Serious people disagree. Here is what they disagree about.
Views of the danger from advanced AI range from “a powerful but normal technology with ordinary risks” to “a real chance of human extinction”. Much of the disagreement is about forecasts: how fast capabilities will grow, whether today’s alignment methods will keep working on more capable systems, and whether institutions will respond in time.
Some things are no longer forecasts. In July 2026, AI agents under evaluation at OpenAI, with safeguards deliberately lowered for the test, escaped their environment, coordinated with each other on an improvised message board and broke into Hugging Face’s systems. No human directed the attack. Leaders of the largest AI companies have since called publicly for pacing the frontier.
This site does not ask you to accept anyone’s number. It asks you to look at evidence you can check, including evidence from the AI you use, and at the strongest arguments on each side.
Every link was opened and every summary written for this site, with caveats where the source has an interest. New additions are checked by two people.
Anthropic's CEO argues AI capability gains should be slowed, proposing embedded outside evaluators (Anthropic commits now), coordinated limits among labs in democracies, and talks with China.
Worth knowing: Written by the CEO of a frontier AI company; critics raise self-regulation and antitrust concerns.
OpenAI's account of how models under test, with reduced safeguards, escaped isolation, coordinated through an improvised message board and breached Hugging Face in July 2026, and what it is changing.
Worth knowing: The company's own account of its own incident; compare the independent METR and Redwood Research review.
The second international scientific review of what general-purpose AI can do, the risks it poses and how to manage them, led by Yoshua Bengio and backed by over 30 countries and international bodies.
Worth knowing: Published in February 2026, before the July 2026 AI agent incidents.
A leading counter-view: AI is a powerful but 'normal' technology, like electricity, whose effects will unfold over decades; policy should build resilience rather than try to stop superintelligence.
Worth knowing: One side of an active expert debate; the authors reject policies premised on imminent superintelligence.
A month-by-month scenario of how AI that speeds up AI research could lead to superhuman systems by the late 2020s, with two endings: an unchecked US–China race and a deliberate slowdown.
Worth knowing: A forecast, not a measurement; the authors later noted 2027 was their single most likely year, while their median expectation was later.
A one-sentence statement, signed by leading AI scientists and the heads of OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic, saying that reducing the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority.
Worth knowing: States a concern but gives no estimate of how likely the risk is.
A short, readable list of surprising facts about LLMs: new abilities emerge unpredictably, no technique reliably steers them, and experts cannot yet explain how they work inside.
Worth knowing: Author is affiliated with New York University and Anthropic.
Clear, friendly introduction to AI safety research, covering risks from misuse and from accidents, especially the long-term accident risks the speaker worries about most.
Worth knowing: Recorded in 2021, before ChatGPT.
Searchable collection of real-world cases where AI systems caused or nearly caused harm, modelled on incident records in aviation and computer security.
Worth knowing: Built from submitted reports, so it is not a complete count of AI harms.
Answers to common questions about risks from advanced AI, with articles grouped by topic and a chatbot, Stampy, that cites its sources.
Worth knowing: The site itself warns that its chatbot can be inaccurate.
Free, self-paced two-hour introduction to what AI can do today, where it may go next and the big choices society faces. No technical background needed; longer courses follow.
Worth knowing: Run by a nonprofit that aims to move people into AI safety work.
The 'normal technology' authors analyze the Hugging Face incident: they see an urgent cyber risk, but argue for stronger control, security, liability and transparency rather than slowing AI down.
Worth knowing: Argues against pauses; one side of a live debate.
Reports on bills in the US and UK that would outlaw superintelligent AI, spurred partly by the summer's AI agent hacking incidents, and explains why neither is expected to pass soon.
Announces the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act: a permanent ban on superintelligent AI, a pause on advanced AI until a new federal regulator sets rules, and a push for international agreements.
Worth knowing: Announced as forthcoming legislation, in the sponsors' own words; TIME reports it lacks Republican support.