‘Pacing’ won’t eliminate the risk of AI doom. Here’s what could | David Krueger

The stark reality is this: we don’t know how to maintain control of these systems. But there are actions we can take With Jacob Coxon’s resignation from Anthropic , we have reached the AI risk tipping point. Millions of people are finally coming to understand what experts have known for years: AI companies have been gambling with all of our lives, and the odds are not good. In response, the Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei, has introduced a proposal for “pacing the frontier”, endorsed by Sam Altman and Elon Musk. Can we breathe a sigh of relief? Are we about to step back from the edge of extinction? Amodei envisions a slowdown of one to two years, resulting in “profound progress” on technical safety measures. But that’s not what humanity needs right now. What we need is a plan in which we’re confident AI isn’t going to kill us, and this isn’t it. Continue reading...

Article warns of AI risk and doubts proposed safety plan.

The article states that current AI development is risky and may lead to extinction, with proposals for slowing AI progress seen as inadequate for ensuring safety. This implies significant negative societal and existential risks from AI advancement that are not sufficiently mitigated.

This is an opinion piece asserting strong existential risk claims without new empirical evidence, arguing industry pacing proposals are insufficient. The claims are serious but rest on assertion and framing rather than demonstrated incidents or data, warranting a concerning but capped score given speculative nature.

The article claims that AI companies are gambling with humanity's lives and that current safety proposals are inadequate to prevent existential risk. It states that AI could kill us and that a slowdown of one to two years is insufficient to address this extreme danger. The author argues that humanity faces an 'extinction' level threat.

The article argues that AI poses an existential risk to humanity. It suggests that current safety measures are inadequate. The author expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of 'pacing the frontier' as a solution.

SOURCE     The Guardian: Artificial Intelligence (tier 1)
   ↓
DOCUMENT   f1dd3051-1a32-4133-b10c-69920f70d07c
           https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/16/ai-safety-plan-dario-amodei-anthropic
   ↓
EVIDENCE   2 extracted excerpts
   ↓
MODEL RUN  5 runs, methodology 1.0.1
   ↓
SCORE      -72  (Strongly adverse)
   ↓
CONFIDENCE 75%