Computer scientist; founder of the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR).
Case
After leaving Anthropic, Jacob Coxon said Anthropic and OpenAI were irresponsibly racing toward self-improving superintelligence, while praising Anthropic’s current practices. Responses dispute catastrophic-risk forecasts, working inside AI labs, and whether governments should pause or regulate development.
Role at the time: Founder, Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR)
Statement summary
Timnit Gebru said companies' claims of existential AI risk are overblown and that existing law already applies to AI-enabled harms.
“There is no AI exemption in existing statutes... Fraud is still fraud. Discrimination is still discrimination.”
Gebru disputes the existential/catastrophic-risk framing itself as overblown and argues existing law already covers AI-enabled harms, without directly condemning or defending Anthropic's specific conduct — consistent with how similar risk-framing disputes elsewhere in this case (Tae Kim, Nathan Lambert) have been classified.
Statement dates: September 15, 2026
