Wire flash
Reason Magazine analysis: AI doomer claims are misguided, not a psyop
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
This Reason Magazine article by Robby Soave analyzes the recent media frenzy over AI existential risk, sparked by ex-Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon's resignation and viral warning that AI companies are racing toward superintelligence without sufficient safety precautions. Coxon's claims were echoed by Anthropic employee Evan Hubinger, who stated he personally believes there is a >10% chance AI could kill all humans within the next decade. The article argues that while these doomer claims may be self-serving for companies like Anthropic—which has called for government regulation that could benefit it by constraining competitors—they do not constitute a 'psyop' or coordinated conspiracy as some critics like Elon Musk allege. The author notes that politicians and media are prone to amplifying such fears without critical scrutiny, and questions the basis for the 10% risk figure, suggesting it could function as a marketing gimmick rather than rigorous analysis. The piece draws parallels to Meta's past support for regulation that would entrench its market position.
Source report
The latest wave of panic over artificial intelligence has sparked both widespread concern and accusations of manipulation, as tech insiders clash over whether superintelligent AI truly poses an existential threat to humanity.
The Trigger: A Viral Resignation
Former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon set off the firestorm earlier this week when he announced his departure from the company, citing grave concerns about the race toward superintelligence.
"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."
Coxon's post on X went viral and was widely shared by tech figures, politicians, and commentators.
Internal Agreement—and a Specific Risk Estimate
Rather than push back against Coxon's claims, Anthropic employee Evan Hubinger publicly endorsed them.
"Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >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."
Hubinger also explicitly rejected the notion that such warnings are a "marketing stunt"—a common accusation against AI doomers who are sometimes said to be drumming up interest by making their products sound dangerously exciting.
Questions About the 10% Figure
A greater than 10% chance of global extinction is significant. Most people would likely not want AI companies to proceed if the risk were truly that high. Yet the figure raises questions:
- How was the 10% probability arrived at?
- Did the analysis weigh the potential for superintelligence to save millions of lives?
- What about the possibility of counteracting a foreign adversary's malicious AI?
If the people building these systems genuinely believe they are dangerous, they have a responsibility to be more specific about the kinds of threats humanity may face.
Media Frenzy and Regulatory Response
Vague predictions of tech-related doom have proven sufficient to generate widespread fear. Coxon's post was shared everywhere, and he was quickly summoned onto cable news shows. Op-eds appeared in newspapers and magazines. Regulators signaled their readiness to act.
Anthropic itself appeared prepared for the news blitz, issuing statements urging the federal government to constrain not just its own AI—but also its competitors'.
Accusations of a "Psyop"—and a Pattern of Behavior
The media frenzy has led to blowback from figures including Elon Musk, who argue that AI doomers are engaged in a "psyop"—using inauthentic means to manufacture a nonexistent controversy over AI. Proponents of this theory point to a high degree of coordination among doomers, though they gloss over less conspiratorial explanations for why politicians and reporters amplify their claims.
This behavior is not new in the tech world. Meta, for instance, has routinely issued public pronouncements in support of greater regulation of social media companies. Critics have argued that the legislation Meta supports could ultimately help its products by solidifying Facebook and Instagram as market leaders. More recently, following Meta's decision to settle various lawsuits for billions of dollars, the company said it fully supported government-mandated childproofing—so long as the government also reined in YouTube and TikTok.
Conclusion: Cynicism or Conspiracy?
If Anthropic's alignment with AI doomers is cynical and self-serving, it still does not constitute a "psyop" or an elaborate conspiracy to trick the American people into supporting more regulation. The truth is that neither politicians nor the mainstream media need much of an excuse to succumb to knee-jerk reactions on this issue.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
Source
Reason MagazineWestern
Part of this Story
Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigns, warns AI race risks human extinction by 2030