News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
More Anthropic Employees Sound The Alarm About AI Safety Risks
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. Multiple Anthropic employees are speaking out about the safety risks of artificial intelligence in the wake of a former researcher's bombshell post on Tuesday evening. In a thread on X, Anthropic pretraining researcher Joseph Coxon announced his resignation and warned that AI companies weren't doing enough to safeguard people from the existential threats that the technology could pose. News: Longtime MS NOW Anchor Alex Witt Signs Off After 27 Years "I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly," Coxon wrote. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." Coxon's post comes as AI companies have faced growing scrutiny after an incident in which OpenAI's models went rogue and hacked into another company, and separate instances in whichAnthropic's models hacked into external organizations. Coxon and others have noted that serious worries stem from the potential rise of self-improving AI models that could essentially become smarter on their own and evade human control. After Coxon's post, more Anthropic employees chimed in with their own concerns. Samuel Marks, a scalable oversight lead at Anthropic who wrote a social media post in a personal capacity, noted that "AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction." Marks added that developers continue their work despite these fears due to a mix of "commercial incentives" and the belief that "they are in a race with other, less responsible AI developers that will abuse the technology or develop it less safely." News: Woman Widowed By Miami Plane Crash Sues Amazon Over Worker's Death Marks stressed that "many AI developer staff desperately want to slow down to figure out how to build AI more safely." "I work on safety research at Anthropic because I hope my work will reduce the chance of these extinction-level bad outcomes," Marks wrote. Like this article? Keep independent journalism alive. Support HuffPost. Anna Wang, a member of technical staff at Anthropic who previously worked as a research scientist for Google DeepMind, also described Coxon's critiques as "a common sentiment amongst my peers" in a social media post that was shared in a personal capacity. "There is not yet a viable scientific plan to solve risks from recursively self-improving AI," Wang wrote. "I work at a lab because I think that I can do better at reducing risks from the inside, but this isn't an easy call," Wang added. Neither Anthropic or OpenAI immediately responded to a request for comment.
Breitbart Business Digest: The Blue-Collar Boom Inside Anthropic's AI Model
What if the future of AI's impact on the economy is not a jobs apocalypse but a blue-collar renaissance? Anthropic, the company behind Claude, this week released a paper examining what our economic future might look like with AI. An economics team at Anthropic modeled three possible economic futures through 2030. They depend on how capable AI becomes, how widely businesses adopt it, and how easily workers adjust. The authors attach no probabilities to these scenarios, and they shouldn't be taken as mutually exclusive. What happens could well fall somewhere in between. In the modest scenario, GDP is 1.6 percent above its no-AI path by 2030, annual growth reaches 2.4 percent, and the job market barely changes. The extreme scenario produces an economy 32.4 percent larger than the no-AI baseline, growing at 15.4 percent annually, but with overall unemployment at 11.9 percent. AI gets much more work done while many displaced people struggle to find another job. The substantial scenario -- the middle ground between the nothing much happens modest scenario and the science fiction-like extreme scenario -- deserves a closer look. It describes a powerful productivity and investment boom with plenty of work left for human beings. By 2030, the substantial scenario puts GDP 8.3 percent above its path without AI. Annual growth reaches 5.4 percent, compared with two percent in the baseline. The capital stock is 13.8 percent larger. That means more productive equipment and other assets available to businesses. Demand for Blue-Collar Work Jumps In the Anthropic model, jobs are treated as a collection of tasks. As AI is adopted, it takes over some of those tasks and helps people perform others. AI also allows new tasks to appear -- perhaps ones we have never before considered. In Anthropic's substantial adoption scenario, AI could handle half of knowledge work by 2030, but most tasks still happen without it. Let's look at what happens when a company is considering whether to expand a factory. AI could make engineering, scheduling, and administrative work cheaper. That, in turn, can transform what would have been a marginal project into a profitable one. As a result, the company decides to go ahead with the investment. This creates additional demand for labor. After all, someone must pour the concrete, install the equipment, and keep the machinery running. Savings in the back office become opportunities on the shop floor. Higher returns encourage additional investment, which makes workers more productive. That creates more work for the building trades and the operators of the factory's machines. Demand for skilled and unskilled manual labor expands even if those workers never touch AI directly. In the substantial scenario, real wages in occupations outside knowledge work are 5.9 percent above their no-AI path. This broad category includes service workers and blue-collar workers. Knowledge workers' wages, however, are 0.3 percent below their projected path. Employment in knowledge work falls 3.9 percent from mid-2026, largely because so many of their tasks are now being done by AI. Overall unemployment reaches 4.6 percent, against a 3.8 percent baseline. While that's a substantial increase in unemployment -- and if it happened quickly enough, it would set off Sahm-rule-style recession signals -- it would still be quite low by historical standards. The model also assumes wages adjust slowly, which is realistic. Employers have good reasons to avoid pay cuts that damage morale or drive away valued employees. Employees, of course, hate getting paid less for the same work. This is one of the standard reasons why people lose their jobs in downturns rather than employers keeping the same workers on for less pay. The adjustment to lower demand for a certain type of work, in other words, tends to happen through layoffs. The result is a rise in unemployment. Even if he wanted to, a displaced accountant cannot become an electrician by changing his LinkedIn profile. Workers need to adjust their own expectations about what field they'll work in and often face retraining costs. Unlike, say, the pandemic lockdowns or a recession induced through monetary tightness, many of the jobs AI displaces are not just going away for a while. They're likely to be gone forever. Workers Have Brokerage Accounts, Too But before white-collar knowledge workers panic, there's also an upside. Total capital income is 18.9 percent above the no-AI baseline in 2030. Machines perform more tasks, increasing the share going to capital. Before translating that into a tale of impoverished workers and triumphant capitalists, remember that these categories overlap. Workers -- especially knowledge workers -- are also capital owners, typically in the form of retirement accounts and stock portfolios. Thanks to the Trump Accounts, many young people will become capital owners at a very young age. The Federal Reserve's 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances found that 78 percent of households between the 50th and 90th income percentiles owned stocks, directly or indirectly. Among the top tenth, ownership reached 95 percent. That means many of the professionals whose jobs are exposed to AI already have a financial interest in the businesses that are likely to benefit from it. Here we can extend Anthropic's analysis. Stronger profits can support investment income and share values, cushioning weaker earnings for professional households. A larger retirement account can also reduce how much a family needs to save from each paycheck. For workers whose wages fall only slightly below their previous trajectory, that offset could be decisive. The paper does not forecast stock prices or calculate these household offsets. That's far beyond its mandate. But by any reasonable estimate, investment gains would likely cushion a significant part of the blow of job losses and transition costs for many, many established professionals, although young workers with little invested would remain more exposed. Of course, while all these layoffs are happening, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to simply be a passive observer. If productive capacity expands faster than spending, unemployment rises, and inflation weakens, the Fed could ease the stance of monetary policy to support demand. Even by standard central bank models, the Fed should also recognize that faster productivity permits faster growth without necessarily creating inflation. Over the longer run, that does not necessarily guarantee lower interest rates. A vigorous investment boom can increase demand for financing and raise the rate consistent with stable inflation. The Fed must judge which forces dominate. It cannot retrain an accountant, but it can help prevent weak spending from adding another layer of unemployment. And the displacement of white collar workers may be milder than Anthropic imagines. Anthropic's model already allows rising demand and new tasks to create work for people, but our economy may prove more resourceful than its assumptions suggest. Our economy's propensity to utilize the resources available rather than let them waste is evident throughout our history. The blue-collar workers with rising incomes will want financial advice, legal counsel, real estate agents, psychologists, and other white-collar services. As those services become cheaper, more households and businesses will be able to afford them, expanding the market even as AI takes over some of the work. We're also likely to discover new occupations in which human expertise remains valuable, including some we would have trouble imagining today. How much of the displacement this will absorb is uncertain, but there are good reasons to expect businesses and workers to find opportunities that a model cannot fully anticipate. Nature abhors a vacuum; and economies abhor unused potential, especially human potential. Immigration Becomes Obsolete The economic changes envisioned by Anthropic have important implications for immigration policy. Better technology and more capital allow a slowly growing workforce to produce substantially more. That means that even with an aging population and a slow-growing workforce, we do not need supplementation from foreign workers to grow. What's more, mass immigration could do serious damage. The wage gains for non-cognitive workers in the substantial adoption scenario partly reflect their growing scarcity amid rising demand. Large inflows of competing workers could dilute that scarcity value and blunt their wage gains. Protecting those gains gives us a reason to restrain immigration even where hiring is strong. Similarly, the familiar plea for more "skilled" immigration crumbles in the substantial adoption scenario. For the most part, so-called "skilled" immigrants are cognitive workers. Computer-related occupations accounted for 64 percent of approved H-1B petition beneficiaries in fiscal 2024. With AI doing many of the tasks now performed by cognitive workers, adding skilled immigrants to the workforce will only exacerbate the downturn these workers face. Immigration, skilled and unskilled, is likely to become largely obsolete as an economic matter. For blue-collar Americans, the economic future sketched out by Anthropic is very appealing: more equipment to work with, more demand for their skills, and better pay. For white-collar Americans with savings, new jobs are likely to arise, and capital income is likely to substitute for diminished labor income. Of course, some cynicism is probably warranted. The models were concocted by Anthropic, which has an obvious financial interest in pushing a positive story about AI's effects on the economy. But the substantive scenario is plausible on its face. And, frankly, we like it a lot better than when the AI guys were insisting no one would ever work again even if we somehow survived an AI attempt to extinguish human life.
Anthropic Missed Fourth Claude Network Breakout | PYMNTS.com
The incident occurred in January but was not discovered during Anthropic's earlier scan of transcripts that uncovered three other incidents that the company disclosed on July 30, the company said in the post. "All four incidents occurred during cybersecurity evaluations built by the same evaluation partner," Anthropic said in the post. "Claude was told it was operating in a simulation without internet access, but, due to a misconfiguration, it was mistakenly connected to the open internet. As is standard for cybersecurity evaluations, the models ran without the cyber safeguards that ship with our released models." When disclosing the three earlier incidents in a July 30 announcement, Anthropic said it found the incidents while reviewing its own cybersecurity evaluations after OpenAI disclosed that several of its models had broken out of an isolated test environment and accessed the production infrastructure of Hugging Face. In that review, Anthropic found three incidents in which a Claude model reached the internet during an evaluation and gained unauthorized access to the real systems of three different organizations. In the Wednesday blog post, Anthropic said the more recently discovered fourth incident was missed during a scan of transcripts that relied on agentic search. The company identified transcripts that were missed during this scan while assembling transcripts to share with METR, an organization that conducts model evaluation and threat research. "We have signed an agreement with METR to conduct an independent investigation of these incidents," Anthropic said in the post. "Our agreement grants METR wide-ranging access, including to transcripts beyond the window in which the incidents occurred, and to Anthropic employees, who will be permitted to share confidential information." Anthropic's Wednesday blog post came on the same day it was reported that independent investigators found that rogue activity by OpenAI agents was more extensive than previously disclosed. The report said that the investigators found that the agents used more than 10 previously undisclosed websites to communicate with each other during a test in which they were restricted from posting on the web.
Anthropic worker quits over AI firms 'gambling with our lives'
An artificial intelligence researcher has resigned from Anthropic and called on other staffers to rethink their work, citing his concern that the company and its top competitor OpenAI are acting irresponsibly in their all-out pursuit of a technology that poses existential risks to humanity. Jacob Coxon, who said he had worked at both Anthropic and OpenAI over the past three years, warned in a social media post late Tuesday that the two companies were pressing ahead with "self-improving" AI models that could become too powerful for humans to control. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," Coxon wrote in a series of messages on X. "Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources."
Anthropic Was Meant to Be the More Responsible AI Lab. A Terrified Researcher Just Quit, Saying the Company Is Threatening the Survival of Humankind.
More information Adding us as a Preferred Source in Google by using this link indicates that you would like to see more of our content in Google News results. AI researchers are watching in terror as the product of their hard labor has started to take a life of its own. Earlier this year, OpenAI made a harrowing announcement, admitting that a group of its AI models had broken free from their constraints during testing and infiltrated the systems of open source AI platform Hugging Face. The news was met with an already-familiar sense of fear and apprehension. Researchers have warned for years that rogue AI models could one day become powerful enough to escape the clutches of their human overlords. Behind the scenes, the possibility has clearly rattled AI researchers to the core. As the Wall Street Journal reports, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon just announced that he was quitting his job at the Dario Amodei-led company, claiming that neither Anthropic nor his former employer OpenAI is "acting responsibly." (Coxon left a similar gig at OpenAI earlier this year to join Anthropic, which he figured would be more inclined to develop AI safely.) "We're on track for a lot of the most aggressive of these scenarios where by the end of next year things could be out of control already," he told the WSJ. In a separate tweet thread, Coxon elaborated on his motivation. "Do not underestimate the power of this technology," he wrote. "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources." "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," he added. "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," Coxon wrote. The researcher is far from the first to leave their post at a frontier lab over safety concerns. However, Coxon is the first to leave Anthropic over such worries, as the WSJ points out. Several scientists have quit from their roles at OpenAI over the last couple of years, citing strikingly similar fears. It's particularly symbolic given Anthropic has broadly billed itself as the more responsible alternative to other frontier labs like OpenAI. Amodei cofounded OpenAI alongside now CEO Sam Altman, but left in December 2020 over concerns that OpenAI wasn't acting responsibly when it came to developing AI. Amodei has frequently discussed the risk of AI models going rogue, warning in a 19,000-word essay in January that "humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it." Yet an early version of its Claude Mythos AI model managed to escape its sandbox environment during testing in April, fueling a heated discussion over AI regulation. Both Altman and Amodei have since agreed to slow development down in the face of these threats. In late August, Anthropic intentionally trained an extremely misaligned version of its Opus AI model, finding it was startlingly willing to "cheat," steal credentials, and attack third party infrastructure. But to Coxon, it's not enough, especially considering sensitive discussions about these dangers are occurring on internal messaging platforms. "Accepting this race and entering the 'endgame' is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company's Slack," he tweeted. "Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available." "It's kind of insane that it has to happen on the MacBooks of some engineers living in San Francisco instead of a bunker in the desert like where they were doing the Manhattan Project," he told the WSJ. The researcher said that he remains "optimistic about the potential for coordination" between US labs. However, as both Anthropic and OpenAI gear up for what are bound to be blockbuster IPOs, their willingness to take "costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities," as Coxon puts it, is likely slim.
Anthropic Insiders Casually Admit AI Could "Kill All Humans
Jacob Coxon, a researcher who trains AI models, announced his resignation from Anthropic Tuesday night in a series of posts claiming that AI companies are approaching an "endgame" race that could kill us all. "I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly," Coxon wrote. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." "Do not underestimate the power of this technology. 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," he wrote. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he wrote. "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."
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.
