Artificial Intelligence has become nearly impossible to avoid. It writes emails, generates images, answers questions, and is increasingly being integrated into the technology people use every day. But as AI becomes more powerful, some of the people closest to its development are sounding the alarm. Recent warnings from AI researchers and industry leaders have reignited concerns about what could happen as these systems become more autonomous, capable, and difficult to control. While predictions of an AI-driven catastrophe may sound extreme, the controversy raises an uncomfortable question: If the people building this technology are warning society about where it could lead, how seriously should we be listening? These concerns became much harder to dismiss when they began coming directly from inside the companies developing some of the world’s most advanced AI systems. On September 8th, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned after spending three years at both Anthropic and OpenAI. In announcing his resignation, Coxon accused the companies of racing toward self-improving artificial intelligence without adequately addressing what could happen if humans eventually lose control. He warned that the people developing these systems genuinely believe AI could threaten humanity’s survival by the end of the decade. What made Coxon’s warning particularly alarming, however, was that he was not alone. Evam Hubinger, an alignment science lead at Anthropic whose work focuses on ensuring AI systems remain aligned with human goals, publicly supported Coxon’s concerns. Hubinger said he believes there is a greater than 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade and acknowledged that researchers still lack a clear solution for safely controlling a future superintelligent system. The growing concern surrounding artificial intelligence has not gone unnoticed by world leaders. The United Nations has already begun pushing for greater international cooperation on AI governance, bringing governments, researchers and technology companies together to discuss how increasingly powerful systems should be monitored and regulated. The goal seems simple: establish safeguards before AI develops beyond humanity’s ability to control it effectively. However, regulating artificial intelligence may be far more complicated than simply agreeing that the technology needs guardrails. AI development has increasingly become a geopolitical competition, particularly between the United States and China. In many ways, the race resembles the 20th-century Space Race. This time, it is not about reaching the moon first, but about which country can develop the world’s most advanced artificial intelligence. Slowing development could give researchers more time to understand AI’s potential dangers, but it could also let a geopolitical rival move ahead. The result is a dangerous dilemma: how do countries agree to slow down a technology when none of them can be certain their competitors will do the same? Whether artificial intelligence will ever become powerful enough to pose an existential threat to humanity remains impossible to know. Predictions about where AI could be by the end of the decade are exactly that: predictions. But when researchers working directly on some of the world’s most advanced AI systems begin warning that the technology could become dangerous, their concerns should not simply be dismissed. The challenge now is deciding what comes next. Governments may introduce regulations, companies may strengthen their safeguards, and international organizations may push for greater cooperation, but none of those efforts eliminate the competition driving AI development forward. As the United States, China, and technology companies race to build increasingly capable systems, slowing down may feel like falling behind. Yet continuing without adequate safeguards carries its own risks. We may not know exactly where artificial intelligence is taking us, but the people helping build that future are telling us to pay attention. It is time we start listening.
By Alan Jimenez
There was once a time when a new smartphone announcement felt like a genuine technological event. Bigger screens, dramatically better cameras, facial recognition and entirely new ways of interacting with our devices gave consumers a reason to pay attention. Today, a new phone announcement often feels much more predictable: a better camera, a faster processor, a longer-lasting battery and a handful of new software features. Apple’s newly announced iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Duo may be impressive pieces of technology, but are companies running out of ways to make phones exciting?
By Alan Jimenez
Jacksepticeye [Seán McLoughlin], a famous long-running YouTuber, is under fire for comments he made during a live stream. During his live stream of the game Moldrise, Jacksepticeye mocked Charlie Kirk’s assassination, saying to one of the characters, “You look like Charlie Kirk. You wanna get Kirk-ed?” Many are justifying his statement by saying that it was a joke. It is not uncommon for YouTubers and streamers to make dark, edgy jokes, but many are saying that this is not a joke at all. Getting “kirk-ed” is not a joke; it is a threat of personal violence for the crime of disagreeing politically with someone, which is why comments like those should be taken very seriously. And Jacksepticeye was specifically implying that it is justifiable to kill someone in the game because they resembled Charlie Kirk. That is taking a real political killing that happened only a year ago and turning it into a slang word to describe assassinating someone indiscriminately. Additionally, his statements indirectly imply that he supports the killing of Charlie Kirk. People, however, are not simply pushing back on Jacksepticeye because of his joke; it is also due to the total hypocrisy of his claims. Several years ago, Jacksepticeye was on the other side of this joke, and made a public statement when people online and in his comment section repeatedly mocked his own father’s death. He stated, “To any of you who posted memes about it and posted negative stuff about it, you are absolute scum.” Yet, here he is today mocking the death of another father and husband, who was killed for having open and respectful discussions with college students. Additionally, when one of the YouTubers who helped Jacksepticeye get his start, PewDiePie, was getting canceled for saying the N-word on stream, he chose to turn his back on him. These past situations have left many calling Jacksepticeye a “hypocrite” and “loser” who should have known better. Jacksepticeye personally knows how it feels to have someone ridicule and parody his father’s death, so for him to go and do the same thing to a man who left two small children behind is incredibly short-sighted and impossible for many to brush off. It is no secret for any who watch his videos that Jacksepticeye is a leftist who has been overly involved in American politics—despite not being a US citizen himself—but this has hit a point that many are calling psychotic. Ultimately, it harkens back to the blatant double standard between the right and the left. Jokes at the left’s expense are seen as inappropriate and cruel, while the right is fair game enough to kid at the expense of a murdered man. People on the right weren’t seen making jokes at George Flyod’s expenses without major pushback, with some at risk of having their livelihoods destroyed. The left likes to claim to be the side of tolerance and compassion. Yet, time and time again their supporters reveal the other side of that tolerance, where they openly support or mock the murder of those on the opposing side of the political spectrum. The irony here is that Jacksepticeye has stated that he wanted his channel to be a “safe space,” except for Charlie Kirk, of course. He has removed the comment from his official YouTube video, but many still see this as the beginning of the end of his career. Currently, he has not addressed the situation, which has led many to theorize that he is trying to make the controversy disappear quietly. But at the moment, while the controversy spreads across the internet, that doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us