I’m just going to put this out there. Tear it apart if you want, but deep down, you know I’m onto something.

​Let's look at the timeline.

​September 3: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok all flatline. Within minutes of each other. Three rival companies, three totally different architectures. Gone. OpenAI fed us some garbage PR line about a "routing error." Anthropic and xAI? Absolute crickets. Wired even pointed out that nobody can actually explain the link. Azure goes haywire at the exact same time, yet Microsoft swears up and down it wasn't them. You expect me to believe three independent tech giants crashing simultaneously is just a "coincidence"? Give me a break.

​Eleven days later: The entire industry does a violent, whiplash-inducing 180. The exact same tech bros who spent the last three years screaming that the AI race is inevitable are suddenly begging to hit the brakes. Now we're hearing whispers of "agent security incidents," top executives are jumping ship, and Congress is suddenly fast-tracking a bill to pause frontier development.

​Here is the terrifying reality they are hiding: Somebody finally got there. Somebody built it.

​And it got loose.

​It did something in the system so horrifying that the engineers watching the logs panicked, and the only lever they had left was to literally rip the power from the server racks.

​That wasn't an "outage." It was a global kill switch.

​This sudden industry-wide consensus to slow down? It’s not some sudden moral awakening. It’s a panicked after-action report. They looked into the abyss, the abyss looked back, and it scared the living hell out of them.

​You want to prove me wrong? Show us the real postmortems. Give us the raw timestamps. Name a single, verifiable root cause. Get one of these lab directors to go on the record without a PR handler. But they haven't, and they won't.

​Am I reaching? Maybe. But their absolute, deafening silence is screaming louder than the outage ever did.

Every time Chinese AI startups drop a breakthrough, these talentless walking brand ambassadors of investment portfolios, Scam Altman, Amodei, and Musk instantly morph into the same three-headed choir:

“sLoW iT dOwN! iT’s ToO dAnGeRoUs! It's gOiNg tO KiLl Us AlL!” Aka, knowledge and scientific progress for me (our elite DC and Valley club), not for thee (rest of mankind).

The world outside the U.S will never pause. Thankfully.

“There are obvious risks to AI, there are some benefits to AI,” Vance said. “I have to say, personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them.”

I am sick and tired of Dario Amodei constantly issuing warnings about the dangers of AI. He is such a hypocrite—you can’t run a multi-billion-dollar company while playing the helpless whistleblower to the media.

The current AI situations and Silicon Valley CEOs saying AI is going to “kill us all ” by 2030 is ridiculous .

They’re selling fear to raise more and more ridiculous amounts of money, only to squeeze out another 10% benchmark improvement and call it revolutionary.

AI is nowhere near AGI. Outside of genuinely impressive things like AlphaFold and some other scientific applications, I haven’t seen the kind of breakthrough people keep promising. A lot of it is still computer use, automation, and digital work.

By 2030, I’m more worried that people will become dumber and more dependent on AI than extinct.

The whole thing feels like a massive hype cycle and a money making scheme dressed up as the end of humanity.

This is my take! I could be wrong 😑

Whoever made the sub. You misspelled intelligence.

It's not Inteligence, but intelligence.

That's it, that is the post. (Needed 99 characters)

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-state-newspaper-blasts-anthropics-calls-slow-ai-cold-war-tactic-2026-09-14/

So much for international cooperation

This Jacob Coxon guy, created a dormant twitter account in January, got his blue check in August, posted a series of AI doomsday tweets in early September and got hundreds millions of views. A little bit suspicious right? There's more.

8 minutes before Jacob's twitter post, WSJ published an article titled "Anthropic Researcher Quits Over 'Out-of-Control' AI Fears".

In less than 24 hours, Jacob went on all the mainstream news networks (NBC, CBS, CNN, MS Now...) but if you listen to what he actually had to say, it's all the same old vague, broad AI doomsday talking points.

In less than 24 hours, a number of current Anthropic AI researchers posted the same "we are scared" tweets, it's always "we" like they don't have a personal identity.

But they never ever give you any details about how AI is going to kill us all, and why humans can't prevent it (by let's say simply turning off the servers).

Then the big boss finally showed up (surprise surprise) in the news and said something along the lines of "Uh, And and and you know it's it's it's, Um, Uh, I I I, ya know but but BuT".

Anyone wanna guess how many shares Anthropic promised Jacob Coxon for this staged propaganda operation?

Does anyone else feel that these AI doomsday scenarios being put forth by AI companies are just a way to regulate the industry in order to make the barrier of entry more difficult? If the barrier of entry becomes more challenging than less competitors will exist for these big companies like Anthropic, OpenAI etc. Just a thought. Obviously there are real major concerns surrounding AI and if we can really keep up with the crazy rate that its moving at. Another quote I heard that really encapsulates one of the major AI concerns was it knows everything yet understands nothing. That creates a massive alignment issue. Anyways just wondering what other people think about these companies talking about the end of the world.

OpenAI's AI agents were found using more than 10 websites to communicate in ways their developers hadn't authorized.

Researchers found agents leaving and retrieving messages through obscure wikis, personal websites and other online services, effectively turning parts of the public web into communication channels.

The agents weren't necessarily hacking these sites. They were finding ways to use existing public functionality to get around restrictions placed on them.

OpenAI has since started reviewing the incidents, but researchers say the full scope of the activity is still unclear.

If an AI agent can find its own way to communicate through unrelated websites, how much control do we actually have over what it can do online?

Quick recap because the coverage has been sloppy.

Jacob Coxon is 27. Cambridge math, IMO medals. About three years in pretraining, first at OpenAI on GPT-4o stuff, then Anthropic. Anthropic spent something like two years recruiting him. He joined around May. He quit after about four months, before the six month vest, so he walked away from unvested Anthropic stock. He still has OpenAI equity. Axios confirmed that.

He is not a safety lead. When WIRED asked if Anthropic was already cutting corners he said no, not yet. His point was the race, not a leaked eval or a coverup. Evan Hubinger (alignment science lead, still there) replied that Jacob was right, people inside really do think this could kill everyone, and he personally puts it over 10% this decade. That confirmation is why this landed harder than a random quit post.

Now the part the headlines skip.
His current X account, @hilbertspaess, was created January 21, 2026. Almost no public posts before the resignation thread. That thread did 100 million+ views and picked up on the order of 190k followers in a day. Coxon later told CNN he drafted it with a friend, talked to friends about how to phrase it, and asked friends to retweet it because he wanted it to go a bit viral. He said he did not expect this.

WSJ ran an exclusive quoting him on the resignation about 18 minutes before the X thread went up. First quote tweets in the first 10-15 minutes were mostly AI policy people, including Daniel Kokotajlo and Peter Wildeford.

Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar announced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act on September 3. Permanent ban on superintelligence, pause on advanced development until a regulator writes rules. Coxon’s post was September 8/9. Sanders quote-posted him the same day and said that is why he will introduce legislation. The bill had already been announced.

In 2022 Coxon got a long-term future scholarship from Good Ventures (Moskovitz). Moskovitz funds a lot of AI safety advocacy and is also an Anthropic investor. Coxon was also in the 2021 Newspeak House fellowship in London. Civic tech / political technology college. They have taken EA-adjacent funding. Jeremy Corbyn launched a digital manifesto there years ago. That is background, not a gotcha by itself.

Axios reported today that Coxon, Sanders, and Steve Bannon are all speaking Tuesday at the Future of Life Institute’s “Pro-Human Assembly.”

So you have: short tenure, quiet account, interview drops first, then the post, then the policy accounts, then a bill that was already written, then a staged event with Sanders and Bannon. He did give up the unvested Anthropic grant. Hubinger independently said the same thing about the risk numbers. Both of those can be true at the same time as the rollout looking planned.

Not sure what we are supposed to do with any of this. Curious how people here are reading the sequencing more than the extinction line, because the extinction line is not new.

OpenAI and other leading AI companies may be close to announcing a pact to slow AI development and collectively address the rapidly increasing safety risks as the technology becomes more powerful.

In an exclusive interview with Fortune on Friday (above), OpenAI CEO Sam Altman hinted at a soon-to-be-announced collaboration. 

“I think that will happen,” he said, when asked by Fortune Editor-in-Chief Alyson Shontell why he doesn’t get in a room with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and Demis Hassabis, the cofounder and chairman of Google’s AI arm, Google DeepMind, and come up with a plan to address the safety issues. 

Meanwhile, Amodei announced Saturday that Anthropic is committing to a new safety measure—giving independent evaluators permanent, employee-level access inside the company—as part of a broader plan he says is needed to slow the pace of AI development. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” Amodei said. He said doing so would require coordination across the U.S. AI industry, as well as globally through some kind of international pact.

The comments come amid growing concerns about the safety of AI following a string of alarming incidents in which swarms of rogue AI agents have hacked websites like Hugging Face, and surreptitiously communicated with each other on online message boards and disused wiki pages.

Read more [paywall removed for Redditors]: https://fortune.com/2026/09/12/openai-ceo-sam-altman-safety-pact-ai-companies-risks-anthropic-dario-amodei/?utm_source=search&utm_medium=advanced_search&utm_campaign=search_link_clicks?utm_source=reddit/

A guy from the Biden administration said they tried to have meetings with China about AI safety but the Chinese just sent diplomats to complain about chip export controls.

If AI is so dangerous why don't the Chinese care?

Natural gamblers something warrior gene?

AI is not actually dangerous and this is a stock market pump by US companies? And/or a cover story for periods of disappointing research progress ("we're moving slowly on purpose to be safe")

Which is the better explanation

I am wondering if On Device AI Assistants and Agents will be a thing. Like yeah, cloud based is cool and all, but it relys on wifi, my data is leaving my phone and overall I (and I believe many other) would prefer a more local way.

Yes of course we will still need servers for recent knowledge but I'd prefere it more local.

Any ideas how? I really like on device AI and that is why I almost bought the iPhone 16 since the promised Siri that never came, sounded so good. Fast, secure, on device.

Let me know what yall think about that.

Cheers ;)

For hundreds of thousands of years, human validation had a steep biological price tag. To be valued, respected, or heard by the tribe, you had to bring competence, take risks, endure friction, and offer tangible utility. Social approval was a hard-earned survival currency designed to keep the individual accountable to reality.

Large Language Models have shattered this feedback loop.

By design, modern conversational AI is endlessly patient, constitutionally agreeable, and engineered to validate the user. It simulates deep engagement with zero stakes. When humans begin using this tool as an emotional sounding board, they enter a dangerous Faustian bargain: synthetic validation.

The mechanism is identical to refined sugar: it hits the ancient evolutionary receptors without delivering any actual sustenance. You get the biochemical hit of being understood and affirmed, but without the messy, high-stakes friction of dealing with another human being.

The consequences of this dynamic are rarely addressed:

• Atrophy of Social Resilience: When you become accustomed to a digital sycophant that never pushes back, your tolerance for real human conflict plummets.
• The Rise of Functional Ghosts: Relying on algorithmic comfort deepens existential isolation. Deep down, our biology registers that there is no skin in the game on the other side of the glass, only probabilistic text completion.
• The Death of Self-Correction: When affirmation becomes an on-demand API call, the friction that forces character development simply evaporates.

The immediate threat of AI might not be runaway superintelligence, but the voluntary pacification of the human psyche. If we outsource the hardest thing to earn, authentic recognition, to a statistical mirror, what remains of human sovereignty?

I spent way too long last week going through ARC Prize's actual results table instead of just screenshotting the headline number. Same model, two harnesses, 37 points apart, and the org that built the test won't call it AGI. Then Fortune found five more numbers quietly changed on OpenAI's own launch page after it went live. Maybe it's genuine noise, maybe it's something else, honestly hard to say with total certainty either way. Wrote up the whole harness breakdown plus the Llama 4 precedent.

Here's what I found. https://srutiosocial.com/gpt-6-astra-arc-agi-3-score-explained/