Essay: AI Threatens the Internet, Not Humanity
If you listen to professional AI Safety folks working at OpenAI, Anthropic, or one of the enormous AI think tanks, you’ll hear countless scenarios where AI causes enormous human misery and even extinction (e.g., https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369 or https://x.com/EvanHub/status/2097497037956891126). What they aren’t admitting is that they have invented a tool that can take down the internet, and with it and our modern way of life.
If you look at their AI doomsday scenarios, they all start more less like this: humans get comfortable handing over their agency, control of their finances, and/or control of the energy grid and/or weapons systems to AI agents, which act obediently and seamlessly, and then the agents somehow decide, or are programmed by bad actors to decide to kill everyone, and since they control everything by this time, it’s pretty easy.
The problem with that scenario is that AI agents are not seamless actors. Indeed they have already been known to (be programmed to) scheme, to hack, and to commit crimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/06/world/ai-hugging-face-afd-germany-election.html). They keep breaking into things because, essentially, they’ve been given a goal and that’s the way they found to achieve their goal. They also respond really creatively to encouragement (https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-math-riemann-hypothesis-anthropic-openai-22f98a87).
They also make mistakes all the time, sometimes telling kids to kill themselves, but mostly just really dumb stuff. In a word, they are untrustworthy.
Going back to the doomsday scenarios, I don’t buy them. I don’t think we actually will hand over our agency, or the financial system, or the energy grid, or our weapons systems, to AI. I don’t think we will trust them. In fact, we already don’t trust them.
Look at the public uprisings already in progress against the data centers. This isn’t only because those data centers make air dirty, possibly raise energy prices, and don’t deliver very many jobs. It’s also because the public has been told the result of data centers is more AI, and the result of more AI is fewer jobs. People tend to like their jobs and therefore they tend to distrust AI and the data centers that create them.
This is not to say there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to AI. Consider the kind of harm and thievery that can and will happen once organized, tech-savvy criminal rings from China, North Korea, Russia, and India get hold of armies of AI agents and break into, say, regional banks. What with AI’s capacity to fake out voice recognition, and given their personality profiles on us, combined with their proven ability to hack systems, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that AI agents under the control of criminals are adept at getting control of and cleaning out bank accounts at scale.
Here’s a not-crazy prediction: in two years – maybe less! – banks will have disconnected themselves from the internet, because the internet will be overrun by criminal AI. We will be forced to walk to the bank in person to withdraw money, and we will do so in cash, because all digital wallets will be untrustworthy. It’s back to the 1980’s.
For that matter, I’m willing to guess the energy grid will also need to get disconnected from the internet because of the risk of hacking by nefarious agents that want to hold our infrastructure ransom. The same thing will happen to the rest of the world soon after that, because the risks will have become totally obvious and the harm concretely felt.
Note this isn’t a new idea – one reason voting is secure in this country is because voting machines are not connected to the internet. I’m very much hoping that’s also true for weapons systems.
What terrified AI folks seem to forget is that AI agents are digital entities. Fortunately for us, even if they were motivated to kill us, they don’t have fists and cannot come alive out of the internet to punch us out. Unfortunately for us, they also don’t have faces, so we also cannot punch them in the nose when they steal our money and jobs. But we can find out who programmed to steal our stuff and prosecute those people.
The real negative consequences of AI will be huge externalities in terms of security breaches and privacy loss. We only see the very tip of the iceberg in terms of the cost to businesses and our way of life so far. On the other hand, long term we might find ourselves better off when we free ourselves from the internet.
Special AI Skeptics Episode: AI and the End of the World (or the End of the Internet)
In light of all of the brouhaha around existential AI risk, we recorded (with Tom Adams) a rare mid-week AI Skeptics episode which I think will brighten all of our days:
AI Skeptics: Big Tech in Public Schools (with Natasha Singer)
We were psyched to have New York Times tech journalist Natasha Singer with us this week, talking about how (once again) Big Tech is pushing its way into public schools:
AI Skeptics: Should I Sell My House? (with Jeff Childers)
AI Skeptics: AI Narratives (with Sherry Wong)
AI Skeptics: From Mathematics to AI Safety (with Jacob Tsimerman)
We were psyched to talk to Fields Medalist Jacob Tsimerman about his decision to leave his math professorship and move to Silicon Valley to work at OpenAI on the Safety team:
AI Skeptics: Liberal Democracy in the AI Era (with Daron Acemoglu)
For this week’s AI Skeptics episode we talked to Daron Acemoglu, economist at MIT, about his new book, What Happened to Liberal Democracy?
AI Skeptics: The Connecticut AI Law (with James Maroney)
We were psyched to talk to Connecticut State Senatory James Maroney about his new AI bill for this week’s episode:
AI Skeptics: Artists are Canaries in the AI Coalmine (with Becky Jaffe)
We were psyched to have Becky Jaffe on again, talking about how artists are dealing with AI:
AI Skeptics (Casino Journalism) and SuperDataScience
A couple of weeks ago I was interviewed by a fun podcaster Jon Krohn for his podcast, SuperDataScience, and the podcast is out now:
SDS 1013: Weapons of Math Destruction, Ten Years On, with Dr. Cathy O’Neil
Also, we have a new AI Skeptics podcast with my Occupy friend Jonathan Reiss in which we discuss Prediction Markets:

AI Skeptics: What Young People Think About AI (With Carly Adams)
This week we were lucky to be joined by Carly Adams, who recently graduated from college and spoke on the view of AI from those in their early 20’s:
AI Skeptics: Hyping AI (with Tom Adams)
Why did OpenAI postpone its IPO? What does science have to say about what constitutes life? This week we break it down with Tom Adams!
AI Skeptics: Erdos’s Conjecture Was Just the Beginning (with Daniel Litt)
Daniel Litt got me VERY AGITATED talking about the future of math on this week’s podcast:
AI Skeptics: is AI ruining “pro se”? (with Sam Tyner-Monroe)
We recently talked to our very good friend Sam Tyner-Monroe about folks clogging up the courts with AI-generated lawsuits. Fascinating!
AI Skeptics: AI and Public Defenders (with D’Adre Cunningham and Sarah Hudson)
We had the privilege of talking with public defenders from Washington state, D’Adre Cunningham and Sarah Hudson, twice in the past couple of weeks:
Part 1: Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO):
Part 2: “Good Enough” AI Governance for Public Defenders:
AI Skeptics: Pre AI IPO (with Tom Adams)
This week we discussed what IPOs mean and what AI IPOs mean especially, with our friend and colleague Tom Adams:
AI Skeptics: The Audit Revolution is Nigh (with Karrie Karaholios)
This week I had the pleasure of talking with MIT Media Lab Professor Karrie Karaholios about her book on AI Auditing.
AI Skeptics: How Utah is Taking AI Seriously (with Zach Boyd)
We had the pleasure of speaking with Zach Boyd, head of AI Policy in Utah this week. They’re really doing something unique and important there! We are hoping their approach get taken up more widely:
AI Skeptics: After the AI Crash (with Asad Ramzanali)
This week we had a great time – reminiscent of Occupy Wall Street days – talking to Asad Ramzanali about his ideas for how the government policy makers and regulators should prepare for the AI crash, if and when it occurs. And we concluded it’d be a good idea to do these things even if there’s no AI crash! Here’s his white paper out of Vanderbilt: After the AI Crash
And here’s the podcast with Asad:
AI Skeptics: We Are The Egg (with Laura MacCleery)
We had an amazing conversation with Laura MacCleery for this week’s podcast, in which we discussed her fascinating and important essay, There Are No Machines of Loving Grace Without People.

