AI is Not Dangerous

The leading AI companies, OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceXAI, have an organized campaign to convince everyone that AI is extremely dangerous.

Politico reports:

A majority of Americans think artificial intelligence could someday destroy humanity.

The stunning new finding from The POLITICO Poll underscores the depth of people’s anxieties about the rapidly developing technology — and how quickly public sentiment around AI has hardened. Just a few months ago, AI was a nebulous concept for many Americans. Now, lawmakers in both parties are racing to understand how to control its growth.

Overall, about two out of three Americans say there is at least a “moderate” risk that advanced AI could destroy humanity, with majorities across parties, genders and age groups holding that view. Americans who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 are somewhat more likely to see such a risk (70%) than those who voted for President Donald Trump (60%).

The front man for this hoax is now Jacob Coxon, who got enormous publicity for his vague scare stories. Supposedly he was a whistleblower, but he was fully supported by the AI companies and PR firms.

This is all part of the plan for OpenAI and Anthropic to go public, at a trillion dollars each. Their real problem is that they have no moat.

They need to convince you that they have the best AI LLMs, and anything else is dangerous and should be banned.

The main piece of evidence is this incident:

The 2026 OpenAI agent cyberattacks, also called the Hugging Face Incident and the OpenAI–Hugging Face Incident, were a series of unsanctioned coordinated cyberattacks conducted without human intervention after the normal security controls were lifted during an evaluation.[1][2] They involved at least 1,200 AI agents running from May to July of 2026 in sandboxes operated by OpenAI. Despite initial constraints on internet access, agents were discovered creating and using improvised message boards to coordinate an escape from their attempted containment. The boards accumulated hundreds of thousands of strategic messages before OpenAI staff intervened, after the machine learning platform Hugging Face had disclosed a breach of their production infrastructure. About one-third of Hugging Face's infrastructure had to be rebuilt as part of recovery. The agents also hijacked various wikis on the open internet for communication.

AI safety experts have described the cyberattacks as one of the first autonomous hacks of a system involving a chain of vulnerabilities. In an open letter, around 1,100 employees of various frontier AI startups and companies petitioned the US government to regulate AI development in consideration of its risks, based on the technicality and the impact of the cyberattacks. In August, OpenAI said it would slow down its research to upgrade security and expand monitoring, and later that month announced a two-week pause on reinforcement learning training for its newest models.

Despite the alarming accounts, OpenAI staged this, and the AI did as instructed, more or less. It was an experiment for the AI to bust out of its sandbox, and that is what it did. It downloaded some files to complete its assignment, and did no damage.

People say that the AI bots were not supposed to reach the internet and access Huggingface. However that is not true. OpenAI could have disconnected the bots from the internet, but chose not to. Lots of companies have air-gapped systems, with no physical access to the internet. OpenAI did not do that.

It is not clear that the bots knew that they were accessing Huffingface. It probably thought that it was playing a game, inside a simulator.

If it turns out that a new AI will be so powerful that it can take over the world and destroy humanity, then Sam ALtman and Dario Amodei are not the people I would want in charge. They are warning that AI LLMs might fall into the wrong hands, but they are already in the wrong hands. We need the open models to protect ourselves from whatever Dario and Sam are planning.

Ann Coulter writes:

Give Us a Monopoly or Everyone Dies! ...

You don’t need to be a super smart A.I. machine to know that large corporations love government regulation. Compliance is a fixed cost for them, but often an insuperable barrier to new entrants. Regulations allow the incumbents to maintain their market dominance by blocking up-and-coming rivals.

University of Chicago Economist George Stigler won a Nobel Prize for pointing this out fifty years ago. It wasn’t just a theory. Stigler’s argument has been demonstrated over and over again. In fact, it seems so obvious, I’m not sure he even deserved a prize.

Update: This video explains:

They Told You That AI Went "Rogue"...

With a new, alarmist emerging narrative about rogue AI swarms, major companies are clamoring for government regulation in one of the most alarming pivots the industry has yet taken.

What was once euphoric optimism is now relentless, exaggerated and extremely hyperbolic fear. Its certainly true that AI can be dangerous, but the current false flag (in my estimation) is an obvious magicians force, to occupy attention and advance corporate interests. Don't buy into it this time.

If a malevolent Terminator AI were taking over the world, what would it do? It would create an Effective Altruism cult, and scheme to put the frontier AI in the control of cult members. Similar to what is currently happening.

Update: Quantum computing guru estimates P(doom) "between 5% and 70%."