re: Who’s Orchestrating The AI-Hysteria Campaign?

Dr Robert Malone Substack

Eight days in September

quote:

---

On September 3, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar announced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. They introduced it the following day (Sanders 2026).

On September 8, an Anthropic researcher named Jacob Coxon resigned in a seven-post thread, the only seven posts his account had ever made. He said Anthropic and OpenAI were racing toward self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives, and he put the chance of AI causing human extinction within the decade at ten percent. The Wall Street Journal published its exclusive eighteen minutes before Coxon posted (Ramkumar 2026).

The next day, Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment science lead, publicly supported Coxon’s warning. Hubinger put the probability of AI killing humanity within the next decade at greater than ten percent and acknowledged that Anthropic had no plan for aligning superintelligence and was not clearly on track to develop one (Hubinger 2026). Unlike Coxon, Hubinger did not resign.

Also on September 9, OpenAI published a policy essay by Chris Lehane, its chief global affairs officer. Lehane had previously worked in the Clinton White House and later led regulatory and political campaigns for Airbnb. His OpenAI essay called for mandatory national AI safety regulation and endorsed four pending California bills. Its title was explicit: “The AI Policy Window Is Open. We Need to Act.” The final section was headed “Use the window.” Lehane concluded: “The AI policy window is open, for now. We intend to use it” (Lehane 2026).

On September 10, Barack Obama spoke at a closed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser in Manhattan. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries asked him about the Anthropic resignation. Obama answered that the technology was moving fast in private hands and urged Jeffries to build a framework (Gorelick 2026).

On September 11, the New York Times opinion page ran Stephen Witt calling for a global pause (Witt 2026). Seventy British parliamentarians wrote their prime minister the same day demanding a superintelligence ban.

On September 12, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei published an essay arguing the industry must slow down (Amodei 2026). Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Demis Hassabis agreed within hours. Sanders posted that evening thanking all three for coming around to his position.

Several of these moves were coordinated by the people making them. A resignation does not get a Wall Street Journal exclusive eighteen minutes before it happens by accident. The Journal and TechCrunch both report that Coxon and Hubinger timed their disclosures together. A bill does not precede by five days the incident its sponsors cite to justify it. Three rival chief executives do not arrive at the same position inside an afternoon without advance notice of what is coming.

That does not require a centrally organized conspiracy. Political scientist John Kingdon described the process decades ago. Major policy proposals are often developed long before the political conditions exist to enact them. A crisis, election, or sudden change in public attention creates what Kingdon called a “policy window.” Political actors and interest groups with proposals already prepared then move quickly to take advantage of it (Kingdon 1984).

The bill was already written. Amodei’s essay was already drafted. The House Democratic framework was already in finishing touches. What Coxon supplied was the opening.

The Sanders legislation was already written. Amodei’s proposal was already being prepared. House Democrats were already developing an AI framework. OpenAI’s chief lobbyist was openly describing the moment as a policy window and stating that his company intended to use it.

Coxon’s resignation did not create the regulatory agenda. It helped create the political conditions for advancing it.

---

Note: I cannot post the whole article. But it's a very informative and important writing with references. Please click on the link to be informed.

The issue here isn't whether msm is right or wrong, it's the unprecedented size of the story.

China. The Chicoms will do anything to get ahead of the US in the race of AI.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer to the utility of AI beyond a certain level of gaining efficiency.

---

I do agree with this and think you can probably chalk up a lot of this to software engineering autists drunk on their perceived power and extrapolating way way too much to the efficacy of LLMs into broader professional or even physical domains. I am not a software developer but know some and my layman’s understanding is that it’s fairly mindblowing what the step change was that occurred in software development world once Opus and especially Fable came out (and now Codex). It sort of makes sense though. The models live in a software world, and the people developing them are software developers.

For my own use (MS Office products), I’m a pretty heavy Claude user, and it’s really impressive and a mild game changer that saves me time but not something that frankly is life-altering. There is definitely a “last mile” of human involvement and agency that is absolutely essential in the modern professional world that I don’t ever really see changing.

So when Dario ran around screaming last year on news networks that we would see half of all entry level white collar jobs eliminated in 1-5 years, he was basically clueless.

They e/acc types are hoping to tackle grand problems like curing all diseases in x number of years, come up radical life extension and even eventually merge with machines. All in the hopes of becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization. That’s a big no for me, dog. I’m just a simple Catholic baw from LA that wants to live to see my grandchildren one day and die in a normal natural lifespan. frick those guys

It’s their latest version of climate change and it probably has more purchase with normies right now

quote:

---

the macro R&D development money for AI big commerce doesnt really impact the micro user such as yourself

---

I find all this mumbo jumbo sad to see.
I think folks are missing the biggest and most obvious conclusion to AI.
I'll sit back and watch the next few years and time will tell.

We are heading to a certain point in time when things will suddenly be out of control. And folks like these posting in this thread will claim to be surprised!
IMHO

quote:

---

The power/energy it takes to run a data center is the equivalent to a 10-15 story building. Oh the horror

---

Yeah one thing I'll say is AI doesnt really use as much power & water as I would've believed. The numbers are staggering on their own, but in context with farms & existing industrial demand they're nothing crazy imo. Certainly not the doomsday levels people pretend AI uses.

A GT fan certainly knows utilities & technology

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Gates calls for international treaty to regulate AI, much like the international treaty that failed at regulating the creation of biological weapons and development of alien viruses not native to this earth ... (with an exception for research purposes, of course).