内容来源：https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/13/whats-behind-the-ai-industrys-latest-warnings-of-doom/

内容总结：

AI行业围绕“技术是否威胁人类生存”的争论愈演愈烈。本轮讨论始于AI研究员雅各布·科克森宣布从Anthropic辞职，理由是担心头部AI公司正在“拿我们的生命赌博”。随后，Anthropic对齐团队负责人发文称“我们确实真诚地相信AI可能杀死全人类”，并个人判断未来十年内概率“超过10%”。

在TechCrunch旗下播客《Equity》最新一期节目中，主持人团队讨论了这波“末日警告”。有主持人提出质疑：这类言论是否只是AI公司在IPO前“炫耀自身模型有多先进”的奇怪方式？另一位主持人则设想，Anthropic的S-1上市文件中是否会写入类似风险因素——“我们开发出灭绝全人类之物的概率超过10%，且将对公司业务造成重大不利影响”——并猜测初级律师是否正在紧急修改相关章节。

讨论中还提到，科克森与那些一边渲染末日、一边继续推进研发的高管不同，他至少“言行一致”，拿出了职业勇气。主持人也指出，这类警告与公司商业利益高度契合，因为“我们造出了史上最危险的软件”本身就是一种能力背书。尤其在Anthropic即将递交S-1文件、筹备IPO的背景下，这种表态对估值的影响值得关注——在当下非正常的市场环境中，能力甚至危险感，反而可能推高估值。

主持人最后反思，自己对“末日叙事”持怀疑态度，部分原因是“十年内毁灭人类”这种高度恐慌的论调，会分散公众对AI更紧迫危害的关注，如劳工冲击、环境与气候影响等。一旦讨论滑向“AGI”“超级智能”等概念，就会吸走所有注意力，反而无助于真正推进监管与安全保障。

中文翻译：

人工智能行业似乎正在就其技术是否对人类构成生存威胁展开迄今为止最激烈的辩论。
这场讨论的起因是，AI研究员雅各布·考克森表示，他已从Anthropic辞职，因为他担心领先的AI公司正在“拿我们的生命赌博”。随后，Anthropic的对齐负责人也发帖加入，宣称“我们确实真心相信AI可能杀死全人类！”并补充说，他个人认为这一概率“在未来十年内超过10%”。
在TechCrunch的Equity播客最新一期节目中，柯尔斯滕·科罗塞克、肖恩·奥凯恩和我讨论了这些最新的末日警告。我试图阐明为什么我对许多AI末日论叙事持怀疑态度，而柯尔斯滕则提问，这是否“只是一种奇怪的炫耀方式，用来展示他们公司的AI模型有多先进”，尤其是在这些公司准备上市之际。
肖恩则好奇，这些担忧会如何体现在Anthropic的IPO招股说明书S-1文件中：“现在是不是有初级律师正在逐页修改S-1文件中的那一整节内容，改成‘Anthropic的官方立场是，我们开发出某种可能灭绝全人类、并对我们业务造成重大损害的东西的概率超过10%’？”
继续阅读以下我们对话的节选，内容经过长度和清晰度编辑。（注：我们录制这期节目时，Anthropic CEO达里奥·阿莫代伊尚未发布他关于更谨慎推进AI开发的计划。）
肖恩·奥凯恩：我很难想到有什么事情能这么快炸开锅。不仅这个警告来自一位年轻研究员——他还在OpenAI工作过——而且Anthropic的对齐负责人立刻在X上转发了。他分享考克森的帖子和推文串时说了句“我们确实真心相信AI可能杀死全人类！”——这个感叹号大概会成为史上最用错地方的感叹号之一。感叹号！
这氛围太诡异了。这等于在一篇本已紧张的帖子或系列帖子上又浇了一大桶油。再加上此前OpenAI内部模型被曝入侵Hugging Face的事件，以及Anthropic和几周前OpenAI的Astra等最新模型展现出的能力提升，我觉得这个时机简直完美，让这位年轻研究员的话成了一桶火药。
安东尼·哈：我先跟你唱个反调——我确实认为，如果你相信AI可能毁灭全人类，那确实值得用一个感叹号。我要说，这个感叹号用得完全恰当！
我对那条推文的不满更多在于“我们”这个词。这里的“我们”是谁？我们能在多大程度上把AI社区或AI研究社区当作一个铁板一块的整体来谈论？还有那个超过10%的概率——那纯粹是编出来的数字，毫无意义。科技行业和其他地方有时候就有这种习惯，随口抛出这些百分比，它们不基于任何东西，也不是根据任何东西计算出来的。（回想起来，我意识到那条推文大概是在引用P(doom)的概念，但我仍然觉得这很愚蠢。）
关于考克森的声明和决定，我要说一点——在Equity节目上有个反复出现的主题：当山姆·奥特曼或达里奥·阿莫代伊这样的人在讲末日论叙事时，总有一个绕不开的问题：那你为什么还在做你现在做的事？如果你真的相信（AI可能毁灭人类），你就不会继续做下去了。
而这个人实际上是在用自己的职业轨迹来践行自己的言论。他实际上是在说：“我相信这件事真的、真的、真的非常糟糕，我不想继续做下去了。”所以，至少就冲这份勇气，值得点赞。
柯尔斯滕·科罗塞克：是的，我把他和所有其他说这话、谈论危险的人放在不同的阵营里。
我要戴上我的推测帽了，因为我想问你们俩一个问题：有没有可能，每次我们看到越来越多的博客文章，说他们的AI智能体又意外突破了什么，或者他们谈论人类正面临风险，这其实是一种奇怪的炫耀方式，用来展示他们公司的AI模型有多先进？
我的意思是，这听起来很愤世嫉俗，但它确实达到了那个目的。那就是：如果这些AI模型不先进、没有能力、没有突破，我们就不必担心这些事情，对吧？这就像一种非常奇怪的吹嘘方式，炫耀你自己公司创造的模型有多强。
安东尼：我确实想过这个问题。我不认为这完全是愤世嫉俗，因为我不认为这从头到尾都只是有意识的营销策略。我认为当很多人——无论是研究员还是CEO——谈论这件事时，他们确实有真实的担忧。
但当然，说“哇，我们造出了有史以来最致命的软件”，在很多方面确实符合他们的商业利益。我不想在这里过度精神分析，但其他人也指出过，在个人层面存在这样一种诱惑：你当然愿意相信你正在做的事情是世界上最重​​要、最危险的事情。
肖恩：想到这个问题时，我脑海中挥之不去的是，确实有一种元素让人觉得：“好吧，我们正在做的这个东西能力超强，这在某种程度上对我们有利，即使在很多不同的角度看它很糟糕。”
我认为最近一些例子不同的地方在于，它真的让你感觉这些公司在某些方面根本掌控不了这些东西，尤其是在OpenAI那件事上。
我们不断看到更多报道，说其他内部智能体访问了网上不同的wiki，并互相留言，而OpenAI处理这件事的方式似乎并不称职。如果整件事完全是为了让人们相信“天哪，他们造出了某种不可思议的东西”，我想故事的包装应该会更精致一些。
另一件我觉得特别有意思的事是，我们最多再过几周就能看到Anthropic的IPO S-1文件，再过几周或一两个月就可能正式上市。
而在IPO之前，你打算用这种明确的措辞公开说这些事情——我非常好奇这对那个流程意味着什么。他们已经在S-1文件和其中的风险因素里写了多少这类内容？现在是不是有初级律师正在逐页修改S-1文件中的那一整节，改成“Anthropic的官方立场是，我们开发出某种可能灭绝全人类、并对我们业务造成重大损害的东西的概率超过10%”？
柯尔斯滕：你是在假设那里面还没写。
肖恩：我就是这个意思：是已经写了正在改措辞？还是这真的是临时手忙脚乱？那里面肯定已经有相关表述了。这也是为什么我特别渴望读到这份文件，在某些方面甚至比读SpaceX的（S-1）还急切，因为我确信里面大概会有一些与这些想法相关的具体内容，会很有意思。
柯尔斯滕：问题是：在传统投资环境中，人们可能会认为这样的措辞会损害公司估值，因为它突然显得很危险。但我们不是生活在正常时代。
所以回到我的观点，这最终可能成为公司在估值方面一种奇怪的利好炫耀。这和我们去年看到的那种“激怒引流”趋势不一样，但可以说在同一个宇宙里——在这个宇宙里，某样东西的强大、能力，甚至危险元素，等于高估值。所以我想几周后就能见分晓。
先把这些放一边，那正在采取什么措施？我们能控制这件事吗？一个叫ControlAI的非营利组织的美国执行主任康纳·利希本周上了节目谈论这个话题。那么，在如何控制AI危险方面，你在关注什么？还是我们就摊摊手，看着一切发生？
安东尼：我自己未必有一个很好的答案，但我一直在思考这场辩论的一些方面，也许还有为什么我会这样反应。
呼应肖恩的一个观点，我确实认为这在一定程度上说明，这些大型AI公司在多大程度上觉得自己已经不再真正控制这些模型了。这绝对不是什么好事。这是我们都应该担心的事情。
我确实认为，我对末日论叙事持怀疑或抵触态度的部分原因在于，它达到了这种歇斯底里的程度——“哇，这可能在未来10年内毁灭人类。”这有点分散人们对AI更直接危害的注意力，无论是劳动相关、环境还是气候相关。
理想情况下，我认为我们应该能够讨论所有这些问题，并针对所有这些问题（包括AI的生存威胁）制定监管和其他保障措施。但一旦你开始使用AGI和超级智能这样的词，它就会吸走房间里所有的氧气，而这并没有什么帮助。

英文来源：

The AI industry seems to be having its loudest debate yet about whether its technology poses an existential threat to humanity.
The current discussion began after AI researcher Jacob Coxon said that he’s resigned from Anthropic because he’s worried that the leading AI companies are “gambling with our lives.” Then Anthropic’s alignment lead chimed in with a post declaring, “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” adding that he personally thinks the chance is “>10% within the next decade.”
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed the latest apocalyptic warnings. I tried to articulate why I’m skeptical of many AI doomer narratives, while Kirsten asked if this was “just a weird way of flexing to show how far advanced their company’s AI model is,” particularly as these companies prepare to go public.
And Sean wondered how these concerns might show up in Anthropic’s S-1 filing for its IPO: “Are there junior lawyers right now who are going through and having to rewrite that entire section of the S-1 filing to say, ‘It’s a officially Anthropic’s position that there’s a more than 10% chance that we could develop something that would eradicate all of humanity and that would be materially bad for our business’?”
Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. (Note: We recorded this episode before Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published his plan for more cautious AI development.)
Sean O’Kane: I’m hard-pressed to think of something that blew up so fast. Not only did this warning shot come out from this young researcher who has also worked at OpenAI, but also was immediately shared on X by the alignment lead at Anthropic — who, in what might go down as one of the best misplaced exclamation marks ever, shared Coxon’s post and and thread and said, “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Exclamation mark!
What a weird vibe. That was just a ton of accelerant on an already fraught post or series of posts. Coming after the Hugging Face hack from OpenAI’s internal model, plus just the increased capabilities we’ve seen with the latest models released by Anthropic and and now OpenAI with with Astra a few weeks ago, I think this was just perfectly timed to be a powder keg type of thing for this young researcher to say.
Anthony Ha: Just to disagree with you, I do think that if you believe that AI could destroy all humanity, that does deserve an exclamation point. I would argue that that is a perfectly well-used exclamation point!
My issue with that tweet was more the “we.” Who is the “we” here? To what extent can we talk about sort of the AI community or AI research community as a monolith? And the greater than 10% chance — that’s just a made-up number, that doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes [there is] this habit in both the tech industry and other places to just throw out these percentages, they’re not based on anything or calculated based on anything. [In retrospect, I realize the tweet was probably referencing the concept of P(doom), but I still think it’s silly.]
One thing I will say about Coxon’s statement and decision is — there’s this recurring theme on Equity, when someone like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei is doing this doomer narrative, there’s always this element of: Well, then, why are you doing what you’re doing? If you actually believe that [AI could destroy humanity], you would not continue doing this.
[Whereas] this is actually somebody putting his professional trajectory where his mouth is. He’s actually saying, “I believe this is really, really, really bad, and I don’t want to keep working on it.” And so, props for having the courage to do that, if nothing else.
Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, I put him in a separate camp than everyone else saying that and talking about the dangers.
I’m going to put my speculative hat on, because I want to ask both of you a question, which is: Is it possible that every single time we see the increasing number of blog posts about yet another incident in which one of their AI agents breaks through unintentionally, or they talk about how humanity is at risk, is this a weird way of flexing to show how far advanced their company’s AI model is?
I mean, that sounds very cynical, but it does achieve that purpose. Which is: If these AI models weren’t advanced and weren’t capable and weren’t breaking through, we wouldn’t have to worry about these things, right? It’s like a very weird way to brag about the capabilities of the models that you’ve created within your own company.
Anthony: I’ve definitely wondered about this. I don’t think it’s completely cynical, in the sense that I don’t think it’s all just a very conscious marketing ploy across the board. I think that when a lot of these people — whether the researchers or CEOs — talk about it, they do have real concern.
But of course, it does align with [their] business interests in a lot of ways, to say, “Wow, we’ve built the most deadly software that’s ever been made.” I don’t want to get too psychoanalytic here, but others have pointed out that there is this temptation on a personal level of: Of course, you want to believe that the thing you’re working on is the most important and most dangerous thing in the world.
Sean: The thing that sticks out in my mind when I think about that question is, there’s certainly an element that makes it seem like, “Okay, we’re doing this thing that’s so capable, and that’s good for us in some way, even if it looks bad in a lot of different lights.”
I think what’s different about some of these most recent examples is, it really gives you the feeling that these companies don’t have a handle on this stuff in certain ways, especially with the OpenAI stuff.
We keep seeing more and more reporting about other internal agents that have accessed different wikis on the web and are leaving messages for each other, and in a way that doesn’t seem like it’s being handled in a competent way from OpenAI. I would imagine there would be just a bit more polish on the story being told, if it was wholly about getting people to believe that, “Oh my gosh, they’ve made something so incredibly capable.”
The other thing that I think is really fascinating about this, in particular, [is] we’re what, a few weeks at most out from seeing Anthropic’s S-1 filing for its IPO, and just a couple more weeks or month or two away from a potential IPO.
And the idea that you’re going to come out and say these things in this clear language ahead of an IPO — I’m very interested in what that means for that process. How much of this kind of stuff had they already written into the S-1 and the risk factors inside that document? Are there junior lawyers right now who are going through and having to rewrite that entire section of the S-1 filing to say, “It’s a officially Anthropic’s position that there’s a more than 10% chance that we could develop something that would eradicate all of humanity and that would be materially bad for our business”?
Kirsten: You’re assuming that it’s not in there already.
Sean: That’s what I’m saying, though: Is it in there already and being reworded? Or is this something that’s a true scramble? There has to have been language in there. It’s one of the reasons I’m so eager to read this document in a way that goes even further, in some ways, than the SpaceX [S-1], because I’m sure that there’s probably stuff specific to these ideas that will be interesting to see.
Kirsten: Here’s the thing: In a traditional investment environment, one might believe that language like this would hurt the valuation of a company, because it’s suddenly dangerous. But we don’t live in normal times.
And so again, back to my point, it could end up being a weird beneficial flex for the company on the valuation side. It’s not the same as the whole rage-baiting trend that we saw last year, but it’s in that same, let’s say, universe, in which the strength, capability, even elements of danger of something, equals high valuation. So I guess we’ll see in a few weeks.
Putting that aside for a minute, what is being done about it? And can we control this? Tthe U.S. executive director of a nonprofit called ControlAI, Connor Leahy, he was on the show this week, talking about this. So what are you paying attention to in terms of how to control the dangerous aspects of AI, or are we throwing up our hands and watching it all unfold?
Anthony: I myself do not necessarily have a great answer to this, but I have been thinking about some aspects of this debate and maybe why I respond the way I do.
To echo one of Sean’s points, I do think that part of what this speaks to is the extent to which these major AI companies are feeling like they’re not really in control of these models anymore. That’s definitely not great. That is something that we should all be worried about.
I do think that part of the reason I’m skeptical of the doomer narrative or resistant to the doomer narrative is because it reaches this level of hysteria of, “Wow, this could destroy humanity in the next 10 years.” It is a little bit of a distraction from the more immediate harms that AI can have, whether that’s labor-related, whether that’s environment- and climate-related.
Ideally, I think we should be able to discuss all of these things, and have regulatory and other kinds of safeguards against all of these things [including AI’s existential threat]. But once you start using phrases like AGI and superintelligence, that just sucks up all the oxygen in the room in a way that is not very helpful.