![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/GettyImages-2276546969-e1789071809610.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,\u201d Coxon said. \u201cI spent the last three years doing pre-training research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.\u201d<\/p>\n
Anthropic\u2019s current head of alignment re-posted Coxon, noting that he is \u201ccorrect\u201d that \u201cwe really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!\u201d He estimates there\u2019s a greater than 10% chance it could happen within the next decade. And earlier this week, OpenAI\u2019s head of research Jakob Pachocki published a blog post outlining his concerns for humanity.<\/p>\n
Not great. So what do we do about it?<\/p>\n
While Coxon is far from the first to warn about the perils of AI, his message might be the first to truly break into the mainstream. He promptly went on a media tour the same day he posted on X, and his message captured headlines at top news organizations. Even country singer Sheryl Crow urged her Instagram followers to take him seriously.<\/p>\n
There are a few theories as to why Coxon\u2019s post has spread further than previous warnings about AI. As my editor Jeremy Kahn and I discussed earlier today, anxiety about AI has reached all-time highs following recent revelations about OpenAI\u2019s AI agents escaping their sandbox and hacking the Hugging Face website. That incident provided a tangible example of how AI can go rogue and do things that would be considered a crime if a human were involved. The public may also be more ready to hear the message right now, at a time of growing concerns about energy-sucking AI data centers and about AI\u2019s future impact on jobs. <\/p>\n
I also think Coxon\u2019s authoritative confidence in the existential threat posed by AI\u2014and the quick response by Anthropic\u2019s head of alignment agreeing that, yes, AI could very well kill us all\u2014underscored the gravity and the urgency of the situation. <\/p>\n
In a first for me, Coxon\u2019s message reached my group chat with other reporters, none of whom cover technology or AI. \u201cEmily, any thoughts on the impending AI apocalypse and what to do about it?\u201d my friend asked me in the group. She\u2019s an arts and culture reporter who works in local news. It struck me as not only a good question, but the<\/em> question everyone should be asking right now. <\/p>\n The problem with Coxon\u2019s post is that it\u2019s vague, with no proof, and no specific examples that are easy for the public\u2014and regulators\u2014to act on. Yet his media tour suggests he wants his message to reach a generalized audience.<\/p>\n Hear me out: He claims the AI could kill us someday, but doesn\u2019t point to any projects in the pipeline that could be shut down to avoid this. He says AI companies are moving too fast, but neglects to share screenshots, emails, or specific examples of when this behavior went sideways\u2014when it became clear to leaders at AI companies that the technology was slipping beyond their control, for instance, and how the decision-makers disregarded the warning signs. He doesn\u2019t suggest any new legislation, name problematic leaders that should step down, or post an in-depth look at how Anthropic researches new models and propose a new approach.<\/p>\n To quote another viral social media clip of Heather Gay from a 2024 episode of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City (and at the risk of seeming glib), we need \u201cReceipts, proof, timelines, screenshots, f*cking everything!\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s why tech journalist Taylor Lorenz called out Coxon for \u201cvagueposting and fomenting fear,\u201d noting that he offered no \u201cactual proof and receipts showing specific instances<\/em> of that negligence so that it can be corrected and so that we know what you\u2019re talking about.\u201d As a result, she said, the generalities in Coxon\u2019s post will only ratchet up public fear and anxiety and lead to \u201cterrible policy.\u201d<\/p>\n Ian Krietzberg, an AI correspondent at Puck News, agreed. Coxon is \u201cnot blowing the whistle on either OpenAI or Anthropic. He\u2019s not revealing non-public information about their practices that he finds so concerning,\u201d Krietzberg said. \u201cThe whole thing is broad ideas-based, not specific company wrongdoing.\u201d<\/p>\n So what should we do? What should I tell my arts reporter friend? Coxon doesn\u2019t say. His main call to action is geared toward his fellow AI researchers: \u201cIf 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 \u201cit\u2019s happening anyway\u201d \u2013 or take this moment to call for different conditions?\u201d<\/p>\n Others have taken to social media to say people should call their legislators in response to Coxon\u2019s post, and urge more people working in AI to speak out.<\/p>\n There are a few things I like about Coxon\u2019s post. The main one is that he gave up his shares in Anthropic stock upon resignation, Axios reports. That shows he\u2019s putting his money where his mouth is. And it shields him from any criticism that he stands to make millions of dollars from Anthropic\u2019s imminent IPO while preaching that others should not do the same.<\/p>\n The second thing is that he provides an opening for other researchers to say they are uncomfortable with what\u2019s happening behind closed doors. Perhaps Coxon being light on details sets an easier precedent for others, who may not want to feel the pressure of bearing the burden of proof. <\/p>\n That would be a worthwhile outcome\u2014or at least, a move in the right direction to a worthwhile outcome. I don\u2019t share the absolutist view of the critics who accuse Coxon of doing more harm than good. This is an incredibly serious issue, and we need to hear from credible voices on the inside.<\/p>\n At the same time, I think we would do well to accept more specificity from these researchers, and push them to elevate the dialogue in a way that can lead to actionable change. If Coxon had been more specific, we might have already seen some.<\/p>\n The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of <\/em>Fortune.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nWithout more information, and receipts, Coxon is more likely to create anxiety than change<\/h2>\n
Coxon\u2019s message still has value\u2014just not as much as it could<\/h2>\n