The conversation about AI causing human extinction isn't led by outsiders but by insiders. After a researcher resigned from AI firm Anthropic over safety concerns, his former boss—the head of the AI safety team—publicly agreed, estimating the chance of AI ending the world at a staggering 10%.

The narrative that AI could be catastrophic ('summoning the demon') is used strategically. It creates a sense of danger that justifies why a small, elite group must maintain tight control over the technology, thereby warding off both regulation and competition.

A strange dynamic exists where the tech leaders building AI are also the loudest voices warning of its potential to destroy humanity. This dual narrative of immense promise and existential threat serves to centralize their power, positioning them as the only ones who can both create and control this technology.

Many top AI CEOs openly admit the extinction-level risks of their work, with some estimating a 25% chance. However, they feel powerless to stop the race. If a CEO paused for safety, investors would simply replace them with someone willing to push forward, creating a systemic trap where everyone sees the danger but no one can afford to hit the brakes.

Claims that AI CEOs use extinction risk as a marketing ploy are unconvincing. Many expressed these concerns long before leading major companies. Furthermore, highlighting catastrophic risk is a poor strategy for attracting investment and actively invites unwanted regulatory attention.

The leaders of top AI labs have signed statements acknowledging AI could cause human extinction. Yet, a safety report gives them failing grades on 'existential safety,' finding it jarring that these same leaders are actively building superintelligence without any articulated plan for how to maintain human control over the technology.

The narrative that AI risk-awareness is just "doomerism" is a recent phenomenon, strategically pushed by those who stand to benefit commercially from unchecked AI development. In reality, concerns about superintelligence risks have been foundational to the AI industry for decades.

There is a fundamental contradiction when AI leaders publicly warn of existential risks while also aggressively fundraising and preparing for IPOs. If the danger were truly imminent, the logical action would be to halt development, not capitalize on it. This discrepancy suggests financial motives may outweigh safety concerns.

AI founders create a paradox by warning of existential threats while seeking massive IPO valuations. This seemingly contradictory behavior makes sense when viewed as a strategy: the "doomer" narrative inflates the technology's perceived power, justifying the high valuation and driving demand for regulatory capture.