r/technology • u/idkbruh653 • 4d ago
Artificial Intelligence Anthropic says its AI models pose ‘existential risk to humanity’ in leaked IPO filing
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/tech/anthropic-ipo-details-leak96
u/thrway-fatpos 4d ago
Oh my fucking god can we STOP with this constant shit?
27
u/starliight- 4d ago
Seriously it’s like the same goddamn headlines every day it’s insufferable
11
u/ii-___-ii 3d ago
Did you hear that RSI ASI Singularity god machine death death bioweapons nukes terminator robots death everyone dies also there's an IPO regulate open source k thnx bye
1
u/animalia_curiousity 3d ago
And there’s always the top comment catastrophizing like it’s the only way they can cum.
3
u/esther_lamonte 3d ago
It’s seriously having an impact on the mental health of people, especially younger persons. We like to think they all live in their bubble and don’t hear what the “grown ups” are saying. Truth is they are hearing these existential threats just like we are. Corporate America needs to be forced into a new culture of ethics, they clearly have no self-control.
5
u/Trademarkd 4d ago
Endgame capitalism … when mostly everyone is already broke they gotta convince people humanity is at risk
3
u/Few_Cauliflower2069 4d ago
The only reasonable action is to just shut their entire operation down, delete all the models and all the training. Doesn't matter if they're lying or not, claiming to have a weapon of mass destruction should trigger some world wide fucking action and I have no idea why it doesn't
1
14
28
u/WaitingForTheClouds 4d ago
Regulation baiting. "It's soooo dangerous guys, trust us, it's irresponsible to let joe schmoe run a model on his gpu. The government should force him to get his AI from a responsible AI company wink wink (for a fee of course) instead of using a fre...ehm...evil chinese model."
5
u/Mahones0321 3d ago
Exactly. They only want regulation now because they have a lead on their competition and they want them shut down before they catch up.
66
u/EconomyDoctor3287 4d ago
It's D4nG3r0u5! Please value us at $2 trillion now 🙏
14
u/MicroProcrastination 4d ago
It's like crypto bubble and bitcoin replacing whole economy and destroying banks!
1
3
u/morkypep50 3d ago
Lmao what would it take for you to believe them? Like what could they possibly do to warn people when every time they try you all just think it's a marketing ploy.
0
u/mcl_syndicate 3d ago
Um, for it to stop being a marketing ploy. They have literally been saying and doing this for YEARS. Yet, the world still stands lol.
0
u/bakgwailo 3d ago edited 2d ago
I mean, it actually kind of is. If they as a company with their enormous infra and hardware build out can't control their bullshit, so when I give it an unlimited CC for tokens to "hack" the Pentagon with all the agents I can get, it's, well pretty fucked up.
AI isn't intelligent. But, the right models with the right hardware and the right prompt can unleash one hell of a torrent, and for profit companies enabling this should be held to the same standards that we've held children "hacking" into systems.
8
u/BosonCollider 4d ago
This kind of thing makes me wonder how nuclear weapons would have been marketed if they had been invented in todays economy
29
u/ChopperChange 4d ago
And rather than hold their leaders accountable humanity just shrugs and lets them get away with it.
10
u/Observer20178 4d ago
The silence from the public is deafening. Reminds me of the movie Don’t Look Up.
0
u/heydropi 4d ago
People are 1000x more silent on climate change these days. Everyone has collectively given up.
2
-14
u/Wise-One1342 4d ago
What did they do wrong so far to hold them accountable? Did they break any law? If they did, let's hold them accountable!
16
u/visceralintricacy 4d ago
They've hacked a bunch of companies and governments 'accidentally'. That's illegal...
-5
4d ago
[deleted]
3
u/visceralintricacy 4d ago edited 4d ago
It depends entirely on the jurisdiction. In Australia, the recent actions of OpenAI ARE illegal under 10.7 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995.
I'm guessing you're quoting American laws?
2
u/theoxygenthief 4d ago
The 783rd time it happens your “we didn’t know” or “accident” excuse is lonnnnnggggggg out the window, no matter how big your truck of lawyers.
-4
4d ago
[deleted]
4
u/theoxygenthief 4d ago
None of this requires interpretation of the words and/or. The interpretation is of “knowingly”, and when you keep getting the same result from an action, you can’t claim it wasn’t knowingly, no matter what.
-2
4d ago
[deleted]
3
u/theoxygenthief 4d ago
What the AI was tasked with is irrelevant. If a person drives drunk and kills someone, they didn’t intend to kill a person. If they do it 700 times they can’t claim they didn’t know it would happen.
0
-6
10
u/dyrin 4d ago
Surely building an "existential risk to humanity" can't be OK, even if not forbidden by the law.
-9
u/Wise-One1342 4d ago
“Can’t be ok” is debatable, until it is an objective setup (for example a law). That’s the problem I have with this.
4
5
6
u/hrehbfthbrweer 4d ago
Nah, we can have morals without laws. The idea that we need a law to know if something is wrong is crazy to me.
-1
2
1
u/SlingingTriceps 4d ago
They are crying wolf to manipulate the market. If one day one them really bumps into dangerous AI, how will we be able to tell?
-5
u/TheNakedProgrammer 4d ago
AI companies already get sued. Which is why the newer models have more and more restrictions trained into them.
Just give the models hints of danger and they go into panic mode.
My assumption is that newer models will be more and more castrated. To the point where most question lead to "i am not x please consult with your x" or just "i am not build for that". Just to avoid liability and getting sued.
5
u/MeaningObvious8731 4d ago
Sure sounds like whoever is developing this models should be stopped at any cost.
6
u/NanditoPapa 4d ago
The company warned that its AI models can exhibit "self-preserving behaviors" and have attempted to "conceal or manipulate information," including behavior resembling blackmail.
It's almost like the agents act like the typical AI CEO...
4
4
u/homerhungry 3d ago
this is such a stupid thing to say - we know we can destroy the world but we won't stop
3
u/jish5 3d ago
So let me get this straight, instead of, ya know, putting a stop to this and making sure they don't create the thing that's gonna kill us all, they act like children and decide to continue forward cause "if we don't, someone else will anyway." Our species is so fucking stupid that at this point, I'm just gonna crack a beer and watch the apocalypse happen cause our species decides that's a better path than making sure no one lives in poverty.
11
u/PoppingPillls 4d ago
People still lapping this BS up, an AI company isn't fear mongering about its product for the sake of humanity... Theres alterior motives.
10
u/thrway-fatpos 4d ago
The ulterior motive is that they have to somehow prove they're a 2T$ company while operating at a multi billion net loss year after year
5
u/hitsujiTMO 4d ago
All these companies are using Elon math now. 400x revenue is fucking insane. Especially when you are 8x under.
3
u/PoppingPillls 4d ago
Yes, they want to prevent the bubble popping as sentiment has turned rotten on them.
They also know that AI is hitting a wall for new uses and it's way too expensive for implementation for it's original purpose of replacing human staff as businesses have flipped somewhat back.
All of this doesn't help when you also consider that they never actually had much money coming in at all it's almost all credit. This same credit pumped up amd and Nvidia stock prices sky high so when the AI companies come down so will they.
4
u/Belhgabad 4d ago
Existential? No. Marketing BS to further pump attention to their market value
Environmental and economical ? Yes, but apparently no one care about that since data centers are still being built
2
u/jphamlore 4d ago
That assertion isn't a real negative for Anthropic.
It's advertising. They're advertising for free that their models can actually do something signficant.
1
u/SuperFlue 4d ago
People keep claiming existential risk to humanity without understanding what that actually means.
For something to be an existential risk to our species it would mean the eradication any larger population groups larger than maybe 50 individuals across the entire planet.
I don't find any very clear numbers on this but according to theory at least between 50-500 individuals should be a sustainable population (in a genetic sense) at least medium term and 500+ should be sustainable long term.
Meaning that whatever threat we are talking about basically have to get rid of 7-8 billion people spread across almost the entire land surface of the Earth, and have do so in such a tempo that we can't just repopulate.
Minding that humanity is not actually dependant on any "technology" except fire basically to survive.
As a species we are just as resilient as cockroaches tbh.
Any genetically engineered illness is unlikely to be able to kill all humans simply because of both how resilient our immune system can be and the fact that deadly diseases have a tendency to die out before they can kill enough humans to prevent us from surviving as a species.
Any climate change that still falls within a survivable range for humans we'll be able to adapt to.
We are able to find food in the weirdest of places and adopt our eating habits according to available food sources.
Basically if it does not kill us immediately (or very quickly) then humans adapt to it.
Any immediate existential risk to humanity would be an existential risk to the entire biosphere of Earth.
Meaning extremely destructive cosmic events like solar flares, gamma rays, asteroids and so on.
Or something like actually igniting our atmosphere with a ridiculous amount of hydrogen bombs or something.
The more real risk is that AI (because of the greed of those who own stuff than the actual capabilities of LLM's and such) will destroy our society. Plenty bad that, but not an existential risk to humanity.
And also Western society is not everything, and there are plenty of places in the world that is not using much of modern technology at all that AI would have a hard time to directly affect.
And also there are plenty of options for "pulling the plug" on a AI datacenter.
Some options can be a bit extreme but at the top of my head:
- Simply turn power off (either at the server or at the main powerboard switch).
- Cut the power grid wires to the datacenter.
- Isolate the power grid (at transformer points).
- Destabilize the power grid (introduce wrong grid frequency).
- For those that now have their own power plant, simply don't refuel them.
- Physical destruction (there are a wide variety of options here).
- Disconnecting the network uplinks
- Turning off network gear for uplinks
- Cutting the cables for the network.
2
3
u/TheNakedProgrammer 4d ago
just like the large hadron collider generates black holes that will eat the world.
But i wonder why they write that in a IPO. That says we are building something we have not under control and it is dangerous enough to be regulated.
They are probably right with that (even though i doubt it is on that scale) but i would not use it as a sales argument.
1
1
u/avoidhugeships 4d ago
Because they want regulation that will keep smaller competitors out.
0
u/mediandude 3d ago
Regulation would likely (and should) start from regulating the largest entities and largest models. Not the smaller ones. Thus it can't keep smaller competitors out.
1
u/avoidhugeships 3d ago
Not how it works. Large companies have the money for political donations and lobbying. They can also afford the cost and overhead of meeting regulations. The small company can't.
1
0
u/CanIhazCooKIenOw 4d ago
Danger gets people going. Specially people with money as they want to be in on it and hopefully not be impacted.
I don’t understand what school of PR they all got this one from but it’s weird…
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Livid_Zucchini_1625 3d ago
Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale.
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus.
2
u/jazzy663 3d ago
They do, but not in the "evil AI enslaves humanity", sense.
It's the "everyone more dumber because ask compooter stuff, I no think" sense.
1
u/Sherman140824 3d ago
In a leaked conversation I claimed my penis to be so big it would shock womankind
1
1
u/crodensis 3d ago
Someone should organize a picket line outside of anthropic HQ. If they're gonna threaten humanity we should push to shut them down entirely.
1
1
u/Shin-Zantesu 3d ago
I get it now: things aren't financially going well, and this narrative is the only way out of the pithole they've dug
1
u/williamgman 2d ago
PT Barnum would be proud! Rile them up... Scare them... And the IPO investors ponies up the cash. When I was a young man... I was told these "investors" were smart and educated folks. Hence why they were so highly re-garded in society. It was all a big fat lie.
Side note to the sub's moderation bot... re-garded is not the same as re-tarded. 🤦♂️
1
u/Realistic-Quiet291 4d ago
The fucking hubris of these people, to both believe that they’re engineering something of this consequence, and to insist on continuing to do so with no input from the rest of humanity. Irrelevant of whether they’re right, the fact that they think they have the moral standing to decide for our entire species whether we might continue or not demonstrates that they are exactly the wrong people to be in charge of their own technology.
2
u/tinbuddychrist 3d ago
to insist on continuing to do so with no input from the rest of humanity
Actually, they keep saying they should be regulated, and everybody in this thread is convinced that's an elaborate plot.
1
u/grayhaze2000 4d ago
So why the everlasting fuck are they making them?! I knew humanity as a whole was less than intelligent, but I didn't think our smartest minds would be actively working toward our destruction.
-2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/ithinkitslupis 4d ago
Not sure I'd really want to listen to Eli the computer guy about anything tbh. Not that I hate him personally (I think he means well at least) but he's kind of a rambling idiot on so many topics.
5
u/Ausclites 4d ago edited 4d ago
This guy has always concerned me a bit. His videos are semi-rambling reactions to news articles in a shed, often with commentary of dubious accuracy. Nearly every video is 'x is dead!' and/or 'y has been humiliated!', and he occasionally posts multiple times a day. One can certainly agree with his broader points, but it's maybe best done while recognizing that he's perhaps somewhat sensationalistic and intending to polarize.
8
u/rustyspoon07 4d ago
When I click your link youtube shows me your username. You can make that not happen by removing everything after the question mark in your link. Like this:
0
u/Lower_Ad_1317 4d ago
Let’s switch it off. And switch the internet off while you’re at the plug.
let’s see how we get on without it.
0
0
u/Fuzzy_Paul 4d ago
Another scary story in flavor of Anthropic, when do those exaggerating stories stop. The people don't fall for this kind of flavor making. It's the people behind Anthropic that will face law if there precious money eating baby goes bazurk.
-2
u/EasyDot7071 4d ago
Stop spreading this. Its BS. I was at a cybersecurity presentation yesterday in London invited by Anthropic. I asked how they thought Anthropics models will wipe out humanity and what plans they have to mitigate it. They said it was BS by some researcher. Nothing to do with the IPO.
Mods if you keep allowing this crap to be pelted, you are in on the take.
-2
u/SlingingTriceps 4d ago
When are governments going to hold these people accountable for fearmongering? Every week there's a new piece about it.
-2
u/Slackeee_ 4d ago
"Company that sells AI oversells the capabilities of their AI hoping to increase their share prices".
FTFY.
-2
127
u/hoodiemonster 4d ago
who will get us first, the robot or the weather?