AI professionals who fear an apocalyptic future are confronting a difficult, though historically grounded, career crossroads. Should they resign from their positions to prevent potentially enabling the very doomsday scenario they envision, or remain in their roles to advocate for safer practices from within? This complex dilemma gained attention this week when Jacob Coxon, a former OpenAI employee, announced his resignation from Anthropic via X, stating that the team genuinely believes “it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Soon after, Evan Hubinger, who leads Anthropic’s alignment stress-testing team, essentially supported Coxon’s stance, asserting that there is a greater-than-10% probability that AI could result in human extinction within the next ten years.
Why some workers choose to stay
For AI professionals who fear they’re contributing to humanity’s potential downfall, deciding between quitting or staying has proven more nuanced than it might initially appear, explained Jeremie Harris, CEO and cofounder of Gladstone AI, a Washington, DC-based safety and advisory firm focused on national security risks and catastrophic threats from advanced AI. “I don’t particularly fault anyone for making either call,” Harris stated.
Harris mentioned his regular conversations with staff at Anthropic and other leading AI labs, noting that in recent months numerous employees have expressed fears similar to those Coxon described. While resigning can represent a moral stance against developing dangerous technology, he cautioned that AI labs might struggle to retain workers willing to push for change if mass resignations occur.
“The individuals who remain will likely be those least concerned about safety,” Harris warned, while “those who genuinely care about safety should ideally be the ones in positions of influence.”