Only A Few People Win From AI Hysteria. Everyone Else Loses.

Opinions on AI seem, to put it mildly, sharply divided. 

But one thing we should all be able to agree on — a statement that should attract a wide consensus — is that this is an incredibly consequential technology, advancing and scaling at an enormous speed, and both the benefits it provides and the threat it potentially poses should be seriously considered in an objective, sober-minded way. 

If we can agree on nothing else when it comes to AI, we should be able to agree on that. That’s not a political or an ideological statement. Yet sober-minded objectivity is the very last thing we’re seeing on this subject from either side of the debate. 

Recent events perfectly illustrate that point. They immediately reveal why sober minds are not prevailing and why they desperately need to. A colossal amount of money and power is at stake. For example, let’s say you’re a massive, privately held artificial intelligence company. You’re planning a blockbuster IPO in a matter of months, which will probably value your company at several trillion dollars. 

You have every incentive to promote your product and to convince as many people as possible to sign up and pay a subscription fee. Why, in this scenario, would you go on national television and tell everyone your product has the potential to eliminate all of humanity within the next decade? Why would you deliberately torpedo public confidence in the entire AI industry, at a pivotal moment for your AI startup?

It’s a bit like Taco Bell announcing a new burrito by explaining, in great detail, how it’s going to absolutely demolish your intestines and potentially all of the intestines on Earth. It doesn’t seem logical. Really, it seems like self-sabotage. 

And yet, that’s exactly what Anthropic — which makes the AI model known as “Claude” — has apparently just done. Providing an incredible window into how the most powerful corporations on the planet can manipulate public opinion, and the variety of tactics they use to push more government regulation and control over the economy. This was an op — there’s no question about it. And it was a very successful one. And yet — and this is where we need sober minds to come in — the concerns being raised, even if they are being raised for less than benevolent reasons, still should be taken seriously. And the very fact that they’re being raised at all — whether genuinely or not — creates a scenario where, no matter what’s actually going on, it’s pretty bad. 

Here’s how it began. On Tuesday evening, just before 8 p.m. ET, The Wall Street Journal published an exclusive story with the very alarming headline: “Anthropic Researcher Quits Over ‘Out-of-Control’ AI Fears.” 

The article states:

Jacob Coxon, a researcher who specializes in training new AI models by having them consume vast amounts of data, said Tuesday that he is leaving the company because he doesn’t want to participate in an industrywide rush to build AI systems that can improve themselves, worried such systems could spiral out of control and destroy humanity.

The piece is about a 27-year-old who, as the article eventually mentions, “left OpenAI earlier this year to join Anthropic because it is known for its model-safety efforts.” In other words, Coxon worked at Anthropic’s competitor, OpenAI, until very recently. He was at OpenAI for about three years before coming over to Anthropic earlier this year. 

Based on all the reporting I’ve seen, he’s been at the company for five months maximum. So after a very short stint as an entry-level employee, he’s somehow already become a whistleblower. He’s sounding the alarm about how AI is going to destroy all of humanity.

This is an unusual timeline. For most entry-level employees, when you start at a new company, you spend the first few months finding your way around the building. You’re trying to meet new people, optimize your commute — that kind of thing. 

But for this guy, after a very short period, he was ready to quit in the most flamboyant, splashy way imaginable — complete with an exclusive article in The Wall Street Journal announcing his departure. On top of that, The Wall Street Journal doesn’t even mention that the guy is brand-new to the company until the 10th paragraph. 

Think about how bizarre this is. He clearly arrived at Anthropic with the idea of quitting in mind. He’s not a senior-level employee, or anyone with highly specialized knowledge. He doesn’t have an impressive technical background. Yet the moment he quits, he’s making very dire predictions. And he’s getting national news coverage that doesn’t mention his very short tenure at the company.

The coverage wasn’t just coming from the Wall Street Journal. Variety, TIME, NBC News, and several other outlets have run similar stories. Fox interviewed him as well. 

Watch:

ULTIMATE SUPER WEAPON: “This is possibly the most dangerous technology that humanity has ever created. It’s basically out of science fiction. I think we have no other choice but to cooperate internationally because an arms race would be disastrous in a way that no other human activity has been in the past.” @hilbertspaess

@BretBaier presses former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon on the global threat landscape of artificial intelligence. Coxon warns that self-improving AI systems could become capable of taking over the world by the end of the decade if development isn’t slowed down.

— Special Report (@SpecialReport) September 9, 2026

So the pitch is pretty clear. He’s saying he wants the government to regulate AI, domestically and internationally. He wants to slow the pace of AI innovation. And he’s presented as a kind of Good Samaritan — as a man who bravely sacrificed his lucrative career to tell the truth about this existential hazard. Out of nowhere, this random guy appeared on pretty much every TV station last night as an expert on the topic. 

Watch:

Former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon says the AI industry is “gambling with our lives.” He tells Anderson what he finds “most scary is if AI is used to make itself more intelligent” and warns these companies are “compelled to race toward building a deadly technology.” https://t.co/UFrLWVm0xD

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) September 10, 2026

In that clip, he refers to a real situation called the “Hugging Face” incident, where AI agents managed to break containment and hack a well-known website using a security vulnerability AI agents discovered on their own. The AI went rogue, in other words. 

While that’s both impressive and concerning, it’s also very different from hacking critical infrastructure. That’s because, unlike the website that these AI agents hacked, most critical infrastructure in this country is physically separated from the internet. There’s a so-called “air gap” between the systems that run the nuclear power plants and the rest of the online world. And this security measure exists precisely so that hackers can’t find a random vulnerability and kill millions of people.

The reason this guy (and Anderson Cooper) doesn’t mention this is that they want to stoke as much fear as possible. To be clear, I’m not denying that AI hackers are going to be a problem. Even if they can’t access nuclear reactors, they can still hijack, say, the payroll systems at the utility (something like that actually happened in 2021, although AI agents weren’t involved). 

AI agents can hack personal accounts and blackmail employees. They can cause plenty of damage. But if you’re going to say that AI can cause nuclear armageddon, then you need to show your work. This “whistleblower” never does that. He never explains exactly how AI can go from hacking one website to destroying humanity. And that’s a problem. It makes you wonder if he doesn’t have an ulterior motive. 

Indeed, when you look closer at the narrative he’s pushing, it starts to fall apart. And I’m not just talking about the fact that this guy is a 27-year-old kid who just arrived at Anthropic a few months ago, and now he’s suddenly on every primetime television show.

First of all, in terms of bias, we have no idea precisely how much equity Coxon holds in Anthropic or OpenAI. The fact that he quit the company doesn’t tell us anything about his wealth, or potential wealth tied to the success of these companies. There’s certainly no indication that Coxon has surrendered whatever equity he might have in OpenAI, although I’ve seen articles saying his Anthropic stock won’t vest. That raises the possibility that he’s engaging in a marketing stunt — an attempt to make AI software seem more powerful by talking about how “dangerous” and scary it could be in the wrong hands.

Secondly, there’s new reporting from Brian Chau, linking Coxon to a British NGO called “Newspeak,” which specializes in running influence campaigns for deranged Leftist policies like prison abolition. Some of Newspeak’s employees explicitly say they’re experts in propaganda.

Chau found Coxon’s photo on Newspeak’s website. Quoting from his reporting: “Influence campaigns were Newspeak’s overt specialty. The Guardian describes Newspeak’s mission as ‘trying to ‘hack’ British politics.'”

So this guy is a political operative — or at least, he was a political operative. There’s a reason why Anthropic may have deployed him in this case, in order to stall the development of AI and call for more regulation. This is an article from Business Standard from just one week ago quoting the Financial Times.

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, has launched its latest artificial intelligence (AI) model, saying it has taken the lead over rival Anthropic in key areas such as software engineering, science, and cybersecurity. … The company described GPT-6 Astra as “the world’s most intelligent” AI model as it seeks to regain its position at the top of the fast-growing AI industry. OpenAI said the model has achieved market-leading results in several fields.

In other words, if these reports are accurate, then Anthropic is falling behind in the race to develop AI. This is a very competitive industry. At the moment, it looks like Anthropic is slipping into runner-up status. So what’s a company supposed to do when it’s getting outclassed? 

One of the most common strategies is called “regulatory capture.” The idea is to seize control over the regulators by convincing the public (and the government) that you’re the only AI company that cares about “safety” and protecting humanity. Then, once you have control over the regulators, you can simply eliminate your competitors using the force of law. The dream scenario for companies like Anthropic or OpenAI is to ban all other non-woke, open-source AI models with the justification that they’re simply too “dangerous for humanity.”

In the FOX interview, by way of skepticism, Bret Baier did ask Coxon whether he coordinated his big resignation with any third party. And Coxon, of course, said no. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt his response. 

One of the biggest issues is that, within minutes of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, a coordinated social media strategy clearly began. First, within 20 minutes of the article going live, Coxon posted the following message on X (It’s worth noting that Coxon’s account, at the time of this posting, was dormant. There was virtually no prior activity whatsoever.)

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. … Do not underestimate the power of this technology.  … The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible — but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger. …  I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities.

This post, last time I checked, has more than 150 million views on X. Yes, 150 million views. It’s one of the most widely viewed posts in the history of the website. Every hour, tens of millions more people see it. According to Elon Musk, nothing like this has ever happened with a new account with almost no prior activity. This is clearly a post that some very powerful people wanted to go viral.

And when I first saw this post on X, without any of the context I just went through, I thought it was pretty remarkable. Indeed, it is remarkable — someone who’s working on AI is telling us that it might wipe out the human race. That’s notable, no matter how you slice it. And this has happened many times before (sometimes the accusation is credible, and sometimes it’s not). 

At a minimum, a post like this should make you ask yourself about the risks of AI. That doesn’t mean we need to ban AI entirely, or that we can even if we wanted to, but it also doesn’t mean we should embrace it without hesitation as an unalloyed blessing on mankind. If even the people working on this stuff — and, again, this guy is far from the first one — are telling us that there are potentially catastrophic implications that we should take that seriously. Our government should take it seriously, too. That was my take at the time. It’s been my take for years now. And I still think it’s the correct one.

But it soon became clear that something else was going on with this particular narrative, at least the version coming from this particular guy. Within 15 minutes of this post going live, as a researcher named Parker Thayer reported, it received several reposts from officers at various anti-AI nonprofits — including the General Counsel of Encode AI, the Head of Policy at the AI Policy Network, and the Head of the AI Futures Project. Here’s where things get interesting. Thayer wrote:

The AI Futures Project website says it is funded “primarily” by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which says on its own website that it has advised Jaan Tallinn, Skype creator and one of the leading investors in Anthropic, to grant over $2.5 million to the AI Futures Project since 2024.  Encode AI says on its website that it is ALSO funded by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which in turn says that it told Anthropic investor Jaan Tallinn to grant $516,000 to Encode AI in 2025.  And wouldn’t you know it, the Survival and Flourishing Fund ALSO says it told Jaan Tallinn to grant $2 million to the AI Policy Institute, the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the AI Policy Network, as well. What are the odds that the first three quote tweets of Coxon’s post would all be major AI-restriction policy advocates funded generously by the same donor, who also happens to be one of the leading investors in, and a board member of, Anthropic, the company Coxon was resigning from? And all within 15 minutes of posting?

In other words, this was perhaps not a case where one brave employee decided to blow the whistle at Anthropic to inform the public about the risks of AI. It seems very clear he made this announcement in coordination with powerful interests financially tied to Anthropic in a very direct way. In fact, current Anthropic employees immediately boosted the post as well. Here’s what one of those employees wrote:

Jacob’s thread is very worth reading. Here’s my birds-eye view of the situation with risks from AI:  1. AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). This could happen in the next few years. In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are.  2. Why do AI developers continue despite the risk? Due to a mixture of commercial incentives and a belief that they are in a race with other, less responsible AI developers that will abuse the technology or develop it less safely. … Many AI developer staff desperately want to slow down to figure out how to build AI more safely.

Whether you agree with what he’s saying or not, it needs to be said that none of this dramatic language is remotely surprising coming from Anthropic employees. They’ve been very neurotic and self-important for a long time. This is the same company that hired an anti-white female Scottish philosopher named Amanda Askell and gave her high-level control over their AI model.  She’s the reason why Claude tends to browbeat you with woke nonsense. She floats around the Anthropic office telling everyone to “be kind” to one another. She has no technical background whatsoever, but Anthropic loves her. 

Here’s another Anthropic employee, for what it’s worth:

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is [greater than] 10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to. … To be clear, as we say in our latest Risk Report, I think the risk from present models is low. What I am worried about is superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought.

If you read media reports about this whole incident, they’ll tell you that these Anthropic employees are lending credibility to the alleged whistleblower. But you could argue that they’re doing the opposite. Another way of looking at it is that they’re making the regulatory capture scenario more plausible. They’re trying to gain power by causing a panic, which serves two purposes. First, it makes their product look good (because it’s so dangerous and powerful). And secondly, it will lead to regulation, which could eliminate their competitors. Anthropic has been playing this card for a long time. Their founder famously told the Pope a few months ago that AI could take everyone’s job. 

Anthropic has clearly settled on a new variation of this strategy, and they’ve gotten a lot of buy-in. It’s not just Anthropic investors. Employees and AI nonprofits are involved. Pretty much the entire Democratic Party lined up within hours to boost Coxon’s post and to call for immediate regulation. 

By one count, 2 governors, 7 senators, and 13 representatives responded to Coxon’s post with calls to regulate AI — all of them Democrats except for three Republicans — Anna Luna, Nathaniel Moran, and Ted Cruz. 

So Democrats immediately latched onto this new AI narrative, presumably because they want to derail every AI company they can’t control. They have a very clear reason to convince the public that AI is a serious potential threat — and that, as a result, we should only allow AI that’s “safe” and “government-approved.” Notice, they don’t want to eliminate AI entirely. They simply want to stall out the competition and pick a winner they can control. 

Here’s the socialist Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, for example. Notice how utterly fake this whole video is, but also pay attention to what he says about the ownership of AI profits. 

Watch:

AI development is moving faster than our ability to assure its safety. It’s time to hit pause until we can assure it won’t…destroy us. https://t.co/R6WMwypZU3

— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) September 9, 2026

So he pretends that he just woke up one day and noticed this tweet from the AI researcher, just like everyone else. And then, without missing a beat, he tells us that he wants to redistribute the profits from these AI companies. And he adds that it would be terrible for private corporations to have control over a potential doomsday weapon, so obviously, we need to put socialist politicians in charge instead.

One thing we should note here is that evil profit-driven corporations seem to have no incentive to usher in the end of humanity, at least not intentionally. They have the exact opposite incentive. They want to keep civilization going, so they can continue to make a lot of money. This is a very simple and straightforward problem with people who claim that the evil billionaires are going to kill us all (or eliminate every job, so that no one has any money and we all starve to death). 

If the corporations eliminate humanity, then the corporations will die, too. And if AI destroys the global economy, and unemployment goes to 100%, then money will have no meaning anymore. No one will provide any services. And obviously, the billionaires wouldn’t want that outcome, either. 

Wealth has no value in a lawless, apocalyptic hellscape, where no one’s around to sell you anything. These points don’t negate the legitimate concerns about AI. But they do make the “AI is going to kill all humans in the next few years” scenarios seem ridiculous. It’s not even clear how AI, even in a hypothetical scenario, would literally murder the entire global population. What would be the practical mechanism for achieving that, and achieving it so quickly? No one has quite explained it.

On the other hand, as we’ve discovered many times in the past few years, communists absolutely want to destroy, at least, Western civilization. They don’t care about profit. They’re nihilists. They cheer when health insurance CEOs and prominent conservatives are assassinated. They don’t believe in God or any higher purpose whatsoever. They’re agents of destruction, which is why they open the borders, refuse to prosecute criminals, and ruin every creative project they’re involved in. 

If the only choice is between letting corporations in the free market do whatever they want with AI, or giving total, top-down control to communist bureaucrats, then there’s really no choice at all. 

We can’t hand power over to the communists under any circumstances. The history of the 20th century shows us how that turns out. And yet letting trillion-dollar AI companies do whatever they want with no controls or regulations of any kind is also not a wise path. Which is why we should be looking for other options outside of total power to tech companies and total power to communists. 

Here’s the key point, which should be obvious: We also can’t allow the government to pick and choose which specific corporations deserve power. One of the biggest risks that AI poses right now is that if leftists dominate the entire industry, then they will use AI to destroy their political opponents. AI will become a tool for enforcing social credit scores, mass censorship, and policing wrongthink. 

As it stands, right now, if Anthropic’s model wants to censor you for saying that men can’t become women, you have other options. You can use other AI models that aren’t completely insane. But if Democrats eliminate those options, they’ll be able to control the flow of information, just like they do in Canada or North Korea. AI will almost certainly replace search engines in a few years. Leftists know that if they run all of the AI models, they’ll be able to dictate what information people are able to see.

That’s why JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois who’s positioning himself for a run for president, also immediately boosted the alleged whistleblower. Here’s what he wrote:

It’s time to sound the alarm — louder — on reining in Artificial Intelligence.  It’s becoming more clear the threat AI poses to humanity, so I’m calling for immediate action from the industry and Washington. … The federal government must intervene. I’m proud to have signed the AI Safety Measures Act, landmark legislation requiring more transparency, accountability, and oversight of large developers — and to protect workers who report concerns.

And here’s Pramila Jayapal, the communist from Washington state:

Researchers for AI companies are sounding the alarm about rapid development of superintelligent systems that could hack anything and “kill us all.”  These AI companies are out of control and a serious threat to our future. We need to shut down their dangerous models and push out the executives who are signing off on their creation.

Again, all of these replies came out within hours of the Anthropic employee’s resignation. Ro Khanna was ready with a video. 

Watch:

Anthropic’s alignment lead says there’s a 10% chance of AI causing human extinction. The problem is not just misuse, but lack of control. Bluntly, our government has been asleep and is out of touch. Here are 5 things we must do:

✅ Establish a federal agency like we have for nuclear power and airplanes

✅ Require pre-certification for containment, including kill switches and human permission for rewriting

✅ Liability for agentic AI on the open network & mandatory insurance

✅ Criminal penalties for the release of models without certification

✅ Oversight hearings with researchers like Jacob to understand dangers, and whistleblower protections for all AI engineers/researchers

We also urgently need to reach an agreement with China on standards for safety, containment, and liability so we do not have a race that is devastating for humanity.

It is time now to put humanity’s safety before the profits of tech lords.

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) September 9, 2026

This is a guy who holds tens of millions of dollars’ worth of AI-related stocks. He’s not actually worried about AI, nor does he want to shut it down. He simply wants to make sure that his political party controls the industry.

Here’s Bernie Sanders:

Mr. Coxon is right. The very people building this technology admit that it could threaten the future of humanity. That is why I will soon be introducing legislation to ban superintelligence and pause AI development. … Trump’s ignorance about AI is appalling and extremely dangerous.

Sanders’ legislation on AI would create “a new cabinet-level federal agency to safeguard the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence” that will be “advised by an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board comprised of experts on artificial intelligence.” It sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare because that’s exactly what it is. The more layers of bureaucracy you introduce, the more the industry will be sabotaged — for the possible benefit of just one or two companies.

Of course, that’s the whole point. And it’s not just Anthropic that’s apparently decided on this strategy. OpenAI also demanded that Congress create mandatory national safety regulations. And a former OpenAI researcher just published this op-ed in The New York Times using the same language as Anthropic.

The current pace of A.I. development is blistering; and yet there is so much more the A.I. companies could do to relieve imminent danger, and to lay bare the gambles they are taking with all our futures. The window to ensure we are heading to a bright future, and away from catastrophe, is closing fast.

This is getting reminiscent of the climate alarmism that used to be popular on the Left. These kinds of predictions have been coming for a while now. A few years ago, a former Google engineer named Blake Lemoine claimed that the company’s AI chatbot had become “sentient,” which turned out to be total nonsense. Scientific American even wrote a big article about it. 

Lemoine said he considers LaMDA to be his “colleague” and a “person,” even if not a human. And he insists that it has a right be recognized — so much so that he has been the go-between in connecting the algorithm with a lawyer.

In the end, the guy was just deranged. You also might remember this prediction from Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called “godfather of AI.” In 2016, he predicted that AI would render radiologists obsolete within 5 years because AI would be able to read the scans for them. But that prediction turned out to be false. There are more radiologists than ever. They’re simply using AI to be more productive. Here’s Hinton explaining where his reasoning went wrong:

Watch:

GODFATHER OF AI ADMITS HE WAS WRONG ABOUT RADIOLOGISTS

geoffrey hinton predicted in 2016 that within about 5 years radiologists wouldnt be reading scans anymore

10 years later he gives two reasons he got it wrong

first, making scans cheaper and faster didnt mean hospitals suddenly needed fewer radiologists. it meant they could just do more scans

and second, he admits he didnt really understand the job itself

his picture of a radiologist came mostly from one former student who spent his time reading scans and barely talking to people

the AI part actually went pretty close to plan. machines got really good at reading scans

but making one part of a job cheaper doesnt automatically make the whole job disappear

AI can shrink a task without shrinking the job

— Dany (@danysvnt) September 6, 2026

It’s important to keep predictions like this in mind when you’re talking about the future of AI. It’s very easy, and sometimes it’s politically or financially beneficial, to conclude that a new technology is going to cause some extreme outcome. It’s easy to say that AI is going to destroy everyone’s life, or that it’s going to provide endless prosperity, with no middle ground. The reality, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle. And it’s frankly ridiculous for so many people — including every mainstream media outlet — to claim otherwise. 

This is the entire problem with the conversation on AI. It’s generally divided into two camps, both of which are cartoon caricatures of reality. One side only acknowledges AI upsides. The other tells us we’re doomed, humanity is over, this is an apocalyptic event. 

Both of these takes are obviously ridiculously simplistic. And the more that the AI skeptic side — which is the side that I’ve always leaned towards — focuses on literal apocalypse scenarios instead of the more realistic and practical dangers it faces, the worse and dumber this debate will get. And more importantly, we won’t actually succeed in putting any reasonable controls or guardrails in place. 

AI shows tremendous promise. There’s no question about it — and anyone should be able to acknowledge this. Because of AI, it’s easier to do research, process data, target advertisements, diagnose medical conditions, and much more. But if it increases productivity for the good guys, it also increases productivity for the bad guys. 

When hysterics talk about AI killing us all, that’s generally what they mean. What if AI can suddenly hack into financial institutions? What about biological and chemical research facilities, or the armed forces? The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists claims “advanced AI systems could lower barriers to creating harmful biological agents by providing guidance to users with limited expertise.” Is that true? It seems like it could be.

Even if it’s not a nuclear holocaust, what happens when it can be used to hack into anyone’s bank account, email, or whatever? When should we be concerned about AI’s implications for data privacy? Apple and Google are already using AI to screen your inboxes, text messages, and voicemails. How much power and information can these companies consolidate before it’s too much power and information? 

For decades, digital marketing companies and data brokers have collected granular information on everyone — they can accurately predict when you have to pee or when your wife is pregnant. That’s not science fiction. It’s also not fiction to acknowledge the risks to white-collar workers, most of whom do very little already. Maybe the “day in my life” tech girls who spend their day in endless meetings drinking matcha lattes deserve to lose their jobs. 

But what about the other white-collar professions? An estimated 165,000 people have lost their jobs because of AI in 2026. What about truck drivers and cab drivers’ livelihoods? The more this technology advances and scales — and, again, it’s doing both of those things arguably faster than any technology ever has — the more jobs get swallowed up by it.

All of this is related to the core risk of artificial intelligence, which is the risk of misalignment: What happens if AI systems develop goals that aren’t aligned with human interests? That’s not some kind of outlandish James Cameron fantasy. These are trillion-dollar companies pouring all their resources and brain power into developing an artificial mind. 

There are massive implications to that. What we need are serious people we can trust (so not Democrats) to start taking this seriously and put some controls in place, or try to. But right now it seems to be a debate between Bernie Sanders-types who want total control and conservatives who want to do nothing, as if there are zero serious risks posed by AI at all. Just a totally false dichotomy, and it fuels the kind of PR campaigns we’re seeing online and in the media right now.

The takeaway here is that, whether you’re an AI skeptic or not, you are being manipulated on a massive scale. Extremely well-funded, coordinated efforts exist behind the scenes to influence your opinion on AI — both for it and against it. 

Anything you read on the topic should be treated with the highest possible degree of skepticism. It’s now abundantly clear that the mainstream press is willing to swallow up and regurgitate any narrative they’re fed when it comes to AI. The worst mistake you could make — the one that might actually lead to the downfall of humanity — is to take any of it at face value.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org