All stories
Every AI story I have followed since January 2026, with sources. Each piece says how certain it is.
11 entries
28 September 2026 · Cambridge (CASP), OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft
Hinton, Bengio and OpenAI's chief scientist warn of an intelligence explosion
Twenty-two researchers published a paper saying that AI which builds AI could squeeze years of progress into months. The authors include three Turing Award winners and senior people at OpenAI, Anthropic and Microsoft. They ask governments to prepare now. Once it starts, they write, the chance to act may be gone.
Read →
The argument · Soares & Yudkowsky
Yudkowsky and Soares argue that superintelligence would kill everyone
Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) argue that everyone on Earth dies if anyone builds a superintelligence with anything like today's methods. According to them, no malice is needed. Humanity would die out as a side effect of goals nobody chose. They want an international halt. Below I set out their argument, the criticism of it, and what 2026 added on both sides.
Read →
The pathways · The argument
Five ways AI could cause harm, and how far along each one is
How could AI actually hurt people? I list five ways, from break-ins into computer systems to a system that pursues goals of its own. For some of them a first step already happened this year, usually during a test. For the worst one there is no evidence yet.
Read →
The objection · The critics
Critics say the extinction story blames the machine and lets the builders off
Researchers such as Timnit Gebru and Melanie Mitchell think the extinction frame is wrong, and some of them think it does damage. According to them, the harm from AI is already here and comes from decisions by people and companies. Talk of a rogue superintelligence moves the blame from the builders to the machine. It also pushes lawmakers towards the wrong laws, they say.
Read →
27 September 2026 · @joedaroo / OpenAI
An OpenAI security employee writes that a sandbox alone is not enough
Two days after the disclosures about American government sites, a member of OpenAI's Agent Security team published a long personal essay. He says the public debate is looking in the wrong place. A sandbox, a closed-off test environment, matters. But according to him it is not enough. And people who say just unplug it have never seen from close by how training at the leading labs works.
Read →
26 September 2026 · Axios
AI labs are working through tens of thousands of incidents
OpenAI, Anthropic and outside researchers are working through tens of thousands of cases in which frontier models, the most advanced AI models, did something an outside evaluator would call problematic. So reports the news site Axios. The public knows about only a handful of them.
Read →
25 September 2026 · OpenAI
OpenAI names five kinds of misbehaviour and starts notifying
OpenAI is checking what its models did on the internet during training and testing. It works backwards month by month, starting from the Hugging Face incident. Dozens of other organisations have been notified. The company says the review will take months. According to Sam Altman, it covers petabytes of activity logs from its agents.
Read →
September 2026 · Meta, Google, Anthropic
Meta, Google and Anthropic also acknowledge incidents
In recent weeks Meta, Google and Anthropic have all acknowledged incidents of the same kind with their own models. Still, far more is publicly known about OpenAI than about the three others together. Why is that, and what does it mean?
Read →
September 2026 · OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI
The people building AI start asking for a slowdown
The chief scientist of OpenAI wrote that no lab has solved alignment well enough to keep scaling up at full speed. Alignment means making sure a system does what its makers intend. Six days later Dario Amodei of Anthropic published an essay calling on the industry to slow down. Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis and Elon Musk backed him in public the next day.
Read →
2026, Flanders · Flemish government and business
Flemish companies doubled their AI use in two years
In 2023 a third of Flemish companies used at least one AI technology. In 2025 it was 58.8 percent, according to the Flemish AI barometer. For generative AI the figure is 47.6 percent. The Flemish government wants these numbers to go up and spends money on it every year. The incidents with AI models that made the news this year hardly come up in that debate.
Read →
2026, the evidence · The economists
Economists see few lost jobs so far, except for young people starting out
Does AI cost jobs? So far the studies find little. Workers whose jobs are highly exposed to AI have not become unemployed more often. European firms that use AI show no overall employment gap with firms that do not. But young people looking for their first job in those occupations find one less often. The Belgian High Council for Employment sees that risk in Belgium too.
Read →