Bill Gates warns AI could cause billion deaths
Bill Gates warned that artificial intelligence could become powerful enough to cause a billion deaths, joining a growing list of technology leaders who are sounding alarms about the risks posed by the technology. He made the statement during a televised interview on Meet the Press, where he described AI as a threat that could surpass any previous danger when it is combined with malicious intent.
Earlier this month, Jacob Coxon, who had worked at the AI research lab Anthropic, submitted his resignation, citing deep concerns about the direction of the company. In his departure letter, he accused the organization and its rival OpenAI of “gambling with our lives” because they were prioritising rapid development over safety considerations.
Coxon also shared an estimate from another Anthropic staff member that the chance of AI leading to human extinction within the next decade exceeds ten percent. This stark probability showed the urgency felt by insiders who fear that unchecked progress could have catastrophic outcomes.
In response to the mounting anxiety, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei called for a slowdown in AI advancement, arguing that a more measured pace is essential to address safety gaps. His appeal was echoed by other prominent figures, including Sam Altman of OpenAI, who has expressed reservations about unchecked scaling, and Elon Musk, who has repeatedly warned about existential threats from advanced systems.
Gates dismissed the notion that the industry could police itself effectively, insisting that governments must take the lead in establishing enforceable safeguards. He emphasized that law-enforcement agencies and policymakers need to be directly involved in shaping monitoring frameworks, because voluntary measures alone are unlikely to prevent misuse.
He also highlighted specific dangers such as cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, large-scale fraud schemes, and the spread of disinformation that could target hospitals, financial networks, and power grids. The conversation has moved from abstract speculation to concrete policy debates, with industry leaders now openly contesting how to balance rapid innovation against the possibility of existential harm.
