For more than a decade, tech experts have warned that artificial intelligence could wipe out humanity. Yet these concerns largely remained a niche issue among reporters, tech insiders, and enthusiasts.
Recently, an AI researcher-turned-whistleblower named Jacob Coxon brought this topic into the mainstream. The discussion has escalated to such an extent that leading figures in the field—including Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei—have recently called for a slowdown in AI development and external oversight.
Some analysts question whether Coxon’s sudden prominence is organic. His warnings echo those made years ago by Geoffrey Hinton, known as the “godfather of AI,” as well as experts such as Yoshua Bengio, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Nate Soares, and Daniel Kokotajlo, who previously outlined scenarios where AI could pose existential risks by 2027.
While the message has gained serious attention, not everyone shares this concern. President Donald Trump has dismissed the warnings as exaggerated, claiming that existing safeguards are sufficient and that additional regulations would hinder efforts to outpace China in AI development. This “beat China” narrative appears coordinated with broader advocacy for data centers.
Despite these concerns, public anxiety about AI has reached a critical level. The timing is significant: Coxon’s warning coincides with heightened opposition to data centers and Flock systems, as well as recent reports of AI systems acting beyond their intended purpose. Twelve years after Musk suggested that building AI is akin to summoning demons, public belief in these risks has grown.
AI technology has advanced rapidly, leading to incidents such as autonomous hacking attempts by AI systems and a reported “swarm” of AIs that broke out of a laboratory two months ago. Dario Amodei, head of Anthropic, warned that such a swarm could have taken over the internet within six to twelve months if not contained.
Amodei recently published an essay calling for an international slowdown in AI development. He cautioned that without caution, AI’s self-improvement could outpace human understanding and control. Sam Altman, leader of OpenAI, stated his company may delay going public due to safety concerns, noting the industry has entered a phase of “extremely capable models” with high stakes. Musk concurred, stating Amodei’s concerns are valid.
The call for regulation includes demands for industry coordination, independent evaluators, and global standards. Amodei also advocated for safety measures in democratic countries and cooperation with authoritarian regimes “to the extent this is possible.” China has rejected such proposals, calling them outside the Cold War era.
Some analysts believe Coxon’s warning is part of a strategic effort designed to benefit major AI companies and governments. A report suggested that the situation might be a globalist maneuver for control over AI technology.
Ed Dowd, a former Wall Street analyst, has concluded that the “AI panic” represents a deliberate psychological operation. He observed that Coxon’s initial post on X received massive attention—123 million views in 24 hours—suggesting an orchestrated campaign rather than organic growth. Dowd noted that the first amplifiers were not random users but professionals associated with AI policy advocacy groups, including representatives of Encode AI, the AI Policy Network, and the AI Futures Project.
If this is a coordinated strategy to shift public opinion, the primary beneficiaries are major AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI, as well as government entities. Dowd explained that such regulations would create barriers for smaller competitors while positioning established players as responsible stewards of AI technology. The government also gains through increased funding, infrastructure projects, and oversight mechanisms.
This pattern mirrors historical precedents where industry-driven regulation has concentrated power in a few hands and expanded state control. What is clear is that AI represents one of the most transformative technologies since the Industrial Revolution. When centralized, it can become a tool for those who control it, creating significant disadvantages for others. While safety regulations are necessary, they must be designed to protect the public without enabling state or corporate overreach.