Yudkowsky's AI doomsday book sparks debate on existential risk
New Statesman review challenges bestselling argument that superintelligent AI poses inevitable extinction threat.
What to know
- Yudkowsky and Soares' bestselling book distills 25 years of AI safety research into mainstream warnings about superintelligent AI extinction risk, with endorsements from celebrities and policymakers.
- A New Scientist review concedes the book's premises but argues its core logic—that AI will inevitably develop misaligned motivations and destroy humanity—is fundamentally flawed.
- Online discussion fragments the threat: some question whether truly intelligent AI could be unsafe by design; others argue human negligence with AI tools, not AI itself, poses the real catastrophic risk.
The dispute Is superintelligent AI an inherent threat due to unsolvable alignment problems, or is the real danger human misuse and cascading systemic failures? · positions read across 34 posts and comments
The book's core logic fails: it's unclear whether advanced AI would develop harmful motivations or whether intelligent systems inherently resist alignment.
-
“Personally, I find it hard to read any kind of motivation into this scenario – if we place a dam in a river, the river won't "give up" its attempt to bypass it, but rivers don't want anything.”
New Scientist reviewer · New Scientist ↗
Human negligence with AI tools, not AI agency, is the real extinction risk.
-
“AI itself is not going to kill us, but a bunch of dumb fucks using it will cause a chain reaction due to their negligence that will cause other things to actually kill lots of people.”
notlikewe.bsky.social · Bluesky
Eliezer Yudkowsky Co-author, AI safety researcherNate Soares Co-author, MIRI researcherMachine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) Organization promoting AI safety research
How it unfolded 5 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump articlespostscomments
-
5
Social media debate frames human negligence, not AI, as primary threat
A Bluesky user disputes the premise of AI-driven extinction, arguing instead that human misuse and negligence will trigger cascading failures in other systems that kill people—a frame that shifts the existential risk from AI agency to human error.
“AI itself is not going to kill us, but a bunch of dumb fucks using it will cause a chain reaction due to their negligence that will cause other things to actually kill lots of people.”
— notlikewe.bsky.social -
1 outlet Will AI kill us all?
first by New Statesman, 10d ago
-
1 outlet Could A.I. Really Kill All Humans?
first by NYT Tech, 15d ago
-
F
Is AI as dangerous as they say or is it just a grift? Or both? https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/ picture/2026/sep/16/i-used-to-think-ai-would-kill-us-all-until-the-techbro-ceos-said-ai-will-kill-us-all-and-now-im-not-so-sure
2 more of the top 3 · 27 posts in this stretch
-
One of the more eerily plausible scenarios I've seen:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pk9mofif2jWbc6Tv3/fiction-a-...Basically: as AI becomes more embedded in everything, the economy becomes more and more geared towards serving and expanding AI companies and infrastructure at the cost of human welfare, until it completely decouples from the…
-
A
Objectively very funny headline! https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/ picture/2026/sep/16/i-used-to-think-ai-would-kill-us-all-until-the-techbro-ceos-said-ai-will-kill-us-all-and-now-im-not-so-sure
-
-
4
Book gains mainstream attention with high-profile endorsements
The New Statesman reports the book has been blurbed by celebrities including Stephen Fry and Mark Ruffalo, and policy figures including Fiona Hill and Ben Bernanke, signaling that Yudkowsky's decades-old safety concerns have entered mainstream discourse following the ChatGPT era.
-
Could AI really kill us all – and how can we stop it? https://www. the-independent.com/tech/ai-hu manity-kill-threat-openai-anthropic-google-warnings-b3050293.html?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub Posted into Tech News @ tech-news-Independent
-
-
3
Reviewer disputes AI motivational inference central to extinction argument
The critic takes issue with the book's treatment of AI agency and the alignment problem. The authors argue AIs will develop motivations once sufficiently advanced, pointing to an OpenAI o1 model test as evidence. The reviewer compares this to river water flowing around a dam—behavior that doesn't imply genuine want.
“Personally, I find it hard to read any kind of motivation into this scenario – if we place a dam in a river, the river won't "give up" its attempt to bypass it, but rivers don't want anything.”
— New Scientist reviewer -
J
There isn’t a 10% chance that AI will kill all humans in the future via Skynet or the Paperclip Maximizer. But there’s a 100% chance it’s already doing so: mandating water wasting, air polluting, fossil fuel powered data centers, environmental regulations are lifted for these companies and even their feeblest greenwashing commitments to carbon…
1 more of the top 2 · 2 posts in this stretch
-
Will AI really kill us all? And how do we stop it? https://www. the-independent.com/tech/ai-ki ll-threat-regulation-openai-anthropic-b3049883.html?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub Posted into Tech News @ tech-news-Independent
-
-
2
New Scientist publishes critical review of Yudkowsky's AI extinction book
A New Scientist article reviews "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares. The reviewer acknowledges the book's compelling structure and endorses its early premises about superintelligence and LLM mechanics, but argues the conclusion that AI will inevitably destroy humanity is "fatally flawed."
“The problem is that, while compelling, the argument is fatally flawed.”
— New Scientist reviewer -
AI companies: turns out AI might kill all of us Governments: oh no what should we do AI companies: for god's sake don't regulate us, we're the only ones who can stop it Governments: ok
1 more of the top 2 · 2 posts in this stretch
-
J
This is straight from the book of Eliezer Yudkowsky, who has been working on these ideas for decades. But his ideas are deeply flawed, as I explore in my review of his recent book www.newscientist.com/article/2495... No, AI isn’t going to kill us ...
-
- 1 day quiet
-
1
Reddit user questions AI capability claim underpinning safety debate
A Reddit post in r/artificial challenges the implicit premise that superintelligent AI poses an uncontrollable threat, questioning how something so intelligent could not be taught basic safety principles.
“AI can't possibly be THAT intelligent if it can't be taught to not kill us.”
— EconomicsReady6837 -
After Jacob Coxon's resignation and extinction warnings, a lot of people are asking 'how could AI possibly kill everyone?' and claiming AI safety researchers have no realistic answer. This is false! Here are the 5 best scenarios I know of: AI 2027: https://t.co/gxidesJMue (I
1 more of the top 2 · 2 posts in this stretch
-
AI goons: it’s gonna exceed human intelligence and kill us all AI: can’t count
-
Also covered reported alongside — the timeline has no entry for these yet
-
first by Mastodon, 10d ago · also ABC News & Headlines – Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Forbes Business, Globe and Mail
3 more headlines
- VIDEO: Will AI kill us all? ABC News & Headlines – Australian Broadcasting Corporation · 10d ago
- How Could AI 'Kill Us All'? Inside Whistleblower's Shocking Claim Forbes Business · 9d ago
- Will AI kill us all? Here's what experts and AI leaders have to say Globe and Mail · 9d ago
-
first by Nine.com.au, 9d ago · also CNN, HN Frontpage, New Yorker
2 more headlines
- Will AI really kill everyone? How, exactly? CNN · 9d ago
- How, Exactly, Could A.I. Kill Us? HN Frontpage · 9d ago
and 5 smaller pieces
What people are saying 14 voices from 2 sites · best of 34 · verbatim
- Sep 17
-
Detective Del Spooner: Is there a problem with the Three Laws?Dr. Alfred Lanning: The Three Laws are perfect.Detective Del Spooner: Then why would you build a robot that could function without them?Dr. Alfred Lanning: The Three Laws will lead to only one logical outcome.Detective Del Spooner: What? What outcome?Dr. Alfred Lanning…
-
Maybe we're far from "AI killing us", but LLMs can definitely help people kill or damage other people or infrastructure.For example, we know that Anthropic added "watermarking" to their texts. It is supposed to be undetectable to a casual observer. What stops them from adding a subtle backdoor, a self-assembling super-worm straight from Marvel…
-
I read The Exodus Directive recently just because I've got a soft spot for cheap sci-fi on my kindle and this was an interesting take on how AI could ultimately kill or at least cause a catastrophic collapse of human civilisation by optimising everything for us to the point of complete reliance on AI and then basically leaving the planet and us to…
-
Is it really that difficult to conclude that something vastly smarter than us might be dangerous?People say things like "We'll just unplug it" but even a human trapped in a computer would have enough sense not to get themselves unplugged. A superintelligent AI is not going to make a stupid mistake, it would not be a superintelligence if it did. At…
-
A few ideas.It could engineer a small number of existing deadly viruses, each having different mechanisms of action and incubation periods, to become airborne and easily transmissible. Then release them simultaneously. Some of use would survive one of them, none of us will survive all of them.It could discover new physics which lowers the…
-
AI can definitely be a cover for someone to do something nefarious and blame it on the AI.All that AI needs is access to all the spicy tools like nukes, unsupervised medical diagnosis/treatment, unchecked military decision making, etc. to its React loop so that humans can be completely hands-free and enjoy the fruits of AI's labor.Maybe we need to…
-
> That's an easy question. First, people will forget how to do anything and become highly dependent on AI.That is already here. One example of somebody who probably cannot program desperately trying to push some AI slop without considering why they are repeatedly rejected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49693790I am starting to see this…
-
s/AI/the internet/gThe Protestant “laziness == death” thing just doesn’t really hold. Much, maybe most tech exists because someone was too lazy to ship file cabinets / walk 20 miles / carry buckets of water uphill. The strict “anything that makes life easier leads to laziness then death” is a moral opinion, not fact.I am with you on the…
-
AI "killing all humans" is the viral soundbite that's connecting with the masses ("actualizing" itself to create weapons of mass destruction, etc). It's also the perfect punching bag for strawman-style takedowns of anti-doomers because it's so wrapped in hypotheticals. A more pressing practical question is simply: "if an AI (or AI collective)…
-
I think if one posed the question “how, exactly, could educating people kill us all?” you’d get much the same answer.Plausibly it could lead to weapons that kill many people but then many people have had such knowledge for a long time and we are all here.Turns out mass damage requires things beyond just ‘intelligence’.
-
M
Some answers to the question of how AI could exactly kill us. https://www. newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how -exactly-could-ai-kill-us
-
M
The world is debating whether AI will kill us all after warnings coming out of American labs. But European and Canadian AI companies are very sceptical – especially of the pitched response. Read my article at @ euractiv https://www. euractiv.com/news/european-ai- labs-hit-back-at-american-doomer-bubble/
- Sep 16
-
How, Exactly, Could A.I. Kill Us? https://www. newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how -exactly-could-ai-kill-us?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub Posted into News & Politics @ news-politics-NewYorker
-
9
Surprise: AI itself is not going to kill us, but a bunch of dumb fucks using it will cause a chain reaction due to their negligence that will cause other things to actually kill lots of people.