Introduction: The Loudest Debate Yet
The AI industry appears to be having its loudest debate yet about whether its technology poses an existential threat to humanity. In 2026, as AI capabilities accelerate and the first wave of major AI companies approach public markets, these warnings carry new weight β and new skepticism.
How the Debate Reignited
The current discussion began after AI researcher Jacob Coxon said he had resigned from Anthropic because he worried that leading AI companies are "gambling with our lives." Then Anthropic's alignment lead 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."
The Equity Podcast Discussion
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.
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 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.)
A Perfectly Timed Powder Keg
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 it was also immediately shared on X by the alignment lead at Anthropic β who, in what might go down as one of the best misplaced exclamation marks ever, shared Coxon's post 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 the increased capabilities we've seen with the latest models released by Anthropic and now OpenAI with Astra a few weeks ago, I think this was perfectly timed to be a powder keg moment for this young researcher to say what he said.
The Exclamation Point Problem β and the 'We'
Anthony Ha: Just to disagree with you, I do think that if you believe AI could destroy all humanity, that does deserve an exclamation point. I would argue that is a perfectly well-used exclamation point.
My issue with that tweet was more the "we." Who is the "we"? That's the question that lingers β and one that matters more than ever as AI companies face public scrutiny, regulatory pressure, and the harsh light of an IPO roadshow.
via TechCrunch AI