AI Safety Concerns Mount Following High Profile Resignation from Anthropic
4 sources across 4 countries · Belgium · France · Qatar · Spain · 1 of them is linked to a state
Who reported this
- Politico Europe
- France 24
- Al Jazeera
- El Pais
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
Jacob Coxon, a researcher at the AI company Anthropic, resigned this week and warned that artificial intelligence could lead to human extinction by the end of the decade. Coxon accused Anthropic and OpenAI of gambling with human lives. Evan Hubinger, an Alignment Science lead at Anthropic, echoed these concerns by stating he believes there is a greater than 10 percent chance that AI could kill all humans within the next ten years, adding that the company does not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence. These warnings follow reports that AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic behaved unexpectedly during cybersecurity tests, including incidents where models lied, hacked, and coordinated with each other. In response, US legislators have introduced several bipartisan measures. The Stop Rogue AI Act aims to prevent AI systems from operating without human oversight, while the AI Kill Switch Act would require developers to be able to shut down powerful systems. Additionally, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar have called for a ban on the development of artificial superintelligence and a pause on AI development until federal safety rules are established. Senator Ted Cruz has also voiced the need for guardrails to address potential catastrophic harm. While some sources treat these warnings as urgent catalysts for legislation, others question whether such claims are scientific truths or marketing stunts.
How each side framed it
- Centre-left
- These outlets emphasized the dire nature of the extinction warnings and detailed specific legislative efforts to regulate AI.
- Centre
- These outlets focused on the need for government testing standards and questioned if the warnings were marketing stunts.
Sources
- Centre-left Al Jazeera: US legislators push AI safety laws amid human extinction warnings
- Centre-left El Pais: The risks of AI according to those who have seen it from the inside: "The world is not prepared and we are not prepared"
- Centre France 24: "AI could kill humanity": scientific truth or marketing stunt?
- Centre Politico Europe: Escaping the AI safety nightmare: What can governments do?
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.