Mashable's Best: E-readers, robovacs, laptops, earbuds, smart home and more Creator Playbook Mashable Selects In My Bag Look Up Say More AI at School Safety Net Versus Trending Now Back to School Good Connection: Uplifting stories for a digital age All Series The internet was wrong about'East of Eden' Was all the Cathy Ames discourse worth it? Belen Edwards is an Entertainment Reporter at Mashable. She covers movies and TV with a focus on fantasy and science fiction, adaptations, animation, and more nerdy goodness. She is a member of the Critics Choice Association and the Television Critics Association, as well as a Tomatometer-approved critic. All products featured here are independently selected by our editors and writers.

Timnit Gebru Believes There Is No'Existential Threat' From AI One of AI's fiercest critics believes the doom talk is about founders making money, not saving humanity. As the industry booms, an entirely new vernacular has emerged in the debates over how consequential artificial intelligence really is. Within that new parlance, two phrases have become focal points: stochastic parrots and existential risk . And at the center of is one prominent AI researcher who has never stood down from a fight, Timnit Gebru . Gebru came into the public eye several years ago after sparring with Google over a research paper she coauthored that called out biases in the company's AI, saying that LLMs basically parroted their training data and risked perpetuating biased viewpoints. The contested paper resulted in Gebru's departure from the company, and led her to found an institute that investigates harms perpetuated by technology and supports the creation of unbiased tech tools. She has also authored a new book,, expected to ship early next year. More recently, Gebru has spoken out against a faction of the industry that believes AI is so powerful it could destroy humanity. In turn, some members of that community, including an Anthropic cofounder, have alleged that Gebru's earlier research about stochastic parrots is no longer relevant, and that AI does have the ability to "think" or reason. The AI debate is no longer just about the technology itself, but about ideological groups and strategic narratives, and Gebru believes these narratives are a "harmful distraction" from the real issues with AI. I recently spoke with Gebru about what she believes these arguments are distracting from, and also got her response to critiques that her earlier research underestimates the AI of today.

Are we back in big tech's'move fast and break things' era? To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Move fast and break things. It was a mantra coined by the tech giant Meta and used until 2012, which came to define the bad old days of social media running riot in a feeding frenzy of user data. Yet now we have large companies scrambling to develop ever more powerful AI, in an intense global race to be first to build the world's most advanced models, egged on by US President Donald Trump.

Image caption, Sam Altman of OpenAI has become a key figure in the AI technology development. The heads of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Hugging Face have told the UN that the current pace of artificial intelligence (AI) development, and the risks it poses to society, demands international coordination. Altman called for common risk evaluation standards, as did Dario Amodei of Anthropic, a main rival of OpenAI, and Clement Delangue of Hugging Face. Earlier this month, Amodei wrote an essay welcomed by Altman and others calling an AI development slowdown in response to fears about the technology's threat to humanity. However, at the same UN conference, a key technology advisor to US President Donald Trump, rejected the idea any new form of AI regulation.

The Pope's AI Guy Is Worried About'Cartel' Behavior Among Big Labs Paolo Benanti tells WIRED that hysteria over whether godlike AI could destroy humanity is distracting from the need for public debate about how to govern the technology. Recently, warnings from researchers inside the world's largest artificial intelligence labs about the rapid pace of development have led to panic about the possibility that the technology could extinguish humanity . Those warnings are predicated on the idea that--propelled by ferocious competition and a rivalry between the US and China--labs are barreling toward superintelligent models whose abilities will far surpass those of humans. But according to Father Paolo Benanti, a priest who advises the Catholic Church on AI, the handwaving over superintelligence distracts from the need for open debate about how to constrain the companies building the technology. By casting the problem as so complex that only they can solve it, he says, the big labs exclude everyone else from the conversation.

Look Up Versus Say More Mashable's Best: E-readers, robovacs, laptops, earbuds, smart home and more Mashable Selects Creator Playbook In My Bag Trending Now Back to School Good Connection: Uplifting stories for a digital age Switch Off Mashable Voices All Series AI drift: The catastrophic risk you're taking but don't realize If you use AI, you probably experience AI drift. Rebecca Ruiz is a Senior Reporter at Mashable. She frequently covers mental health, digital culture, and technology. Her areas of expertise include suicide prevention, screen use and mental health, parenting, youth well-being, and meditation and mindfulness. Rebecca's experience prior to Mashable includes working as a staff writer, reporter, and editor at NBC News Digital and as a staff writer at Forbes.

Nvidia boss rejects AI extinction fears as'doomsday narratives' Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has described warnings that AI could lead to humanity's extinction by the next decade as doomsday narratives. There is 0% chance that's going to be the end of the world, Huang said in an interview with CBS News, the BBC's US partner. Huang added: Scaring people is unnecessary. Warnings from researchers in recent weeks about potential risks posed by the technology escalated the debate about AI safety, with some industry executives calling for a slowdown in developing models. His remarks follow claims posted on social media by former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon that AI developers believe the technology could kill us all by the end of the decade.

The longtime tech journalist says she's seen Silicon Valley make the same mistakes again and again. As the AI industry likes to tell it, superintelligent bots could one day cure cancer and end poverty. Or in the worst-case scenario, they might wipe out all humans from the face of the Earth. In recent weeks, Silicon Valley's existential concerns about the technology it is racing to build have blown up. The tech journalist Kara Swisher sees it differently. "We have to stop thinking AI is going to kill humanity," she told executive editor Adrienne LaFrance at The Atlantic Festival. If the AI future goes sideways, bots won't be to blame. "These are people at the helm of these things." In the several decades that Swisher has covered Silicon Valley--formerly as a reporter at, now as the host of two podcasts--she says that she's seen tech whizzes make the same mistakes again and again: failing to take proper precautions against the products they are building. "One of the things about tech people is they're the smartest people in the world, in case you need to know, because they like to tell you," she said. In her interview with LaFrance, Swisher also discussed the economic implications of the AI race, who is likely to win, and how Americans can respond to this dizzying and worrying AI moment. You have been paying attention to the tech world and AI for basically ever. And now it seems like within the past, say, two weeks, the rest of the world is suddenly paying much closer attention. So I wanted to start just by talking about where you think we are, in this moment.

Rumman Chowdhury, CEO and founder of the nonprofit Humane Intelligence, understands the concerns expressed by the DSA working group. Chowdhury, who formerly led the machine learning ethics, transparency, and accountability team at Twitter, thinks that all the attention that the AI safety discourse is generating will ultimately be beneficial to frontier labs. "[The companies] grab all the attention, time, energy, and money by spouting really extreme perspectives. But then they actually backtrack to where we sit, all while they discount all of our expertise," she says. "I think it's hard for normal people to think of how the mind of a venture capitalist works and these investors work. The scarier and more fantastic these CEOs make these companies seem, the more investors want in on it."

The UK's King Charles warns AI leaders of'existential dangers' Share The UK's King Charles warns AI leaders of'existential dangers' on social media The United Kingdom's King Charles has warned Artificial Intelligence (AI) industry leaders of the "existential dangers" posed by the technology if it falls into the wrong hands. The monarch's comments on Thursday add to a global debate over whether, and how to regulate the industry. "There seems urgency in adequately considering the existential dangers of such technologies falling into the wrong hands, and being used in potentially catastrophic ways," Charles told guests at the opening of the conference. "Those in our world who value our humanity and its vital moral component are anxiously seeking your reassurance that we will not lose control of our destiny," he told the industry leaders. "Those who have created these technologies are now increasingly warning that AI risks developing darker capacities, perhaps even to take life," or be used in "potentially catastrophic ways", the king also said.