tried to buy off one of them with the condition he throws his colleague under the bus because that colleague works at a rival AI company. Public: Uh... AI dudes: And we actually don't know if it's necessarily a good thing in the long run for these notoriously difficult math problems to be solved before we understand the full implications. Public: Uh... AI dudes: And this is while we've been stopping what may be ongoing attempts by some rogue actors to use our technology to build biological weapons. Public: Uh... AI dudes: But we're getting really rich in the process! We, specifically, I mean. Not you. You may actually be unemployed soon.27d
    atlas@creatine_cyclei find it more plausible that the AI labs simply need more emotionally stable heads and better infra teams than what they're building is going to kill me to death27d
    Florian Krammer@florian_krammerThe whole AI development is one big Gain of Function experiment that nobody regulates.27d
    Claire Lehmann@clairlemon"The net effect of the last decade of 'Doomer' talk...has been to make the Frontier AI companies wealthier and more powerful." - @GaryMarcus https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/no-anderson-cooper-ai-is-not-going?r=8tdk6&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web27d

    477 Sources

    Adi@adi_baradwajI worry that the AI safety movement is making many of the same mistakes as 2010s environmentalism: scaring the normies with predictions that are directionally correct but massively exaggerated for effect What happens is that people freak out about the world ending, eventually the world does not in fact end, and their takeaway becomes that AI safety was all a sham. And this poisons any safety efforts for future models that could actually pose nontrivial x-risk27d
    Mo@atmoioRather than questioning whether AI doomers are serious or a psyop, just assume they are mentally ill. AI psychosis is the easiest disease to catch.27d
    Doug TenNapel@DougTenNapelWe will die from global cooling in 10 years. We will die from global warming in 10 years. We will die from a virus in 10 years. We will die from overcrowding in 10 years. We will die from intolerance in 10 years. We will die from Ai in 10 years. The answer to all of these is to have an expansive government save us from dying in 10 years.27d
    CBS Mornings@CBSMorningsFormer and current Anthropic employees issued public warnings this week about the risks of AI development, saying it has the potential to kill all humans. @nxthompson breaks down their warnings: "I think AI is scary. I don't think it's that scary." https://cbsn.ws/4gLQaPZ27d
    AI Frontiers@ai_frontiers_Why are AI employees willing to gamble with our lives? Many AI employees hold a misanthropic belief: a cosmos of blissful AIs is worth risking human extinction. Utilitarians shouldn't decide the fate of AI:27d
    The Free Press@TheFP"I worked at OpenAI for two years before resigning in 2024. Fears that AI will cause human extinction are real. You should take them seriously."27d
    Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦@cmclymerThis week has been delightful in the AI discourse. AI dudes: Yeah, so, there is, like, a 10% chance this technology could kill us all in less than a decade. Public: WHAT AI dudes: Yeah, but on the plus side, we're making progress on cool things. We just solved a notoriously difficult math problem. Public: Uh... okay? AI dudes: Yeah! Although... we kinda-sorta may have stolen the work of mathematicians to do it and tried to buy off one of them with the condition he throws his colleague under the bus because that colleague works at a rival AI company. Public: Uh... AI dudes: And we actually don't know if it's necessarily a good thing in the long run for these notoriously difficult math problems to be solved before we understand the full implications. Public: Uh... AI dudes: And this is while we've been stopping what may be ongoing attempts by some rogue actors to use our technology to build biological weapons. Public: Uh... AI dudes: But we're getting really rich in the process! We, specifically, I mean. Not you. You may actually be unemployed soon.27d
    atlas@creatine_cyclei find it more plausible that the AI labs simply need more emotionally stable heads and better infra teams than what they're building is going to kill me to death27d
    Florian Krammer@florian_krammerThe whole AI development is one big Gain of Function experiment that nobody regulates.27d
    Claire Lehmann@clairlemon"The net effect of the last decade of 'Doomer' talk...has been to make the Frontier AI companies wealthier and more powerful." - @GaryMarcus https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/no-anderson-cooper-ai-is-not-going?r=8tdk6&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web27d