Here's how AI could kill us all

Weekend essay  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

AJ Hess | October 03, 2026     Hello there. Last month, Geoffrey Irving, the former chief scientist of the U.K. AI Security Institute, posted a chilling warning on social media: “I think we have a ~50% chance of all dying as a result of superintelligence.”  For TIME’s Weekend Essay, Irving explains how superintelligent AI could kill all humans—and why he estimates that the fate of the human race is comparable to a coin flip. “Ultimately,” he writes, “AI’s capacities and motivations, and our own human actions, all feed into our likelihood of survival.”  IN TODAY’S BRIEF Could AI kill us all? Trump’s taxpayer-funded ads Linked         WEEKEND ESSAY We won't know the answers to AI's most important questions until it's too late Getty Images Geoffrey Irving is the former chief scientist at the U.K. AI Security Institute and current chief scientist of Resolution. For almost a decade, it's been my job to think about where AI is heading and what could go wrong, first at OpenAI, then DeepMind, then as chief scientist at the U.K. AI Security Institute (AISI). This experience has made it clear to me that we can't wait for all of our uncertainties to be settled to do something about AI's risks. Recent warnings about the potential destructive power of AI are understating the severity of the situation. I believe there’s about a 50% chance we all die because of the development of smarter-than-human AI systems, and that our actions over the next two to 10 years will determine the outcome.  To be clear, when I say our odds of being killed by superintelligent AI are 50%, I’m not claiming precision. Instead, I’m highlighting that several of the most fundamental debates about the future and safety of AI remain unresolved. I believe we can’t expect these disagreements to be resolved until it’s too late to change course. We will have to act despite the uncertainty. And resist the temptation to divert urgent discussions toward thorny disputes. Ultimately, AI’s capacities and motivations, and our own human actions, all feed into our likelihood of survival. Here’s why I estimate our odds are comparable to a coin flip—and why I believe the time to pause AI development is now.  Let’s focus on everyone being killed by superintelligent AI for a moment. Which capabilities would that require? My sense is that an AI system could kill us all with just four types of skills. The first is hacking. To kill all humans, a superintelligent AI would need to take over and migrate between computer systems. We saw this during the Hugging Face incident. Second, a superintelligent AI would need the ability to persuade, to manipulate humans into acting on its behalf, as we studied at AISI. Third, a lethal superintelligent AI would need to conceal its thoughts from us, which is increasingly common in the latest, most capable models. And lastly, it would need planning and coordination between agents to multiply their effectiveness, like the more than 10,000 agents who worked on the Navier-Stokes problem at OpenAI, or the more than 1,000 involved in the Hugging Face attack. These skills are very close to those the AI companies intentionally train for. Read the full essay here…         SPONSORED REVERB Live concerts bring millions of fans together through music. Behind the scenes, REVERB channels that energy into environmental action. See how REVERB has helped eliminate 4.6 million single-use bottles and is driving an entire industry to make sustainability part of every show. Watch the episode         A MINUTE OF YOUR TIME Trump is using taxpayer money for ads. Is that legal? President Donald Trump is appearing in taxpayer-funded ads airing ahead of the November midterms, prompting criticism from lawmakers in both parties over whether the government is crossing a legal line. Federal laws prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used for “publicity or propaganda,” but the government is also allowed to promote and defend its policies. The White House says the ads are public service announcements and points to similar campaigns under previous administrations. So when does a government ad cross the line? Here’s what to know, in one minute.         SPONSORED SEABOUND Nearly 90% of the world’s goods travel by ship. From the food on our shelves to the packages at our doors, shipping touches nearly every part of our lives, and so does its carbon footprint. Seabound is betting on an unexpected solution: a box of rocks. By turning limestone into a sponge that captures CO₂ emissions, the company is proving that small innovations can help change the course of global shipping. Watch the episode       Linked In this addictive word-association game, find the steps that will unite two seemingly unrelated words in just four moves. PLAY NOW       SPONSORED AMINI Across the Global South, Amini is working to ensure nations are not left out of their digital future. From climate intelligence to sovereign AI, Amini is building the infrastructure countries need to own their data, strengthen public services and create economic opportunity on their own terms. Watch the episode       More Newsletters from Click to sign up. D.C. BRIEF +FUTURE PROOF +HEALTH MATTERS +INSIDE TIME +IN THE LOOP +WORTH YOUR TIME + Subscribe to TIME Email us: thebrief@time.com Received this from a friend? Sign up here Connect with TIME   PRIVACY POLICY     © 2026 TIME USA, LLC. All rights reserved. TIME Customer Service, P.O. Box 37508 Boone, IA 50037-0508, United States Unsubscribe