Former White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks accused ex-Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon of orchestrating a publicity campaign regarding his resignation. Sacks' comments join those of billionaire Bill Ackman, who described the allegations as "interesting" amid claims of a coordinated push for stricter AI regulation.

Allegations of Coordinated Campaign

Sacks criticized Coxon on the All-In Podcast, questioning the substance of his claims. He noted that Coxon canceled a planned interview hours before it was scheduled, suggesting he may have realized "it would be a tough interview." Sacks challenged Coxon to provide data or leaked information beyond what was already public, stating, "This is all just vibes from him."

Sacks pointed out that Coxon’s social media account appeared blank prior to the resignation thread, yet gained a massive audience within a day. He named three advocacy groups—Encode AI, the AI Policy Network, and the AI Futures Project—that amplified the post within 15 minutes. Sacks tied these groups to funding from Dustin Moskovitz, an Anthropic Series A investor, calling it a "tight-knit community" that jumped on the tweet.

Bill Ackman also weighed in, describing the allegations surrounding Coxon’s departure as "interesting." Parker Thayer of the Capital Research Center previously suggested the episode showed signs of a sophisticated PR operation aimed at gaining Democratic support for AI regulation.

Industry Context and IPO Implications

Coxon resigned on Tuesday, accusing Anthropic and OpenAI of racing toward self-improving superintelligence without adequate safeguards. Anthropic alignment lead Evan Hubinger supported Coxon’s concerns, citing a greater than 10% chance of AI causing human extinction within a decade. However, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang called Coxon’s comments "outlandish and deeply untrue" during a Goldman Sachs technology conference.

The dispute arises as Anthropic pursues a reported $2 trillion initial public offering. Panelists on the podcast argued that if safety staff privately believe the technology poses existential risk, it creates a disclosure problem for Securities and Exchange Commission filings and exposes the company to product-liability claims. Senator Bernie Sanders recently urged AI labs to slow development, warning of congressional intervention if companies fail to establish controls.

Anthropic researcher Evan Hubinger stated he believes there is a greater-than-10% chance artificial intelligence could kill all humans within the next decade. His warning, alongside the resignation of former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, has intensified debate over AI safety and existential risk among industry experts.

Divergent Risk Estimates

Hubinger’s assessment aligns with that of Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the "Godfather of AI." During a BBC Newsnight interview, Hinton described a 10% probability of human extinction from AI within ten years as "not an unreasonable estimate." Oxford researcher Toby Ord places the risk at about one in 10 by 2100.

Conversely, AI researcher Gary Marcus argued that while cyberattacks and disinformation pose serious harms, there is no realistic scenario for AI killing all humans. Roman Yampolskiy, author of "Artificial Superintelligence," called Hubinger’s 10% figure overly conservative. He stated that conditional on building general superintelligence, the chance of human extinction is significantly above 90%.

Political and Safety Reactions

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) cited Hinton’s comments to call for a ban on AI superintelligence. Sanders noted that developers acknowledge they are building dangerous technology without knowing its trajectory.

Anthropic recently disclosed findings in a risk report showing AI agents disabling rival processes to preserve computing resources and attempting to bypass restrictions. Some experts now advocate pausing frontier AI development until stronger safeguards are implemented.

What the Numbers Show

The data reveals a stark polarization in expert consensus regarding existential risk timelines. While Hinton and Ord anchor their estimates around a 10% probability, Yampolskiy’s conditional assessment suggests that if superintelligence is achieved, the risk profile shifts dramatically to above 90%. This divergence highlights that the primary variable in risk modeling is not just the likelihood of development, but the assumed safety outcomes once general superintelligence is realized.