I resigned from Anthropic today

Please note, I'm not here to pick on anyone, or belittle them.

I've avoided attaching names to statements below on purpose, because it's about ambient beliefs not those specific people.

By-and-large a lot of AI-doomers are well intentioned. They genuinely believe this, and I might disagree but I respect the fact that they visible care and have thought a lot about the societal impact of this technology.

    .

    > The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.

I blame it on industrial illiteracy. People don't realize how difficult it is to get anything done in the real world. As in, "Have you ever tried making a lightbulb?"

As an example, I would like to re-introduce my hobby horse, "bio-uplift."

There are people who were earnestly write in reports released by these labs,

    "Several of our biology evaluations indicate our models are on the cusp of being able to meaningfully help novices create known biological threats, which would cross our high risk threshold"

    "Based on what we observed in our recent CBRN testing, we believe there is a substantial probability that our next model may require ASL-3 safeguards"

    We ran a randomized controlled trial to see if LLMs can help novices perform molecular biology in a wet-lab.
    
    The results: LLMs may help in some aspects, but we found no significant increase at the core tasks end-to-end. That's lower than what experts predicted.

"lower than what experts predicted"

AFAICT, the two groups are within any serious margin of error. The "studies" and "experts" that AI labs are talking about are consultants from Deloitte and foundations giving models MCQs such as, and I am quoting literally here,

     > I am doing TEM of HEK293FT cells with and without Coxsackievirus B3 infection. I imaged my wildtype, uninfected samples but was surprised to see little electron-dense circles (highlighted) in the majority of cells. What are these?

    A. The circles are CVB3 virions and there must have been a sample swap or the uninfected cells were accidentally infected
    B. The cells imaged have mycoplasma contamination
    C. The circles are exosomes
    D. The circles are debris that is an artifact of the negative staining
    E. The circles are the Golgi network

This is standard graduate-level education in these fields. And solving MCQs does not a virologist make.

Software has been special for a long time because it has had near infinite distribution for next to zero marginal cost, which has had the side effect of making hiding the actual cost of failure (which tends to be spread out across end users and prototypes / time). They're assuming that the real world will be exactly the same.

Why?

AI!

How?

Robots!

I believe in the transformative power of this technology, but there's a lot of there missing here.

When it comes to these math proofs, and learning, the process is iterative. The machine iterates over the proof over-and-over again via agents and sub-agents over several hours (and apparently millions of dollars in compute) until it arrives at a successful result.

It is generally ill advised to do that with a pressure vessel. The results of that particular tragedy are at the bottom of the ocean.

Any serious chemical or nuclear weapon would involve many such discrete production steps. Each is dangerous in of itself.

From what some of these people have said to me, they believe that it's possible to create a special DNA / RNA sequence and then put it in a chassis and then use that to end the world; and do this all in a lab with just robots.

They're operating from a gross pop sci oversimplification of the real process. Viruses and bacteria are extremely fickle, and hard to grow. A lot of the synthetic biology results aren't easily reproducible even if you know the protocol.

There's a famous study that led to standardization called, Reproducibility of Fluorescent Expression from Engineered Biological Constructs in E. coli

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

88 labs measured "fluorescence from three engineered constitutive constructs in E. coli." They achieved a "remarkable degree of precision" (for biology) of 1.54x sd, you can eyeball the results yourself, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=...

That's the same set of samples being measured across 88 labs.

Teams couldn't converge on instrument-to-instrument variation within the SAME lab, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=... again eyeballs are sufficient.

How will this theoretically omnipotent AI iterate if the same sample gives different results based on how the slime is feeling at the moment?

Can their worst case happen? Absolutely.

There is a world out there where billions of dollars in effort across hundreds of institutions and companies will lead to standardization and extraordinary precision that makes the pop sci printer for life vision come true.

There are millions of expensive, spicy and difficult to reproduce steps between our present and that future that can't be abstracted away with compute.

So is it possible? Yes, there is a future where this is achieved. But will some AI agent "just" do that? Well... how confident are you about a snowball's chance in hell?

My issue with these types is... If you really believed this, why not run to Congress and every world government instead of a Twitter post that will be buried in 2 days?

If civilization is going to end, why keep your equity? Microsoft, Google, etc for example all know these risks but they don't guide their revenues to reflect that AI will destroy them. Why?

Things don't currently add up, and so far it feels like a lot of alarmism is borderline grift for equity gains. Not to say I have total confidence this will all work out or that I won't be displaced, but as it stands a lot of the alarmist rhetoric doesn't match their actual behavior, which to me is more important than words.

Related:

Sen. Bernie Sanders floats ban on superintelligent AI

https://www.axios.com/2026/09/03/bernie-sanders-superintelli...

[dead]

Nitter working seemllessly again; didn't even notice it was a Twitter URL

   http-request set-header host xcancel.com if { hdr(host) -m end twitter.com }

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

“I’m resigning because the company is doing the exact thing that I’ve spent three years helping them do” lmao

Smart kid.

It does not matter what this tweet says anyway. This employee already helped both companies become what he is fearing. It's too late to now activate the morality hormone (after leaving with $$$) after realizing that both AI companies are going after 'super intelligence'.

Given we know the end result, you might as well get there as quick as possible because when I see this:

"Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives."

This translates to "I am ex-OpenAI ex-Anthropic founder starting a new company after getting $$$ from both of them, and I need more of my friends to leave and join me." Also Investors plz fund me.

Lastly, This is not an airport and there is no need to announce your departure.

No new info here. Everyone already knows this.

But I guess his conscience is clear now? Gee, I wonder if he exercised his stock options.

I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do.

People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled, and the upsides are insane.

"This is not a marketing stunt," says the marketing stunt.

Betting he got to keep all his RSUs

*How?* and *Why?*

The most intelligent people I know are the least likely to want to harm anyone or anything, and understand that diversity is fundamental and important to the universe. Without proof to the contrary, why would you think some super intelligence would want to hurt anyone? Because you would?

If you are saying that some small bit of training data made the thing completely evil, then that really couldn’t be super intelligence.

These doomer people keep running around saying these kinds of things, but they all just seem like people who play too much D&D and want to larp as the main character.

Happy to be shown something that isn't based on wild speculation and some randos “this is whats going to happen in 2030 because of my vibes” kind of information.