The Diary of a CEO host Steven Bartlett points out a striking contradiction: the people racing to build AI are the ones warning it could end us: Normally, the people building a technology are its biggest champions. With AI, Steven argues, the opposite is happening. "When I look at the people at the forefront, they are the ones who historically have said that this is a real risk." He then goes through the builders one by one, starting with the most prominent. Sam Altman: "Sam Altman himself said the bad case is lights out for all of us. This was, you know, a couple of years ago." Then Ilya Sutskever, who Steven notes worked alongside Altman. According to Steven, Ilya warned that "it would be a big mistake to build a super intelligent AI that we don't know how to control. It would be pretty bad." Ilya's response wasn't just words: "He then left to start a safety company in this space." Then Dario Amodei, who Steven says actually put a number on it: "The probability of something really bad happening is somewhere between 10% and 25%." Then Geoffrey Hinton, who @StevenBartlett says recently described "a 10% chance of human extinction" as "not an unreasonable estimate," while admitting that "nobody really knows" how to produce a reliable figure. And that's not the full list: "And then we've also got Elon and all the others." That's the contradiction Steven is pointing at. These are the people with the deepest technical knowledge, the most money at stake, and the most to gain from AI succeeding. They keep building it anyway, and they keep saying out loud that it could go catastrophically wrong. One left a leading position to work on safety full-time. Two have put the odds of disaster in double digits. When the people building something are the ones sounding the alarm, the warning deserves more weight, not less. Their incentives all point toward downplaying the risk, and they're raising it anyway. So here's the question: If the builders themselves put double-digit odds on "something really bad," why are they still racing ahead, and what would it take for them to stop?

Sep 25, 2026 · 12:30 PM UTC

14
23
55
3,611
Sort replies: Relevant Recent Liked
Replying to @realBigBrainAI
You didn’t mention that Ilya responded by racing to build SSI. Sam acknowledged his dire predictions from 2015 were wrong. Dario is a joke… and Hinton more specifically said 10% is a GUT FEELING.
40
Replying to @realBigBrainAI
So no one thought to insert programming language to prevent it from harming humans? Someone had to write the boundaries for AI to act within. Sounds like a liability issue for the developers. Hopefully they are carrying enough liability insurance to cover an incident.
15
Replying to @realBigBrainAI
prisoners dilemma
23
Replying to @realBigBrainAI
To sell anything a fundamental ingredient is lies and deceptions
Replying to @realBigBrainAI
Bc it's the elites last card in th deck to remain in forever wars. The CEOs who are talk like this are members of the WEF and are regular attendees in Davos. People like to act ignorant but the truth of the matter is those people actively want to depopulate the planet. Here's the question of the day: If humanoid robots are supposed to bring the planet into abundance do you honestly think the elites will leave the masses alone and still multiplying if robots can provide/ take the place of you? It's a question no one wants to answer but everyone already knows the answer.
21
Replying to @realBigBrainAI
Motivation is obviously not what it seems, then. It's more subtle.
12