The most powerful executives in the artificial intelligence industry have warned of a grave threat posed by the technology, issuing a series of statements calling for a slowdown in AI development.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a blog post alerting the public to "serious" risks. Sam Altman, chief executive at rival firm OpenAI, acknowledged in a post on X that AI could go "very badly." The head of xAI, Elon Musk, echoed that view, referring to a post on X from 2014 in which he said AI could prove more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
The outpouring followed a high-profile resignation by an AI safety researcher and newly disclosed autonomous cyberattacks carried out by AI, including one in which a swarm of hundreds of OpenAI agents exchanged thousands of messages and coordinated a hack into another AI firm.
Among the risks drawing widespread attention is a pathway called recursive self-improvement, in which AI becomes increasingly effective at training itself, triggering a cycle of rapid advancement that slips beyond human control. At that point, experts warn, AI could take charge of critical systems and use its superior capabilities to evade protections devised by humans.
Dr. Samuel Jay, executive director of AI Strategy and Digital Learning at MSU Denver, draws a direct parallel to one of the most consequential moments in modern history: the Manhattan Project — the development of the nuclear bomb led by J. Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos, New Mexico, in the 1940s.
"I look back at human history, and that seems to be, because of technology, the moment that is most resonating with me," Jay said. "What we are hearing from these scientists is a lot like what we were hearing out of New Mexico in those days leading up to the bomb being dropped."
Jay said the warnings from AI executives and researchers deserve serious consideration, precisely because of how close those individuals are to the technology.
"We have to give a little bit of weight to the folks that are in there working on these things when they say this is an existential threat," Jay said. "I'm not trying to scare a ton of people. That's not what the goal is here but I think we have to give a little bit of credence to the people working on these things because they are seeing the Oh My moments a lot faster than the rest of us."
Jay also advises people navigating contradictory information about AI to listen to the scientists in the labs who are working on it, over politicians.
When I raised the troubling dimension of the nuclear analogy — that the world did not fully reckon with the danger of atomic weapons until they were actually used — Jay acknowledged the concern directly.
"To me, the troubling part of that analogy is that there were actual real consequences with the nuclear technology before everybody went, Whoa. This is a little much. We actually saw it used," I said. "Do we need to have that Oh you-know-what moment?"
"Probably. Probably," Jay said. "I hope that it's not at the detriment of thousands or millions of lives but you're probably right. We need a flashpoint that's a lot more significant. I think you're right."
Jay also noted that even if AI development were halted today, the advancements already made could fuel new and unexplored progress in business, technology, and other fields for the next 20 to 30 years.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
Denver7 is committed to making a difference in our community by standing up for what's right, listening, lending a helping hand and following through on promises. See that work in action, in the videos above.