Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.
Signal register
Signals from X
Public posts, experimentally classified on three axes: public impact, the systems that fail, and the industries in the blast radius. Estimates only — not a formal assessment.
Methodology — experimental estimates
Scores are automated, experimental estimates from public X posts and a hand-written seed corpus. They are not formal risk assessments, not certified, and not suitable for compliance or operational decisions.
Consequence, likelihood, and urgency are 1–5 judgements applied by this project, not by a standards body. Residual scores assume only the mitigations marked in place. A signed-in reviewer can override residual and mark an item reviewed — that override is still unofficial. Aspect tags (capability, domain knowledge, affordance, impact domain) are a lightweight PRA aid, not a formal hazard analysis.
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. More thoughts below.
CAISI had great talent to start but has bled out from lack of funding. We should fight for good expertise in government. The competitors you named have not been working together to date, and that led OpenAI to accidentally commit cyberattacks last month.
Why we should all be worried about AI in elections. Deepfakes dominate headlines, but the real danger lies in opaque AI systems that make up election infrastructure.
India’s elections are a glimpse of the AI-driven future of democracy. Politicians are using audio and video deepfakes of themselves to reach voters—who may have no idea they’ve been talking to a clone.