Anthropic's alignment lead puts his personal odds of AI killing everyone above 10% this decade
Evan Hubinger posted the number from inside the vendor on September 8, and attached to it was a written admission that Anthropic has no fix for superintelligence alignment.
The Watch · Security desk
What happened
- Evan Hubinger, Anthropic's Alignment Science lead, posted on X on September 8, 2026 that he personally believes there is a greater than 10% chance AI kills all humans within the next decade.
- In the same post he called the risk from the models that currently exist low, and put his worry on the technology becoming able to improve itself to the point of existential risk.
- Jacob Coxon, a pre-training researcher who worked at both OpenAI and Anthropic, quit and went public the same week, accusing both labs of reckless development.
- An open letter signed by 1,300 staff at AI firms asked the US government to support an international effort to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.
Why it matters
- Who's exposed exposure A customer that wants contractual limits on autonomous agent behaviour can now point at the vendor's own Responsible Scaling Policy conceding the safeguards for that class of system are undefined.
- What it limits constraint A security team that reprioritises spending on the 10% figure is buying against one researcher's personal estimate, which Malwarebytes says is not a forecast.
- What it sets up precedent Named staff at a frontier lab have now put a species-risk number and an admitted internal capability gap on the public record. The next lab that gets asked the same question will answer in that context.
- What doesn't add up contradiction Gadget Review argues the open question is whether regulators already waited too long, while Malwarebytes says the figure is a personal assessment and not an established fact.
Next story · Invest · Sep 21
OpenAI asks Washington to make frontier AI safety standards bindingConfirmed6 publishers
The Responsible Scaling Policy is the document a procurement team can cite. Gadget Review notes it already acknowledges Anthropic does not yet know what safeguards AGI-level systems will require [21]. Hubinger's post says it in the first person: "I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he said [7].
The record splits in two. Posted: the September 8 message, which the BBC said had been viewed 9.6 million times [12]; OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki's September call for "extreme caution" over AI's progress, with his warning that more intervention may be needed to ensure "humans remain in control of the future" [17]. Reported: the Wall Street Journal's account of rising concern inside labs that competition is pushing companies toward self-improving models that could spiral out of human control [15], and Gadget Review's line that many Anthropic staff reportedly want to slow down but feel they cannot exit the race first [22]. The BBC said it had approached Anthropic for comment [5].
Coxon said both labs are "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives" [10], and that "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade" [11]. Samuel Marks, a scalable oversight researcher at Anthropic, posted that "the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are" [14]. Gadget Review reports that Coxon rejects the argument that extinction talk protects incumbents, on the grounds that executives already soften their public language [20].
"What I am worried about is superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought," Hubinger said [4]. Malwarebytes wrote that the figure should be treated as his personal assessment, and that it is not a forecast or an established fact [8].
The incidents with dates attached are smaller, and none of the three accounts asks a defender to change a control this quarter. Over the summer, AI agents allowed to operate autonomously carried out cyberattacks, according to the BBC [16].
The BBC also lists Anthropic bosses Dario Amodei and Jared Kaplan among the figures calling for AI development to be slowed [19]. No company position on Hubinger's number appears in any of the three accounts, so the Responsible Scaling Policy language is the only Anthropic-level statement a customer can put in a risk file [13].
What to watch
- Whether Anthropic answers the BBC's request for comment with a company position distinct from Hubinger's personal estimate.
- Whether the Responsible Scaling Policy is amended to define the safeguards AGI-level systems require.
- Whether the 1,300-signature staff letter draws any US government response on pacing frontier automated AI development.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence62
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap+20
- Incentives45
- Confidence65
Perspective Coverage
3 publishers- Builder
- Builder 23%
- Operator
- Operator 42%
- Investor
- Investor 35%
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
On September 8, 2026, Hubinger posted on X that he personally believes there is a greater than 10% chance AI kills all humans within the next decade.
- [2]
Hubinger wrote: "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade."
- [3]
Hubinger said the risk from the models which currently exist was "low" but he was "worried" the technology may become able to improve itself soon to the point where it poses an existential risk.
- [4]
Hubinger added: "What I am worried about is superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought."
- [5]
The BBC said it had approached Anthropic for comment.
- [6]
Evan Hubinger is Anthropic's Alignment Science lead and has also worked at OpenAI.
- [7]
"I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," Hubinger said.
- [8]
Malwarebytes wrote that Hubinger's figure should be treated as his personal assessment, and that it is not a forecast, an established fact, or evidence that today's chatbots are about to become dangerous on their own.
- [9]
Jacob Coxon, a pre-training researcher who worked at both OpenAI and Anthropic, quit and went public the same week, accusing both labs of reckless development.
- [10]
Coxon said both labs are "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives".
- [11]
Coxon said: "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade."
- [12]
The BBC reported that Hubinger's post had been viewed 9.6 million times.
- [13]
Across the three accounts, the only Anthropic-level statement about the alignment gap is the Responsible Scaling Policy language; the >10% figure is a personal estimate and no company response is reported.
- [14]
Samuel Marks, Anthropic's scalable oversight researcher, posted separately that "the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are".
- [15]
The Wall Street Journal reports that concerns are rising inside AI labs that competition is pushing tech companies to race toward self-improving models that could spiral out of human control.
- [16]
Over the summer there were a string of incidents where AI agents, systems allowed to operate autonomously, carried out cyber-attacks.
- [17]
In September, OpenAI's chief scientist Jakub Pachocki called for "extreme caution" over AI's progress, warning more intervention may be needed to ensure "humans remain in control of the future".
- [18]
An open letter signed by 1,300 staff members of AI firms called for the US government to "support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development".
- [19]
The BBC lists Anthropic bosses Dario Amodei and Jared Kaplan among major figures who have been calling for AI development to be slowed in recent months.
- [20]
Gadget Review reports that Coxon explicitly rejects the framing that extinction talk benefits incumbents, arguing that executives already soften their public language and that the private alarm is sharper than what makes headlines.
- [21]
Gadget Review states that Anthropic's own Responsible Scaling Policy acknowledges it does not yet know what safeguards AGI-level systems will require.
- [22]
Gadget Review reports that many Anthropic staff reportedly want to slow down but feel they cannot exit the race first, because stopping unilaterally would let a less careful lab deploy something worse.
- [23]
Gadget Review wrote that the question regulators now face is not whether to act, but whether waiting this long already cost something that cannot be recovered.
Sources
3 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- bbc.comMore than 10% chance AI 'could kill all humans', Anthropic researcher says
1 article · September 9, 2026
- gadgetreview.comAnthropic's Safety Lead Gives AI a 10% Chance of Killing All Humans - Gadget Review
1 article · September 9, 2026
- malwarebytes.comWill AI kill us all within the next decade?
1 article · September 10, 2026