(09-08-2026, 04:31 PM)Refusal Wrote: Right now, if your job is predictable, redundant, and takes place on a computer, then your job is automatable.

(09-08-2026, 04:31 PM)Refusal Wrote: This is a consistent topic I am seeing across the professional spaces.

I think at some point AI will replace ALOT of jobs, and it will also change the way alot of job titles and their responsibilities will operate. Systems, and software will support eventually support AI driven workflows, APIs will be a more common topic, and automation will be more prevalent.

Right now, if your job is predictable, redundant, and takes place on a computer, then your job is automatable.

I think if im someone that feels as if I can be replaced by AI, then I would need to learn how to use AI to make myself more valuable. Im very interested to see how AI is leveraged 5 years from now. I wonder if AI driven companies will train AI workflows to do an employee's job and then sell it as a subscription. With the recent updates in the AI industry you can now train AI on in-browser activities, you can also leverage headless browsers.

(09-08-2026, 10:51 PM)Snickerdoodle Wrote:

(09-08-2026, 04:31 PM)Refusal Wrote: This is a consistent topic I am seeing across the professional spaces.

I think at some point AI will replace ALOT of jobs, and it will also change the way alot of job titles and their responsibilities will operate. Systems, and software will support eventually support AI driven workflows, APIs will be a more common topic, and automation will be more prevalent.

Right now, if your job is predictable, redundant, and takes place on a computer, then your job is automatable.

I think if im someone that feels as if I can be replaced by AI, then I would need to learn how to use AI to make myself more valuable. Im very interested to see how AI is leveraged 5 years from now. I wonder if AI driven companies will train AI workflows to do an employee's job and then sell it as a subscription. With the recent updates in the AI industry you can now train AI on in-browser activities, you can also leverage headless browsers.

AI is certainly growing fast but it definitely hasn't caught up to its mechanical use in every workplace's environment to the extent where it can fully replace humans. There's places in the medical field where AI is used as a supplementary tool, but the hands on skills provided by staff will always be a core necessity.

Quote:I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing.

The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.

A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?” At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalized the civilizational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first - they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk.

Accepting this race and entering the “endgame” is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company’s Slack. Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available.

I am optimistic about the potential for coordination. Warning shots like the Hugging Face attack have made pacing agreements between U.S. labs more viable. I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities.

If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because “it’s happening anyway” - or take this moment to call for different conditions?

Jacob Coxon

(09-09-2026, 07:32 AM)Green314 Wrote:

Quote:I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing.

The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.

A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?” At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalized the civilizational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first - they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk.

Accepting this race and entering the “endgame” is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company’s Slack. Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available.

I am optimistic about the potential for coordination. Warning shots like the Hugging Face attack have made pacing agreements between U.S. labs more viable. I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities.

If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because “it’s happening anyway” - or take this moment to call for different conditions?

Jacob Coxon

https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476196791709843