NVIDIA Corp. CEO Jensen Huang is dismissing warnings that artificial intelligence (AI) poses an existential threat to humanity within the decade. In fact, he said the doomsday predictions are reckless and unscientific.
In an interview with CBS News, the head of the $5 trillion semiconductor giant firmly rejected claims by former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who posted on social media that superhuman AI could bring about human extinction by 2030.
“2030 is not going to be the end of the world. There is 0% chance that’s going to be the end of the world,” Huang said. “Scaring people is unnecessary. It is irresponsible.”
Huang’s comments directly address a growing international debate over AI governance and safety.
Coxon’s claims, supported by two fellow Anthropic researchers, coincided with a threat intelligence report from the Claude creator detailing how bad actors, including state-sponsored groups and criminals, have attempted to leverage its models to design weapons, generate biological pathogens, and monitor political dissidents.
Prominent tech leaders, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk, have previously advocated for a slower pace of AI development to mitigate systemic risks.
OpenAI will propose a global framework for AI governance during Altman’s address to the United Nations Security Council in New York on Wednesday.
According to company officials, the ChatGPT creator recommends utilizing international AI safety institutes to establish unified standards, coordinated through the Commerce Department’s Center for AI Security and Innovation. To strengthen international oversight, OpenAI is advocating for shared metrics to classify, track, and report AI alignment issues, creating standardized protocols for safety incidents occurring both during pre-deployment testing and within real-world applications.
“We should be willing to slow advances whose risks we cannot adequately assess or control, while continuing to deploy useful applications whose performance and operating limits we can demonstrate,” said Neha Narkhede, co-founder and CEO of Oscilar. “Each deployment has to meet that standard, including tools intended to protect people.”
Conversely, U.S. President Donald Trump has dismissed such anxieties as a “hoax,” warning that mandatory slowdowns could hand a competitive advantage to China.
To address potential cross-border hazards, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Sunday that Washington and Beijing have agreed to establish a bilateral AI dialogue mechanism.
In addition to rejecting existential doom, Huang criticized calls from competing AI developers for new, specialized regulatory frameworks. He argued that existing legal mechanisms — including unauthorized entry, cybersecurity, liability, and breach-of-contract laws — are fully equipped to hold companies accountable for product failures or safety breaches during testing.
“They’re actually not asking for more laws. They’re asking to be relieved of the laws we do have,” Huang alleged, suggesting that calls for new regulatory bodies serve as a distraction from current legal liabilities.
The debate over the pace and regulation of AI comes as the Tony Blair Institute published a paper warning that governments risk “compounding disadvantage” if they fail to adopt the technology quickly.
In a foreword to the report, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair noted that while the previous Industrial Revolution unfolded over generations, AI will transform society within ten years.
However, Blair cautioned that current state institutions remain largely ill-equipped to manage the rapid economic, labor, and national security shifts brought on by the technology.
Despite intense career and financial risks, internal support for slowing down AI development is surprisingly strong among the people building it. According to the Movchan Agency survey, a striking 72% of AI industry workers personally support a memorandum to pause capability advances.
Their willingness to hit the brakes is remarkable given the personal stakes involved. The engineers, researchers, and tech employees backing a pause are the very individuals whose personal salaries, equity packages, and career prospects directly depend on the current AI boom. Their support for industry-wide guardrails signals that frontline workers are actively prioritizing safety, accuracy, and ethical caution over immediate financial gain.
Rather than driving relentless expansion at all costs, a clear majority of insiders favor a deliberate pause to ensure the technology develops safely.
