- Published on
Why tech companies might be only too happy for us to believe AI will ‘kill us all’
- Authors
- Name
- DeepHorus
On Wednesday, The Guardian published a briefing examining why major AI companies might benefit from apocalyptic warnings about artificial intelligence. The piece follows a striking intervention from Anthropic founder Dario Amodei, who urged the industry to slow development of the most advanced models. His essay, published Saturday, drew support from Elon Musk and OpenAI chief Sam Altman, while former President Donald Trump dismissed safety concerns as a "HOAX." The debate matters because AI policy is being shaped by claims that are hard to verify.
The briefing, written by Hettie O'Brien, interviews Guardian global technology reporter Aisha Down to separate reality from hype. It notes that tech firms often exaggerate the capabilities and dangers of their products to attract investment, shape regulation, and build mystique. The article points to a protest outside OpenAI's headquarters in San Francisco, where demonstrators called for a pause in AI development. Such scenes illustrate growing public anxiety, but also the industry's central role in framing the conversation.
The immediate trigger was Amodei's essay, which argued that companies need to "slow" the pace of developing the newest and most sophisticated AI models. Amodei runs Anthropic, the company behind the Claude chatbot. His position was quickly endorsed by Musk, who has long warned about AI's existential risks, and Altman, whose company leads the commercial AI boom. Their agreement creates a rare moment of consensus among rival executives, even as critics question whether such warnings serve competitive or regulatory goals.
Trump's response was blunt. He described the worries as a "HOAX" and insisted the only control needed is a "STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT." His comment reflects a broader political divide: some see AI as an economic engine that must not be slowed, while others demand guardrails. The UK government took a middle path. Louise Haigh, the first secretary of state, said Britain must "heed the warnings" of AI experts, signaling that safety rhetoric is entering mainstream policy.
Technically, the debate centers on frontier models—large systems trained on vast datasets that can generate text, images, and code. Companies argue that future versions could become unpredictable or difficult to control. Yet the same firms profit from the belief that their systems are enormously powerful. This creates a paradox: warnings about doom can boost stock prices, attract talent, and justify calls for industry-friendly regulation, while distracting from present-day harms such as bias, job displacement, and misinformation.
Reactions have been mixed. Some researchers and safety advocates welcomed the calls for caution, saying they validate long-standing concerns. Investors, however, may worry that slowing down could delay revenue and weaken the US lead in AI. Community groups and protesters outside OpenAI want a moratorium, not just voluntary pledges. Meanwhile, regulators in the UK, EU, and US are under pressure to act, but they lack clear technical standards for measuring risk or verifying corporate claims.
In the short term, expect more hearings, voluntary commitments, and competing narratives. In the long term, the real test will be whether governments can impose meaningful oversight without being captured by the companies they regulate. The Guardian's briefing suggests the public should remain skeptical of both utopian and apocalyptic claims. The key question is not whether AI will "kill us all," but who benefits when we believe it might.
