What’s Behind the AI Doomer Narrative?
The past weeks have seen a surge of tech press articles discussing the allegedly “existential” risks posed by AI, with most citing claims from an ex-Anthropic employee’s resignation post on X. AI companies and critics alike have made wild predictions about the odds that AI would wipe out humanity. Is this science fiction come to life, or is something more at play? Follow the money.
Many of the AI wonks pushing doom are tied to the “effective altruism” movement and its powerful NGO ecosystem. The Tarbell Center for AI Journalism, for instance, places participants in America’s top-tier newsrooms to push their AI narrative, with stipends of up to $135,000. The incentives have already paid off: two of the three journalists from a piece that made the cover of Time Magazine are affiliated with Tarbell. Another Tarbell alum wrote an equally alarmist piece for the Financial Times. In one especially revealing case, the investigative outlet Effort News found that all six individuals working on an AI doomer piece at the Guardian were directly or indirectly funded by three EA-aligned megadonors.
Tarbell says that it exists to find and support “our generation’s Ida Tarbells,” who attacked Standard Oil’s “use of unfair and illegal practices.” Ironically, for a group focused on accountability for monopolistic corporate power, they may be enabling it. While they promote “public awareness and debate,” such transparency apparently does not extend to disclosing that the reporters writing these science-fiction headlines were paid handsomely by Tarbell to do so.
Some AI firms are using the latest doom cycle to push for protectionist regulation. That includes asking for protections against being held accountable for faulty agents, contravening standard product liability law. They are also openly advocating for federal laws granting authorities the power to block any “advanced models that prove to be unsafe,” a move that risks creating a government-backed kill switch over a rival’s product. These policies would feed regulatory capture, sapping the vitality of America’s competitive AI industry and thereby threatening the technology’s potential to radically raise our country’s standards of living.
Should the alarmist camp win the AI policy debate, we could see a world where politicians tap into populist grievances to regulate U.S. AI developers out of existence while our national rivals flood the American market with their own AI, continue to innovate, and ultimately win the race for global AI supremacy. Bernie Sanders recently floated banning “AI superintelligence,” while the House is contemplating similar legislation. We made that mistake before in the 1970s and 1980s after NGO smear campaigns against nuclear power. Figures like Ralph Nader claimed nuclear power could “wipe this country out,” while allying with groups like the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund to shut down reactors nationwide.
The result has been untold damage to national security, the economy, and the environment. The average new nuclear plant in the U.S. can cost as much as $15 per watt, against roughly $4 per watt in a pro-nuclear country like France. That gap matters most now, when cheap and abundant power is what fuels our newest technology, AI above all. And France is still standing, despite nuclear accounting for 70% of its electricity.
A half-century later, with the same NGO money behind them, the doomer forces are at it again. AI is the new target, but the story of imminent human collapse at the hands of new technology is the same. We should not fall for it again.
Stay Informed
Sign up to receive updates about our fight for policies at the state level that restore liberty through transparency and accountability in American governance.