Essay by Eric Worrall
Hacking a weak computer system does not equal global doomsday.
The news has been full of articles recently about how we’re all going to die by 2030, 2027, or insert your year number.
How Would AI Actually Kill Us All? What to Know About the AI Doomsday Debate
A growing chorus of AI researchers say the technology could wipe out humans—even if all the bots want to do is make paper clips
Updated Sept. 9, 2026 at 8:25 pm ET
Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned this week, saying his former employer and its rival OpenAI are racing to build technologies that “could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
In case anyone thought Coxon was alone in his views, a current Anthropic employee chimed in minutes later to confirm. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” wrote Evan Hubinger, whose job at Anthropic is to lead research about steering and controlling future artificial-intelligence systems. Hubinger put the extinction risk over the next decade at over 10%.
In response, many humans are now asking two questions: How could that happen? And why would people who think AI is a real and growing threat build it anyway?
…
So-called doomers aren’t usually worried that the “Terminator” movies will come true, with robots actively trying to exterminate people. Their concerns fall mostly into two buckets: loss-of-control and human misuse.
In one, highly intelligent AI agents capable of copying and improving themselves start pursuing their own goals and destroy humanity in the process. In the other, a nefarious human enlists a capable AI to do something like create novel viruses that wipe us all out.
…
Read more: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-would-ai-actually-kill-us-all-what-to-know-about-the-ai-doomsday-debate-034270d1?mod=hp_lead_pos7
For starters, we can discount the AI supervirus threat. AI doesn’t have to develop a doomsday virus, that world killing doomsday virus was already developed by the Aussie CSIRO in 2001 – who then promptly went on to tell everyone how to replicate their work. Aussie researchers stumbled across a simple genetic hack which sabotages the mammalian immune system, then witnessed its devastating effect when they inserted the genetic hack into a viral relative of smallpox. Then they tried the virus on some other rats to see if it killed all of them as well. Top marks for safety guys – it’s a wonder none of the scientists got infected.
My point is you don’t need AI to devastate the world with a supervirus – the research on how to do that has already been done.
As for AI copying and replicating itself, don’t make me laugh. Anyone who has ever done 3D printing or CNC machining, as I have, knows how crazy difficult it is to get the simplest processes right. The AI revolution would be over when the 3mm end mill snapped, and the US Postal Service refused to deliver a replacement. Who lost the batteries?
If you automated fabrication to the next level, with home built microchip fabrication, I’ve seen videos on people doing that and would have probably tried and completely messed it up myself, except that chip fabrication involves one of my least favourite deadly toxins, hydrofluoric acid. In any case, the kinds of chips you make with such processes are simple 1970s technology chips, so people who do this kind of thing are either obsessive hobbyists or researchers testing new design concepts.
The kinds of chips AI needs are so complicated to build, so far only a small number of Western companies have mastered their fabrication. Even the Chinese are struggling to copy the tech.
If a malevolent AI was to run such a fabrication plant, it could be stopped in its tracks simply by switching off the electricity, or blocking the supply of some vital tool or chemical required for fabrication.
An AI which hacks a bunch of software systems – that is a genuine threat, and I’m sure hackers are well up to speed on the latest AI tools. But AI is also being used to defend against threats, with AI threat vulnerability scanning of software turning up hundreds of defects which could have been used by hackers.
An AI which poses any genuine threat to the physical world – forget it. An AI which could even attempt such a feat is decades away, and when the threat finally emerges, such an AI would be so clumsy in its infancy, we would have plenty of opportunity to burn the building down and eliminate the threat before anything dangerous escaped.
Given the odds of a serious problem are so remote, why are researchers talking up the threat from AI?
I have three possible theories:
- They believe their own hype – lock a nerd in a dark room with lots of coffee and pizza, and we can get kind of obsessive.
- The drawbridge theory – if big AI companies scare legislators, the legislators might be stampeded into passing laws with high compliance costs, which makes it harder for newcomers with a bright idea to muscle in on their territory.
- Help the Democrats win the midterms – Democrats are increasingly turning to AI scare stories to try to win political support, as a replacement for the failed climate scam.
The drawbridge theory is particularly interesting. AI innovation is a big threat to the hyperscalers. I just purchased a US $12,000 computer which can run day to day AI models almost as well as my claude subscription. We are two hardware improvement cycles, as little as three years away from most people having access to affordable hardware which eliminates the need for AI hyperscalers. All these big players like Anthropic and OpenAI are looking increasingly like the mainframe bureaus of the 1970s, which all evaporated when mainframes dropped in price sufficiently that individuals and businesses which needed a powerful computer could buy their own.
The moment it becomes affordable to own a computer at home or in-house which can run open source AI models which do everything you want, independently of the hyperscalers, rather than paying for their services, their business model is toast. Who need hyperscaler radical left wing bias when you can program your own AI to share your values? Hyperscalers are doomed, unless they make some kind of breakthrough which keeps their services relevant, or frighten legislators into passing onerous compliance laws which block widespread private ownership of AI capable computers.
I’m not saying I know the drawbridge theory is definitely their motivation for trying to scare people, I don’t know what is really going through their heads. But the potential financial motivation sure makes drawbridge an interesting theory.
As a software developer and increasingly an AI specialist, I urge you all, please don’t be fooled – AI doomsday is all infowars and mind games.
We defeated the merchants of doubt with their climate armageddon lies. Don’t let them get into your head with their AI fairytales.
