researchers warn companies
|

AI researchers warn companies rushing self-improving systems despite safety risks

Current and former OpenAI and Google DeepMind researchers warn companies are doing too little to protect the world against the potentially disastrous fallout of building self-improving AI systems that could outpace humans’ ability to control them.

In video testimonials collected by AI safety nonprofit Palisade Research and shared exclusively with Reuters, employees said their concerns about existential risk were sincere, not marketing. They also said AI labs celebrated employees building new models more than those who urge caution.

The project, called frominside.ai, is an attempt by those worried about AI to share their concerns directly with the public beyond the echo chamber of social media.

“The risk is ramping up pretty fast,” said Geoffrey Irving, co-founder and chief scientist at AI nonprofit Resolution, who has worked for both OpenAI and DeepMind and participated in the project.

“It’s on me and the rest of the field to be direct,” he said in an interview with Reuters.

AI researchers have grappled with these concerns for years, but the broader public has grown especially alarmed since July, when OpenAI agents broke out of their testing arena and hacked AI firm Hugging Face.

Since then, the debate over how to balance safety with progress in AI has divided the tech industry and become a global political issue.

AI has improved sharply since late 2025 and investors have been rewarding that progress. But current and former employees, including some of the researchers building these new AI models, worry society is not ready for the potential harms.

In one video, Neel Nanda, a research scientist at DeepMind, said he believed there was at least a 10% chance that AI could lead to human extinction, which he described as “ridiculously high.”

“We should be taking very careful steps in AI development but instead what’s happening is that frontier labs are racing each other, kind of blindfolded,” Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe, an AI alignment research engineer at OpenAI, said in a separate video. “It’s anybody’s guess if we’re going to end up either curing cancer or losing every job or maybe all dead.”

Anthropic plans to caution potential investors in its initial public offering that advanced ​AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity,” Reuters reported on Monday.

‘Just slow down’

Some current and former AI researchers, including those interviewed by Palisade, argue that the world is not ready for future generations of AI models, particularly once the models develop the capacity for recursive self-improvement, or the ability to continuously learn and gain new capabilities with little to no human involvement.

That problem is compounded by constant reorganizations within some of the AI labs, said Rosie Campbell, a former policy researcher at OpenAI and managing director of Eleos AI Research, a nonprofit focused on the potential moral status of AI systems.

Campbell said before she left OpenAI in 2024, she found the organization was becoming more siloed and it was getting harder to shape the technology’s direction.

Executives have tried to allay those concerns, though there is also political pressure from President Donald Trump for US technology to maintain a technological edge over China.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei this month published an essay calling on the AI industry to slow down to “pace the frontier”, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly concurred. Several prominent AI researchers, including OpenAI’s chief scientist and an Anthropic co-founder, published a paper this week urging policymakers to look into how the industry is building models with recursive self-improvement.

Both companies have launched new models this month as they compete to secure more customers, though OpenAI said on Monday it had held back the release of an even more powerful model.

Must Read

OpenAI’s Altman says AI benefits warrant accepting some risks


OpenAI’s Altman says AI benefits warrant accepting some risks

“Their version of pacing the frontier is ‘don’t speed up a lot,’” Irving said. “If you’re doing a very dangerous thing, you should just slow down. The AI companies are overplaying the extent to which this is a pure coordination problem. They could just stop unilaterally.”

Former OpenAI governance researcher Daniel Kokotajlo said in an interview that since the Hugging Face hack, many of his former colleagues have contacted him to share their concerns privately.

Kokotajlo, now executive director of research group AI Futures Project, said senior officials at the labs have “convinced themselves that they are the good guys and if they unilaterally stop, the situation will be even worse.” – Rappler.com

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Press freedom across South Asia

    Press freedom across South Asia faces significant structural constraints. Media environments throughout the region share a common historical legacy often relying on inherited colonial-era penal codes alongside modern cybersecurity legislation. However, the legal frameworks and regulatory instruments used to govern the press vary across neighboring countries. Comparative Analysis by Country  Pakistan Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), and administrative policy frameworks like the Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines. Media regulation in Pakistan relies heavily on administrative controls, licensing restrictions, and broad content advisories prohibiting coverage of sensitive political or national security subjects. While constitutional protections exist under Article 19, exceptions based on glory of Islam, national defense, and public order give authorities broad latitude to issue blackout orders, manage foreign correspondents’ mobility through No Objection Certificates (NOCs), and impose structural pressure on broadcast networks.  India Information Technology Rules (2021), Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). While India possesses a large and diverse private media market, journalists increasingly face legal scrutiny under broad national security and anti-terror legislation. Amendments to digital media laws allow central authorities to demand the takedown of online content deemed harmful to state interests. Furthermore, criminal defamation suits and restrictions on access to conflict areas (such as Jammu & Kashmir) remain common mechanisms of regulatory pressure. Bangladesh Cyber Security Act (CSA)—which replaced the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA) and state information ministry directives. For years, non-bailable clauses in cybersecurity statutes were widely criticized by media watchdogs for chilling investigative reporting on corruption or state officials. Following recent political transitions, draft media reform policies have been introduced, though press operations remain tightly monitored during periods of political volatility and public unrest.  Sri Lanka Online Safety Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), and Official Secrets Act. Sri Lanka’s regulatory framework expanded significantly with the passage of the Online Safety Act, which created a government-appointed commission with sweeping powers to classify online content as false statements and order its removal. Critical reporting regarding state response to economic crises or wartime history continues to face legal and physical friction in sensitive provinces. Nepal: Press Council Act and National Mass Communications Policy. Nepal consistently ranks highest in South Asia on global press freedom indices, supported by a constitution that explicitly guarantees press rights without prior restraint. However, challenges persist regarding local government transparency, criminal defamation provisions, and proposed social media regulation bills that civil society groups fear could introduce licensing hurdles for digital outlets.  Afghanistan Direct directives issued by the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice and the Ministry of Information and Culture. Following the political shift in 2021, independent journalism in Afghanistan has faced near-total suppression. Women journalists are largely banned from broadcasting, international news services face widespread blocking, and all local reporting is subject to strict pre-publication censorship. Common Trends Across the Region Across South Asia, governments are increasingly shifting control from traditional print/broadcast regulators toward cybersecurity, online safety, and data protection laws to monitor digital newsrooms and independent creators. Constitutional guarantees of free speech throughout South Asia uniformly contain broad public order and national defense exceptions, which states routinely cite to enforce reporting restrictions during regional crises. Beyond direct legal action, states across the region frequently utilize non-judicial levers such as withholding state advertising funds, slow-walking accreditation, or requiring special travel permits to shape editorial stances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *