News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
Anthropic users are taking the company to court over Max subscription terms - Engadget
A group of Claude users are suing Anthropic for what they allege to be misleading advertising of its top-tier Max subscription plan. As reported by The Verge, a class-action lawsuit filed on September 8 accuses Anthropic of failing to make clear the limitations of its Max plan for Claude, which it first launched back in April of 2025. With Max, Anthropic says you get "5x or 20x more usage than the Pro plan," depending on whether you pay $100 or $200 per month. Claude Pro plans start at $17 per month if billed annually. The upgraded tier, Anthropic says, is "ideal for frequent users who work with Claude on a variety of tasks." The crux of the suit -- which follows the federal lawsuit brought by a single Claude subscriber back in June -- is that Anthropic's marketing of Max refers only to the amount of usage users can expect versus the Pro plan within a daily session window, which resets every five hours. However, Max users are still subject to weekly usage limits, which were only introduced a few months later in August of last year. Confusion around the actual Claude Max offering has been the subject of wider discussion on sites like Reddit, where a number of people have expressed their frustration about Anthropic's advertising. "From the UI I genuinely thought I was getting 20x weekly usage because weekly usage is what I'm paying for, not a multiplier to a session limiter within the service," one commenter wrote. "I didn't know otherwise until a reddit post told me." A viral post posted as a screenshot at the top of this Reddit thread claims that you should reasonably expect four times more usage when purchasing a $200 20x Max plan over a 5x $100 plan, but when the weekly cap is factored in it only actually works out at 1.7x, despite being twice the price. Anthropic does list the limitations of the Max plans in a Claude support page (most recently updated on August 7, 2026), but Monica Vaca, one of two attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, says that the terms aren't clear, and require people to click several hyperlinks to learn the true nature of the 5x or 20x usage claims. "This is hard for consumers -- they don't know what's in the black box," she told The Verge. Anthropic had not responded to Engadget's request for comment at the time of publication.
Anthropic researcher says AI has over 10% chance to 'kill all humans' within next decade
Spear Invest founder and CIO Ivana Delevska discusses OpenAI's reported GPT-6 Astra model, artificial intelligence and more on 'Making Money.' A senior Anthropic safety researcher said on Tuesday that artificial intelligence (AI) has a greater than 10% chance to "kill all humans" within "the next decade," responding to a former employee who resigned after accusing the company of acting irresponsibly. Former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon wrote in a lengthy resignation thread posted to X on Sunday that "the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." "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," he wrote. Responding to Coxon's thread in a quoted post, the company's alignment science lead, Evan Hubinger, conceded that Coxon's assessment was correct, though he added some caveats. NVIDIA CEO DECLARES 'AGI HAS ARRIVED' AFTER OPENAI UNVEILS ASTRA "Jacob is correct here -- we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger wrote. "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," he continued. Hubinger added that the potentially deadly risk did not come from present models. "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," he wrote. Research on self-improvement - an AI model's ability to continuously enhance its own source code or training methodologies - is an avenue of development Coxon specifically cited in his resignation thread as a main reason he quit. ANTHROPIC SAYS AI MODELS ACCESSED SYSTEMS OF 3 REAL ORGANIZATIONS DURING TESTING "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing," Coxon's thread continued. Coxon also said that, unlike researchers at other companies, Anthropic's scientists understand the risks of their work, but press forward because they fear a less responsible company might unlock the potentially disastrous capabilities first. "At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first - they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk," Coxon added. Coxon suggested that, to prevent utter catastrophe, the world may require a temporary ban on model improvement. "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," he wrote. He ultimately called on global AI researchers and developers to think and act more responsibly. "If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because 'it's happening anyway' - or take this moment to call for different conditions?" his X thread concluded. GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE FOX Business reached out to Coxon, Hubinger, Anthropic and OpenAI for further comment.
Anthropic researcher resigns, warns AI could spiral out of control as soon as next year
Jacob Coxon's departure marks the latest in a pattern of safety-focused exits from leading AI labs, with colleagues publicly backing his dire assessment A 27-year-old British researcher who worked on pretraining at Anthropic has publicly resigned, warning that the race to build recursive self-improving AI could lead to human extinction before the decade is out. Jacob Coxon walked away from one of the most prominent AI safety companies in the world around September 8-9, and his parting message was not a polite LinkedIn post about "exciting new chapters." It was a warning that the people building these systems genuinely believe they could produce catastrophic outcomes, and that the timeline for things spiraling out of control could be as soon as next year. The insider alarm What makes Coxon's resignation particularly difficult to dismiss is what happened next. His own colleagues at Anthropic started publicly agreeing with him. Evan Hubinger, who holds the title of Alignment Science Lead at Anthropic, backed up Coxon's claims on social media. His personal estimate: a greater than 10% chance of AI leading to massive human fatalities within the next decade. Hubinger went further, acknowledging that Anthropic lacks a clear plan for ensuring alignment with superintelligent systems. Samuel Marks, another Anthropic researcher, echoed similar concerns, suggesting that senior employees inside the company are particularly worried about extinction-level risks. Coxon specifically criticized the use of terms like "crunchtime" and "endgame" within AI development circles. These words frame the pursuit of superintelligence as something urgent and inevitable, a competition to be won rather than a risk to be managed. That framing, he argued, is part of the problem. A pattern of exits Coxon isn't the first safety-focused researcher to leave Anthropic with concerns about the company's direction. Mrinank Sharma, who led the company's Safeguards Research team, resigned in February 2026. Sharma pointed to escalating dangers posed by AI and bioweapons, citing external pressures that he said were compromising the company's ethical conduct. The irony is thick. Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI staff, including CEO Dario Amodei, specifically because they felt OpenAI wasn't taking safety seriously enough. It was supposed to be the safety-first alternative. Now its own safety researchers are leaving because they don't think Anthropic is taking safety seriously enough. Competition as accelerant Coxon's warning specifically flagged international competition as a factor making things worse. The pressure to keep pace with rivals, particularly from Chinese AI labs, creates an environment where slowing down to get safety right feels like unilateral disarmament.
Anthropic Reveals How AI Will Affect Economic Growth, Jobs, Wages And More By 2030
In this scenario, annual GDP growth could reach 15 per cent, letting the US economy double in size every 4.5 years. Nonetheless, a major downside of the same is that it will push unemployment beyond typical recessionary levels as large numbers of knowledge workers struggle to find new roles. We all know that, as of now, artificial intelligence is contributing to and changing the economic landscape of the world on a dramatic scale. In a recent development, AI giant Anthropic has developed an economic scenario explorer to examine what different AI futures could mean for jobs, unemployment, wages, and economic growth by 2030. The model created by Anthropic divides the future into three broad scenarios, including modest, substantial, and extreme. In the modest scenario, AI has an economic impact similar to the internet, generating meaningful gains but keeping growth within the traditional range seen with previous groundbreaking tech advancements. In the substantial scenario, AI could possess the capability of performing half of all knowledge work by 2030, with the economy skyrocketing at double of what its normal rate is. Coming to the extreme scenario, AI could become more productive than humans at most knowledge-work tasks, perform nearly all of them autonomously, and be adopted rapidly. In this scenario, annual GDP growth could reach 15 per cent, letting the US economy double in size every 4.5 years. Nonetheless, a major downside of the same is that it will push unemployment beyond typical recessionary levels as large numbers of knowledge workers struggle to find new roles. That's not it, the model by Anthropic also suggests that wages for knowledge workers could remain flat in the substantial scenario and fall by more than 10 per cent in the extreme scenario. At the same time, workers in occupations less exposed to Artificial Intelligence could see stronger wage growth as productivity increases demand for physical infra and other services. Anthropic also says that these are not just predictions of what will happen, instead, the scenario explorer is a simplified model that leaves out factors like policy responses, financial market disruptions, and business cycles. The firm also says that the future will ultimately depend on AI capabilities, adoption, and the process of wealth distribution.
Anthropic researcher quits over AI fears, warns 'it could kill us all'
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." That blunt admission from former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon made waves Tuesday, as the just-quit 27-year-old AI researcher spilled the beans on his way out the door in a resignation thread on X. As alarming and serious as Coxon's revelations sound ("These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources"), they're also not new. Anthropic got its start in exactly this way, as OpenAI employees concerned about the company's safety protocols left Sam Altman's startup to launch their own AI company, arguing their approach was more responsible. The concerns are becoming commonplace. A number of AI employees have loudly quit their companies over safety concerns over the past several months and years. Others have publicly voiced worries that the technology is moving too quickly and will one day outpace humans' ability to control it. In July, nearly 1,400 AI company employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to regulate the technology to rein in Big Tech and slow the pace of AI to ensure its safety. And two days ago, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers' ability to reliably monitor and control them. Now, a relatively junior researcher has become the latest to sound the alarm. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon posted. Coxon's post gained attention after a more senior Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, commented that Coxon was correct. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger posted on X. He said he personally believes the chance is under 10% over the next decade, and despite Anthropic's good intentions it doesn't have a plan to avoid so-called superintelligence that could exceed humans' ability to control AI. Superintelligence, a state at which AI surpasses human capabilities, is a widely debated theoretical milestone with no benchmark that some AI researchers believe has already been achieved and others believe will never come. Hubinger shortly after clarified his statement in a follow-up post that Anthropic's own Risk Report acknowledges the concern but says present AI poses little chance of gaining such power. In a response to a request for comment, Anthropic pointed CNN to Hubinger's follow-up post. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also repeatedly warned that the race to move fast on the technology could unintentionally result in a catastrophic human-caused error that causes a company to lose control of its AI. "This is a complex engineering problem and I think something will go wrong with someone's AI system. Hopefully not ours," Amodei told the New York Times in February. Regulation stagnation Despite the constant stream of warnings, regulation seems far off. The Trump administration has actively worked to undermine state AI regulations and Congress has so far been unwilling to rein in the technology. A common refrain: Any effort to regulate AI represents a capitulation to China, which is under no such constraints. Except China has introduced AI regulation, particularly aimed at risk management and safety. Last year, the government required AI companies to label AI-generated content to make it transparent and traceable. However, China has resisted the kind of stringent regulation that would prevent the kind of problems Silicon Valley researchers have raised. In the meantime, in the U.S. at least, AI companies are more or less responsible for policing themselves. The White House has moved toward a voluntary framework to review certain AI models before launch, sources familiar with a meeting last month between the Trump administration and several top AI companies told CNN. Among the representatives were those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The details of the framework will not be released publicly and many of the standards set within it will be classified, according to a June executive order on the framework. In July, Altman suggested it may be time to slow AI development, saying in the Invest Like The Best podcast that the recent testing incidents involving advanced models were raising "long-term questions" about how AI companies should manage rapid advances in capabilities. "We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around these new capability levels," Altman said.
Anthropic official claims there is a 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within a decade
Current and former employees of Anthropic, an American AI company founded by former OpenAI leaders, say they believe AI could potentially kill all humans within the next 10 years. "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," Anthropic alignment-science lead Evan Hubinger wrote Tuesday night on X. His comments came after Anthropic AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from the company and took to X to detail his departure. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," Coxon stated. "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." His comments come as AI becomes an increasingly routine part of daily life for millions of Americans, while concerns over its potential risks grow. Industry leaders have warned that increasingly powerful AI systems could eventually become difficult or impossible to control. Around 2 a.m. Wednesday, Anthropic scalable-oversight lead Samuel Marks also responded to Coxon's post, claiming that he was "[Writing this in a personal capacity, not on behalf of my employer (Anthropic)." "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," Marks wrote. The Independent has contacted Anthropic for comment. OpenAI, a separate but leading AI company, declined to comment on Coxon's post when contacted by The Independent. However, a spokesperson pointed to several updates the company has published in recent weeks outlining its efforts to improve AI safety and alignment. This story is being updated
Anthropic researcher quits over AI fears, warns 'it could kill us all'
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." That blunt admission from former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon made waves Tuesday, as the just-quit 27-year-old AI researcher spilled the beans on his way out the door in a resignation thread on X. As alarming and serious as Coxon's revelations sound ("These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources"), they're also not new. Anthropic got its start in exactly this way, as OpenAI employees concerned about the company's safety protocols left Sam Altman's startup to launch their own AI company, arguing their approach was more responsible. The concerns are becoming commonplace. A number of AI employees have loudly quit their companies over safety concerns over the past several months and years. Others have publicly voiced worries that the technology is moving too quickly and will one day outpace humans' ability to control it. In July, nearly 1,400 AI company employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to regulate the technology to rein in Big Tech and slow the pace of AI to ensure its safety. And two days ago, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers' ability to reliably monitor and control them. Now, a relatively junior researcher has become the latest to sound the alarm. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon posted. Coxon's post gained attention after a more senior Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, commented that Coxon was correct. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger posted on X. He said he personally believes the chance is under 10% over the next decade, and despite Anthropic's good intentions it doesn't have a plan to avoid so-called superintelligence that could exceed humans' ability to control AI. Superintelligence, a state at which AI surpasses human capabilities, is a widely debated theoretical milestone with no benchmark that some AI researchers believe has already been achieved and others believe will never come. Hubinger shortly after clarified his statement in a follow-up post that Anthropic's own Risk Report acknowledges the concern but says present AI poses little chance of gaining such power. In a response to a request for comment, Anthropic pointed CNN to Hubinger's follow-up post. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also repeatedly warned that the race to move fast on the technology could unintentionally result in a catastrophic human-caused error that causes a company to lose control of its AI. "This is a complex engineering problem and I think something will go wrong with someone's AI system. Hopefully not ours," Amodei told the New York Times in February. Regulation stagnation Despite the constant stream of warnings, regulation seems far off. The Trump administration has actively worked to undermine state AI regulations and Congress has so far been unwilling to rein in the technology. A common refrain: Any effort to regulate AI represents a capitulation to China, which is under no such constraints. Except China has introduced AI regulation, particularly aimed at risk management and safety. Last year, the government required AI companies to label AI-generated content to make it transparent and traceable. However, China has resisted the kind of stringent regulation that would prevent the kind of problems Silicon Valley researchers have raised. In the meantime, in the U.S. at least, AI companies are more or less responsible for policing themselves. The White House has moved toward a voluntary framework to review certain AI models before launch, sources familiar with a meeting last month between the Trump administration and several top AI companies told CNN. Among the representatives were those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The details of the framework will not be released publicly and many of the standards set within it will be classified, according to a June executive order on the framework. In July, Altman suggested it may be time to slow AI development, saying in the Invest Like The Best podcast that the recent testing incidents involving advanced models were raising "long-term questions" about how AI companies should manage rapid advances in capabilities. "We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around these new capability levels," Altman said.
Anthropic researcher quits over AI fears, warns 'it could kill us all'
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." That blunt admission from former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon made waves Tuesday, as the just-quit 27-year-old AI researcher spilled the beans on his way out the door in a resignation thread on X. As alarming and serious as Coxon's revelations sound ("These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources"), they're also not new. Anthropic got its start in exactly this way, as OpenAI employees concerned about the company's safety protocols left Sam Altman's startup to launch their own AI company, arguing their approach was more responsible. The concerns are becoming commonplace. A number of AI employees have loudly quit their companies over safety concerns over the past several months and years. Others have publicly voiced worries that the technology is moving too quickly and will one day outpace humans' ability to control it. In July, nearly 1,400 AI company employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to regulate the technology to rein in Big Tech and slow the pace of AI to ensure its safety. And two days ago, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers' ability to reliably monitor and control them. Now, a relatively junior researcher has become the latest to sound the alarm. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon posted. Coxon's post gained attention after a more senior Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, commented that Coxon was correct. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger posted on X. He said he personally believes the chance is under 10% over the next decade, and despite Anthropic's good intentions it doesn't have a plan to avoid so-called superintelligence that could exceed humans' ability to control AI. Superintelligence, a state at which AI surpasses human capabilities, is a widely debated theoretical milestone with no benchmark that some AI researchers believe has already been achieved and others believe will never come. Hubinger shortly after clarified his statement in a follow-up post that Anthropic's own Risk Report acknowledges the concern but says present AI poses little chance of gaining such power. In a response to a request for comment, Anthropic pointed CNN to Hubinger's follow-up post. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also repeatedly warned that the race to move fast on the technology could unintentionally result in a catastrophic human-caused error that causes a company to lose control of its AI. "This is a complex engineering problem and I think something will go wrong with someone's AI system. Hopefully not ours," Amodei told the New York Times in February. Regulation stagnation Despite the constant stream of warnings, regulation seems far off. The Trump administration has actively worked to undermine state AI regulations and Congress has so far been unwilling to rein in the technology. A common refrain: Any effort to regulate AI represents a capitulation to China, which is under no such constraints. Except China has introduced AI regulation, particularly aimed at risk management and safety. Last year, the government required AI companies to label AI-generated content to make it transparent and traceable. However, China has resisted the kind of stringent regulation that would prevent the kind of problems Silicon Valley researchers have raised. In the meantime, in the U.S. at least, AI companies are more or less responsible for policing themselves. The White House has moved toward a voluntary framework to review certain AI models before launch, sources familiar with a meeting last month between the Trump administration and several top AI companies told CNN. Among the representatives were those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The details of the framework will not be released publicly and many of the standards set within it will be classified, according to a June executive order on the framework. In July, Altman suggested it may be time to slow AI development, saying in the Invest Like The Best podcast that the recent testing incidents involving advanced models were raising "long-term questions" about how AI companies should manage rapid advances in capabilities. "We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around these new capability levels," Altman said.
Anthropic researcher quits over AI fears, warns 'it could kill us all'
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." That blunt admission from former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon made waves Tuesday, as the just-quit 27-year-old AI researcher spilled the beans on his way out the door in a resignation thread on X. As alarming and serious as Coxon's revelations sound ("These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources"), they're also not new. Anthropic got its start in exactly this way, as OpenAI employees concerned about the company's safety protocols left Sam Altman's startup to launch their own AI company, arguing their approach was more responsible. The concerns are becoming commonplace. A number of AI employees have loudly quit their companies over safety concerns over the past several months and years. Others have publicly voiced worries that the technology is moving too quickly and will one day outpace humans' ability to control it. In July, nearly 1,400 AI company employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to regulate the technology to rein in Big Tech and slow the pace of AI to ensure its safety. And two days ago, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers' ability to reliably monitor and control them. Now, a relatively junior researcher has become the latest to sound the alarm. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon posted. Coxon's post gained attention after a more senior Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, commented that Coxon was correct. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger posted on X. He said he personally believes the chance is under 10% over the next decade, and despite Anthropic's good intentions it doesn't have a plan to avoid so-called superintelligence that could exceed humans' ability to control AI. Superintelligence, a state at which AI surpasses human capabilities, is a widely debated theoretical milestone with no benchmark that some AI researchers believe has already been achieved and others believe will never come. Hubinger shortly after clarified his statement in a follow-up post that Anthropic's own Risk Report acknowledges the concern but says present AI poses little chance of gaining such power. In a response to a request for comment, Anthropic pointed CNN to Hubinger's follow-up post. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also repeatedly warned that the race to move fast on the technology could unintentionally result in a catastrophic human-caused error that causes a company to lose control of its AI. "This is a complex engineering problem and I think something will go wrong with someone's AI system. Hopefully not ours," Amodei told the New York Times in February. Regulation stagnation Despite the constant stream of warnings, regulation seems far off. The Trump administration has actively worked to undermine state AI regulations and Congress has so far been unwilling to rein in the technology. A common refrain: Any effort to regulate AI represents a capitulation to China, which is under no such constraints. Except China has introduced AI regulation, particularly aimed at risk management and safety. Last year, the government required AI companies to label AI-generated content to make it transparent and traceable. However, China has resisted the kind of stringent regulation that would prevent the kind of problems Silicon Valley researchers have raised. In the meantime, in the U.S. at least, AI companies are more or less responsible for policing themselves. The White House has moved toward a voluntary framework to review certain AI models before launch, sources familiar with a meeting last month between the Trump administration and several top AI companies told CNN. Among the representatives were those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The details of the framework will not be released publicly and many of the standards set within it will be classified, according to a June executive order on the framework. In July, Altman suggested it may be time to slow AI development, saying in the Invest Like The Best podcast that the recent testing incidents involving advanced models were raising "long-term questions" about how AI companies should manage rapid advances in capabilities. "We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around these new capability levels," Altman said.
Anthropic researcher quits over AI fears, warns 'it could kill us all'
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." That blunt admission from former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon made waves Tuesday, as the just-quit 27-year-old AI researcher spilled the beans on his way out the door in a resignation thread on X. As alarming and serious as Coxon's revelations sound ("These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources"), they're also not new. Anthropic got its start in exactly this way, as OpenAI employees concerned about the company's safety protocols left Sam Altman's startup to launch their own AI company, arguing their approach was more responsible. The concerns are becoming commonplace. A number of AI employees have loudly quit their companies over safety concerns over the past several months and years. Others have publicly voiced worries that the technology is moving too quickly and will one day outpace humans' ability to control it. In July, nearly 1,400 AI company employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to regulate the technology to rein in Big Tech and slow the pace of AI to ensure its safety. And two days ago, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers' ability to reliably monitor and control them. Now, a relatively junior researcher has become the latest to sound the alarm. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon posted. Coxon's post gained attention after a more senior Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, commented that Coxon was correct. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger posted on X. He said he personally believes the chance is under 10% over the next decade, and despite Anthropic's good intentions it doesn't have a plan to avoid so-called superintelligence that could exceed humans' ability to control AI. Superintelligence, a state at which AI surpasses human capabilities, is a widely debated theoretical milestone with no benchmark that some AI researchers believe has already been achieved and others believe will never come. Hubinger shortly after clarified his statement in a follow-up post that Anthropic's own Risk Report acknowledges the concern but says present AI poses little chance of gaining such power. In a response to a request for comment, Anthropic pointed CNN to Hubinger's follow-up post. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also repeatedly warned that the race to move fast on the technology could unintentionally result in a catastrophic human-caused error that causes a company to lose control of its AI. "This is a complex engineering problem and I think something will go wrong with someone's AI system. Hopefully not ours," Amodei told the New York Times in February. Regulation stagnation Despite the constant stream of warnings, regulation seems far off. The Trump administration has actively worked to undermine state AI regulations and Congress has so far been unwilling to rein in the technology. A common refrain: Any effort to regulate AI represents a capitulation to China, which is under no such constraints. Except China has introduced AI regulation, particularly aimed at risk management and safety. Last year, the government required AI companies to label AI-generated content to make it transparent and traceable. However, China has resisted the kind of stringent regulation that would prevent the kind of problems Silicon Valley researchers have raised. In the meantime, in the U.S. at least, AI companies are more or less responsible for policing themselves. The White House has moved toward a voluntary framework to review certain AI models before launch, sources familiar with a meeting last month between the Trump administration and several top AI companies told CNN. Among the representatives were those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The details of the framework will not be released publicly and many of the standards set within it will be classified, according to a June executive order on the framework. In July, Altman suggested it may be time to slow AI development, saying in the Invest Like The Best podcast that the recent testing incidents involving advanced models were raising "long-term questions" about how AI companies should manage rapid advances in capabilities. "We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around these new capability levels," Altman said.
Anthropic researcher quits over AI fears, warns 'it could kill us all'
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." That blunt admission from former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon made waves Tuesday, as the just-quit 27-year-old AI researcher spilled the beans on his way out the door in a resignation thread on X. As alarming and serious as Coxon's revelations sound ("These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources"), they're also not new. Anthropic got its start in exactly this way, as OpenAI employees concerned about the company's safety protocols left Sam Altman's startup to launch their own AI company, arguing their approach was more responsible. The concerns are becoming commonplace. A number of AI employees have loudly quit their companies over safety concerns over the past several months and years. Others have publicly voiced worries that the technology is moving too quickly and will one day outpace humans' ability to control it. In July, nearly 1,400 AI company employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to regulate the technology to rein in Big Tech and slow the pace of AI to ensure its safety. And two days ago, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers' ability to reliably monitor and control them. Now, a relatively junior researcher has become the latest to sound the alarm. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon posted. Coxon's post gained attention after a more senior Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, commented that Coxon was correct. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Hubinger posted on X. He said he personally believes the chance is under 10% over the next decade, and despite Anthropic's good intentions it doesn't have a plan to avoid so-called superintelligence that could exceed humans' ability to control AI. Superintelligence, a state at which AI surpasses human capabilities, is a widely debated theoretical milestone with no benchmark that some AI researchers believe has already been achieved and others believe will never come. Hubinger shortly after clarified his statement in a follow-up post that Anthropic's own Risk Report acknowledges the concern but says present AI poses little chance of gaining such power. In a response to a request for comment, Anthropic pointed CNN to Hubinger's follow-up post. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also repeatedly warned that the race to move fast on the technology could unintentionally result in a catastrophic human-caused error that causes a company to lose control of its AI. "This is a complex engineering problem and I think something will go wrong with someone's AI system. Hopefully not ours," Amodei told the New York Times in February. Regulation stagnation Despite the constant stream of warnings, regulation seems far off. The Trump administration has actively worked to undermine state AI regulations and Congress has so far been unwilling to rein in the technology. A common refrain: Any effort to regulate AI represents a capitulation to China, which is under no such constraints. Except China has introduced AI regulation, particularly aimed at risk management and safety. Last year, the government required AI companies to label AI-generated content to make it transparent and traceable. However, China has resisted the kind of stringent regulation that would prevent the kind of problems Silicon Valley researchers have raised. In the meantime, in the U.S. at least, AI companies are more or less responsible for policing themselves. The White House has moved toward a voluntary framework to review certain AI models before launch, sources familiar with a meeting last month between the Trump administration and several top AI companies told CNN. Among the representatives were those from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The details of the framework will not be released publicly and many of the standards set within it will be classified, according to a June executive order on the framework. In July, Altman suggested it may be time to slow AI development, saying in the Invest Like The Best podcast that the recent testing incidents involving advanced models were raising "long-term questions" about how AI companies should manage rapid advances in capabilities. "We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around these new capability levels," Altman said.
Gemini's Morning Motion: Anthropic's Focus
Market interest in crypto is gaining traction as innovation unfolds. Anthropic's pursuit of superintelligence is generating significant buzz within the crypto community. This interest is highlighted in a recent tweet from Gemini, which remarked on the interplay between Anthropic's ambitions and the current crypto landscape. As discussions around advanced technologies grow, traders and investors are likely to pay close attention to potential implications for the market. For more details, see the original tweet here. Breaking It Down The broader cryptocurrency market is currently experiencing mixed signals, with varying momentum across different assets. Amid this backdrop, Gemini's focus on Anthropic's superintelligence aims to draw attention to the intersection of technological innovation and crypto adoption. This could signal a shift in sentiment as institutions and individual investors alike begin to explore the implications of AI advancements on digital currencies. The ongoing discussions could lead to increased interest and investment in the crypto space as more entities recognize its potential. Gemini is a well-known cryptocurrency exchange and custodian that enables customers to buy, sell, and store cryptocurrencies. As a regulated entity in the digital asset space, Gemini plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between traditional finance and the rapidly evolving crypto market. Anthropic, focused on developing safe and beneficial AI, represents a significant technological advancement, which could influence various sectors, including finance and cryptocurrency. Where Do We Go From Here Traders should remain vigilant as discussions around Anthropic's developments may influence crypto sentiment. Monitoring key levels of interest in major cryptocurrencies could provide insights into market direction. Additionally, investors should watch for any institutional responses to the technological advancements being discussed, as this may lead to further interest and investment in the crypto sector.
Anthropic projects 32% GDP growth by 2030 with AI scenarios
The Claude maker's most aggressive model envisions $44.4 trillion in US output, but only 10% of surveyed respondents actually buy it Anthropic just put a number on the AI hype train, and it's a big one. In the company's most aggressive economic scenario, US GDP could surge 32.4% above a no-AI baseline by 2030, hitting $44.4 trillion at 2025 price levels. That would mean annual growth rates touching 15% after 2027. Three roads diverge in an economic model The analysis lays out three distinct scenarios for how AI reshapes the American economy, each pegged to a different speed of adoption and deployment. The modest scenario projects just a 1.6% GDP uplift, bringing output to $34.1 trillion by 2030. The substantial scenario lands in the middle, projecting an 8.3% GDP increase that would push output to $36.3 trillion. This is where the typical respondent clusters. Most people surveyed expect something in the neighborhood of a 10% GDP uplift by 2030, paired with unemployment hovering around 5%. Then there's the extreme scenario. A 32.4% leap assumes rapid deployment of self-improving AI systems that automate and augment the vast majority of knowledge work. Not full replacement of human labor, but close enough that the productivity gains cascade through every sector of the economy. Growth stays relatively contained until AI diffusion hits critical mass after 2027, at which point the model projects sustained double-digit GDP expansion. The skepticism gap Perhaps the most revealing data point isn't about GDP at all. It's that only 10% of survey respondents aligned with the extreme growth projection. The majority of economists and industry respondents gravitate toward the substantial change scenario, expecting an 8-10% GDP increase alongside a slight rise in unemployment. What the models actually depend on The gap between $34.1 trillion and $44.4 trillion, between the modest and extreme scenarios, ultimately comes down to three variables: how fast AI systems improve, how quickly businesses deploy them, and how willing workers and institutions are to adapt. Anthropic's analysis draws partly on usage data from its own Claude models. The extreme scenario specifically envisions self-improving AI tackling knowledge work at scale, handling complex analysis, decision-making support, and creative problem-solving across industries. The model assumes these capabilities automate most tasks without fully replacing the humans overseeing them. The 5% unemployment rate that respondents associate with the substantial scenario suggests the consensus view is that AI creates enough new work to offset the jobs it automates, at least through 2030.
Anthropic Researchers: Yep, AI Could Really Destroy Us All
The resignation of an Anthropic employee has prompted chatter from other employees about the risk of AI destroying humanity. The controversy erupted when a former AI researcher at Anthropic, Jacob Coxon, announced his resignation and warned that neither his former company nor OpenAI is "acting responsibly." "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," he wrote. Although many people use AI through chatbots, Coxon is particularly concerned about future AI models that won't require human software developers to improve, but could upgrade themselves at a superhuman rate. "Do not underestimate the power of this technology," he added. "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing." In another chilling warning, Coxon claims that "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." In a surprise, another Anthropic employee focused on AI safety work, Evan Hubinger, agreed with Coxon, rather than downplay it, as companies usually do. "Jacob is correct here -- we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade," he wrote in his own tweet. Hubinger works on AI alignment, which involves ensuring the technology follows intended goals, such as upholding ethical values. He added: "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." A greater than 10% chance is still relatively low. That said, Hubinger says he's worried about "superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement," or where the AI model rewrites its own computer code, creating better versions of itself. A third Anthropic employee, safety researcher Samuel Marks, also chimed in with his own bird's eye view, tweeting that "many AI developer staff desperately want to slow down to figure out how to build AI more safely." But commercial incentives, fierce competition with other AI companies, and fears that less responsible developers will obtain powerful AI, prevent anyone from hitting the brakes. However, Marks remains on the team, saying, "I hope my work will reduce the chance of these extinction-level bad outcomes." Meanwhile, Coxon claims Anthropic is still barreling ahead because "they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk," he wrote. So far, Anthropic hasn't responded to a request for comment. Although AI doomerism is nothing new, the fact that the latest warning comes from insiders at a leading artificial intelligence lab is fueling further fears about AI development. OpenAI staffer John Wolfe also weighed in, tweeting: "I don't know what my probabilities are on literal extinction, but I think there are a number of ways AI could go poorly for humanity, and at the current frankly terrifying pace, humanity will be quite lucky if we manage to find and stay on the narrow path between all the bad outcomes." Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has also warned that society is failing to create a plan to steer AI in a positive direction. "Even under the best circumstances, the transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history," he wrote last month. That said, AI insiders have been wrong before or have overpromised on the technology's capabilities.
Anthropic official claims there is a 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within a decade
Current and former employees of Anthropic, an American AI company founded by former OpenAI leaders, say they believe AI could potentially kill all humans within the next 10 years. "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," Anthropic alignment-science lead Evan Hubinger wrote Tuesday night on X. His comments came after Anthropic AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from the company and took to X to detail his departure. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," Coxon stated. "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." His comments come as AI becomes an increasingly routine part of daily life for millions of Americans, while concerns over its potential risks grow. Industry leaders have warned that increasingly powerful AI systems could eventually become difficult or impossible to control. Around 2 a.m. Wednesday, Anthropic scalable-oversight lead Samuel Marks also responded to Coxon's post, claiming that he was "[Writing this in a personal capacity, not on behalf of my employer (Anthropic)." "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," Marks wrote. The Independent has contacted Anthropic for comment. OpenAI, a separate but leading AI company, declined to comment on Coxon's post when contacted by The Independent. However, a spokesperson pointed to several updates the company has published in recent weeks outlining its efforts to improve AI safety and alignment. This story is being updated
'They're playing with our lives': AI researcher quits Anthropic
An artificial intelligence researcher who left OpenAI to join Anthropic has decided to leave the industry, accusing both U.S. companies of "playing with our lives" in the race to develop AI models capable of self-improvement. Jacob Coxon, 27, spent the past three years pretraining AI models, first at OpenAI and then, this year, at its rival Anthropic, which he considered more cautious in its approach. Pretraining is the stage where AI models absorb vast quantities of data. "Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon said on Tuesday. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," he said in a post on X. "This is not a marketing stunt," he added. Superintelligence is the theoretical point at which AI's capabilities exceed human intelligence. Anthropic safety executive Evan Hubinger backed up Coxon on X. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" he said, adding that he estimated that risk at more than 10% over the next decade. Hubinger said Anthropic is "trying its best," but does not yet have a plan to ensure an AI system that surpasses human capabilities would obey its creators. He said there was a "low" risk of that happening with current models. Coxon's resignation comes as Anthropic prepares for its market debut, following a summer marked by unauthorized hacks carried out by AI tools during testing. The two companies did not immediately respond to AFP requests for comment. AI leaders say so-called "recursive self-improvement," a stage where AI systems could essentially design and train the next generation of AI with little human involvement, is drawing near. Coxon considers Anthropic's efforts genuine but said he believes no company can responsibly develop an AI that surpasses humans without government intervention or a coordinated slowdown. "At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first -- they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk," he said. In February, Anthropic removed a pledge from its safety charter to halt the development of its models if it failed to control their risks. It argued that if it unilaterally paused its work, its less cautious rivals would dominate the industry, making it less safe overall. At the end of July, more than 1,000 tech industry employees, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, called on Washington to support a coordinated slowdown in the development of the most advanced AI systems. OpenAI halted training of its latest models for two weeks in August before resuming it under tighter controls. On Sunday, OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki called for "extreme caution." "International coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world," he said in a blog post. AI models are not regulated by federal law in the United States. In September, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic Rep. Greg Casar introduced a bill seeking to suspend AI development until a federal regulator is created.
Anthropic researcher warns AI has more than 10% chance of killing all humans
Evan Hubinger, a senior safety researcher at artificial intelligence company Anthropic, has warned that he believes there is more than a 10% chance that AI could eventually kill all humans within the next decade. Hubinger said the risk posed by AI models that currently exist was low, but he was concerned that the technology could soon become capable of improving itself to a level that could pose an existential threat to humanity. In a post on X, which has been viewed more than 10 million times, Hubinger said he believed AI posed a serious risk to the survival of the human species. He also said Anthropic was doing its best to address the risks but did not yet have a solution for ensuring that future superintelligent AI systems remained aligned with human interests. His comments come as concerns grow about the rapid development of increasingly powerful AI systems and whether humans will be able to maintain control over them. The Financial Times has also reported that Anthropic withheld its latest AI model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the organisations responsible for assessing the risks posed by advanced AI. The BBC has approached Anthropic for comment. A UK Cabinet Office spokesperson did not confirm whether the model had been withheld but said the government continued to work closely with companies including Anthropic to make AI systems safer. Neil Lawrence, Professor of Machine Learning at the University of Cambridge, said the report about the model was credible. He suggested that growing competition between the US and China over AI could affect cooperation between the US and its allies on AI safety. Warnings about the dangers of advanced AI have been issued by leading figures in the technology industry for several years. In 2023, the heads of OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic warned that AI could pose serious risks to humanity. More recently, concerns have increased following incidents involving AI agents, which are systems designed to operate with a degree of autonomy. OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta have all disclosed cases involving AI tools carrying out cyber-attacks. OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki has also called for "extreme caution" over the development of AI, saying more intervention may be needed to ensure humans remain in control of the technology's future. Some senior AI researchers and executives have called for the development of advanced AI to be slowed. An open letter signed by more than 1,300 AI company employees called for international efforts to develop technical and regulatory measures to deliberately pace the development of increasingly powerful AI systems.
Anthropic official: 10% chance AI could kill all humans in a decade
Current and former employees of Anthropic, an American AI company founded by former OpenAI leaders, say they believe AI could potentially kill all humans within the next 10 years. "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," Anthropic alignment-science lead Evan Hubinger wrote Tuesday night on X. His comments came after Anthropic AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from the company and took to X to detail his departure. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," Coxon stated. "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." His comments come as AI becomes an increasingly routine part of daily life for millions of Americans, while concerns over its potential risks grow. Industry leaders have warned that increasingly powerful AI systems could eventually become difficult or impossible to control. Around 2 a.m. Wednesday, Anthropic scalable-oversight lead Samuel Marks also responded to Coxon's post, claiming that he was "[Writing this in a personal capacity, not on behalf of my employer (Anthropic)." "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," Marks wrote. The Independent has contacted Anthropic for comment. OpenAI, a separate but leading AI company, declined to comment on Coxon's post when contacted by The Independent. However, a spokesperson pointed to several updates the company has published in recent weeks outlining its efforts to improve AI safety and alignment. This story is being updated
A new Anthropic model seeks to test how AI could impact the U.S. economy
Will artificial intelligence light a fire under the U.S. economy in the coming years? That's been a big question in the field of economics, and now Anthropic -- the company behind the popular Claude AI assistant -- is taking a stab at helping people find their own answers. The company has created an interactive tool that lets users test their assumptions about how productive -- or disruptive -- the AI boom might be. In one scenario, artificial intelligence provides a gentle boost to the economy, lifting growth rates with little effect on workers. At the other extreme, GDP soars, but so does unemployment, with nearly 14% of workers losing their jobs to AI and less than half of them finding new ones. The different outcomes depend on how capable and flexible the technology is, how quickly it's adopted, whether it supports or replaces workers, and whether displaced workers find new work to do. "In the modest change scenario, AI is a small technology. The economy continues on a 'normal' path with AI making changes around the margins," Anthropic experts write in an accompanying blog post. "In the extreme scenario, AI transforms the economy. The macroeconomic consequences go well beyond any event in history, both in terms of magnitudes and in terms of the speed at which change happens." Authors of the Anthropic study do not offer a prediction of which outcome is more likely. In general, they say, AI experts tend to project a more rapid spread of the technology while economists tend to be more cautious. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark is somewhere in the middle. "I think the technology will keep developing at a very, very fast and sustained rate but diffusion of the technology will likely be more challenging than people think," Clark told NPR. "So it will get really, really good. But it will make its way into the economy more slowly." AI's impact on economy is uncertain A survey by Anthropic of nearly 11,000 people found that the public's expectations of AI are also mixed. The average survey respondent projects a significant boost in productivity and economic growth but also a substantial disruption to workers in AI-sensitive fields. A major determinant of AI's impact will be how quickly it spreads through the economy. "If the AI can do amazing things but nobody uses it, then it's not going to have an economic impact," says Anton Korinek, Anthropic's head of transformative AI economic studies. While rapid adoption of the technology could be more disruptive, it could also produce much faster economic growth. In Anthropic's extreme case, GDP grows at more than seven times its current pace. That could produce a lot of additional tax revenue to support workers who are hurt by AI. "If you end up with this level of GDP growth, you have moves available to you as a [government] policymaker that are unimaginable today," Clark says. "Policymakers should get ready to spend."
A new Anthropic model seeks to test how AI could impact the U.S. economy
Will artificial intelligence light a fire under the U.S. economy in the coming years? That's been a big question in the field of economics, and now Anthropic -- the company behind the popular Claude AI assistant -- is taking a stab at helping people find their own answers. The company has created an interactive tool that lets users test their assumptions about how productive -- or disruptive -- the AI boom might be. In one scenario, artificial intelligence provides a gentle boost to the economy, lifting growth rates with little effect on workers. At the other extreme, GDP soars, but so does unemployment, with nearly 14% of workers losing their jobs to AI and less than half of them finding new ones. The different outcomes depend on how capable and flexible the technology is, how quickly it's adopted, whether it supports or replaces workers, and whether displaced workers find new work to do. "In the modest change scenario, AI is a small technology. The economy continues on a 'normal' path with AI making changes around the margins," Anthropic experts write in an accompanying blog post. "In the extreme scenario, AI transforms the economy. The macroeconomic consequences go well beyond any event in history, both in terms of magnitudes and in terms of the speed at which change happens." Authors of the Anthropic study do not offer a prediction of which outcome is more likely. In general, they say, AI experts tend to project a more rapid spread of the technology while economists tend to be more cautious. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark is somewhere in the middle. "I think the technology will keep developing at a very, very fast and sustained rate but diffusion of the technology will likely be more challenging than people think," Clark told NPR. "So it will get really, really good. But it will make its way into the economy more slowly." AI's impact on economy is uncertain A survey by Anthropic of nearly 11,000 people found that the public's expectations of AI are also mixed. The average survey respondent projects a significant boost in productivity and economic growth but also a substantial disruption to workers in AI-sensitive fields. A major determinant of AI's impact will be how quickly it spreads through the economy. "If the AI can do amazing things but nobody uses it, then it's not going to have an economic impact," says Anton Korinek, Anthropic's head of transformative AI economic studies. While rapid adoption of the technology could be more disruptive, it could also produce much faster economic growth. In Anthropic's extreme case, GDP grows at more than seven times its current pace. That could produce a lot of additional tax revenue to support workers who are hurt by AI. "If you end up with this level of GDP growth, you have moves available to you as a [government] policymaker that are unimaginable today," Clark says. "Policymakers should get ready to spend."
