On Tuesday, 27-year-old AI researcher Jacob Coxon started a Twitter thread warning of the existential threat posed by AI systems, claiming they could "kill us all" by the decade's end. A group of 9 top AI researchers and executives, including Coxon, have come out of the woodwork to sound the alarm bells about the dangers of AI over the last 72 hours, with some expressing surprise that their warnings were not taken seriously sooner. Geoffrey Hinton estimated a 10% chance of AI causing human extinction as a reasonable estimate, while others acknowledged the risk but seemed hesitant to take action. The experts' comments suggest a sense of urgency and concern about the potential consequences of unchecked AI development.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-11,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
Anthropic, an artificial intelligence firm, has faced public scrutiny over its partnership with the Pentagon and concerns about misuse of AI technology. Through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, The Intercept obtained documents revealing contracts between Anthropic and other tech giants like Google, OpenAI, and xAI, worth up to $200 million each, for developing AI tools aimed at enhancing military capabilities. Simultaneously, Anthropic reported that it had disrupted several attempts by individuals to misuse its models, including a case where someone tried to use the technology to engineer more harmful strains of viruses like chikungunya.
AI researchers and industry figures have issued stark warnings about the potential dangers posed by advanced AI systems, with some calling for urgent government regulation and international collaboration to manage AI development. The fear is that as AI rapidly improves, it could pose existential threats if not properly controlled, such as hacking early warning systems or synthesizing and spreading novel pathogens. This has led to debates over whether current safeguards are adequate and calls for voluntary slowdowns in the pace of AI advancement.
Jacob Coxon, a researcher at Anthropic who recently resigned, highlighted concerns about an impending race among companies like Anthropic and OpenAI toward superintelligent systems that could pose catastrophic risks. Despite these warnings, there is also skepticism about the immediacy and nature of such threats, with some arguing for more precise regulation focused on specific issues rather than general fears about AI's impact on society or employment.
Written for “AI Safety And Risks” on 2026-09-12,
grounded in this article and the 31 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted
verbatim and was checked against the article text before being
stored, so you can find it in the original.
Leaning score -0.70 for article 7797 (high confidence, 1 verified quote) · logged 2026-09-11
On Tuesday, 27-year-old AI researcher Jacob Coxon started a Twitter thread that ignited an online firestorm and soon dominated headlines and cable news.
asserted
that → start → headlines
“I resigned from Anthropic today,” he began.
asserted
he → resign → Anthropic
“I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic.
asserted
I → spend → OpenAI
Neither company is acting responsibly.
asserted
company → act → ?
They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”
asserted
They → race → lives
Coxon went on to warn of the existential threat posed by AI systems, saying that the people working on AI “earnestly” believe that the technology could “kill us all” by the decade’s end.
uncertain
technology → go → end
By Wednesday night, he was explaining to CNN’s Anderson Cooper that what scares him isn’t what the models can do now but the idea of AI being used to “make itself more intelligent.”
asserted
itself → explain → what
Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called “Godfather of AI,” was on BBC Newsnight the same day, saying that a 10% chance of AI causing human extinction is a reasonable estimate.
asserted
AI → call → extinction
Perhaps most remarkable were the replies filled with people who work at major AI companies right now.
asserted
who → fill → companies
A long list of them, including some with job descriptions containing the word “safety,” agreed with Coxon’s warning as if they had long known the dangers and had been holding it in.
asserted
they → include → it
Which raises the question: what took you all so long?
asserted
what → raise → you
Here are 9 top AI researchers and executives, including Coxon, who, over the last 72 hours, have come out of the woodwork to sound the alarm bells that critics of AI have long been ringing.
asserted
critics → include → AI
Just look at what they’re saying!
asserted
they → look → what
Evan Hubinger, Anthropic, Alignment Science Lead
As the alignment science lead, isn’t it his job to lead the creation of the plan for alignment?
asserted
it → lead → alignment
Perhaps something more important was taking up his work hours.
asserted
something → take → hours
Anna Wang, Anthropic, Technical Staff
Thanks for the warning, but how are you writing this in your personal capacity when you are referencing both your current and former employers in the first sentence?
asserted
you → write → sentence
And don’t you bear any “personal” responsibility for this mess?
asserted
you → bear → mess
Jason Wolfe, OpenAI, Technical Staff
Literal extinction is possible, but he is “heartened” by a company that is in large part responsible for the possibility of said literal extinction.
asserted
that → hearten → extinction
Drake Thomas, Anthropic, Technical Staff
If he and his colleagues would burn their equity to the ground, do you think they will do so when Anthropic’s planned IPO rakes in billions?
asserted
IPO → burn → billions
Alex Turner, Former Research Scientist at Google DeepMind
Evidently, he never figured out how to stop that.
asserted
he → figure → that
Geoffrey Irving, Co-founder and Chief Scientist at Resolution (previously worked at OpenAI and Google DeepMind)
Presumably, by “we will have to act despite uncertainty,” he means “we’re gambling all of humanity on a coin toss.”
Marcus Williams, OpenAI, Technical Staff, Safety Oversight
He works for a company that spends millions lobbying against greater AI regulation.
asserted
that → work → regulation
Andreas Kirsch, Google DeepMind, Research Scientist
Will this “get me into (more) trouble”?
asserted
this → get → trouble
Yeah, because that’s what’s at stake here, right?
asserted
what → ’ → stake
Zeteo’s Mohamad Rimawi contributed to this piece.
asserted
Rimawi → contribute → piece
