Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI):

AI Alignment means making sure an AI system’s goals and behavior match what people actually want—our values, rules, and intentions. It’s about getting the AI to do the “right thing” even in new situations, not just follow instructions literally in ways that cause harm. In practice, it includes preventing unwanted outcomes like deception, unsafe shortcuts, or optimizing a metric that misses the real objective.

Jacob Coxon, a researcher who resigned from Anthropic yesterday, tweeted:

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…

— Jacob Coxon (@hilbertspaess) September 9, 2026

Evan Hubinger at Anthropic tweets:

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.

Paul Christiano, who just joined the OpenAI nonprofit board, serving on the Safety and Security Committee, writes:

Based on the recent trajectory of capabilities and the continued difficulty of alignment, I now believe there is a meaningful risk that rapid acceleration in AI capabilities leads to catastrophic and irreversible loss of control in the very near term. I do not think that the AI industry in general, including OpenAI, is currently on track to reduce this risk to an acceptable level.

Samuel Marks at Anthropic writes:

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.

OpenAI’s chief scientist Jakub Pachocki wrote a few days ago:

Currently I believe that no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer. I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established. And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.

Gary Marcus writes:

It has become clear by now that the frontier labs are knowingly and by their own admission doing something irreversible and incredibly dangerous without public consent.

They are already causing harm, and things could conceivably get much worse.

They have no serious plan for mitigating the risks of generative AI.

The government, too tight with industry, doesn’t either.

The time for a public boycott has come.