“Nobody knows anything,” the screenwriter William Goldman famously said of the movie business. Much the same can be said today for artificial intelligence, a technology that’s moving fast, destination unknown. Unlike movies, though, the bots may one day rise up and exterminate humanity, according to some in the industry. It’s fair to say that people are worried.

In just the past few weeks, OpenAI withheld its latest model due to safety concerns; Anthropic PBC conceded that its products may pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity” in a regulatory filing; and a former industry researcher warned that AI “could kill us all by the end of the decade,” and some of his former colleagues agreed.

It’s understandable, then, that the public is alarmed. Yet a bit of perspective is in order.

For one thing, such grim scenarios are far from an expert consensus, as shown by studies like the International AI Safety Report, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Presidential Panel and the Stanford AI Index. Numerous technical analyses have likewise concluded that “extinction” threats are all but implausible. Meanwhile, independent evaluations have found that newer models often outperform their predecessors on safety benchmarks even as their capabilities improve.

Second, while recent “rogue” AI incidents are unsettling, follow-up analyses have found that they were less the result of enigmatic new capabilities than of oversight and engineering flaws that can be mitigated with known security practices, including standard sandbox controls and continuous behavioral monitoring. Similarly, while certain AI-enabled hacking episodes have made headlines, they haven’t involved novel or otherworldly techniques; instead, they’ve reflected faster or more sophisticated use of traditional methods. Such incidents demand careful scrutiny. But — so far at least — they argue for prudence more than panic.

That said, there’s no doubt that frontier models are advancing quickly and that risks, even unlikely ones, should be taken seriously. To that end, it was heartening to see top AI executives meet at the White House recently and agree to a voluntary set of precautions, including new internal controls, independent outside audits and broader board oversight. They also committed to “meet regularly to establish standards and best practices.​”

This is a useful start. Independent evaluators should help enshrine best practices for secure development and deployment. Sharing standards and practices under the White House’s auspices is a better approach than the antitrust exemptions the industry had previously been calling for. More important, the agreement helps establish a key principle: AI labs are responsible for their products — and for the harms they cause.

Policymakers should seek to build on this consensus. As a start, Congress should require confidential disclosure of dangerous capabilities and safety incidents; clarify liability standards for models that cause external harm; invest more in interpretability and alignment research; properly fund government capacity for testing high-risk models; and, crucially, ensure that critical infrastructure is hardened against AI-enabled cyberattacks.

The executive branch, for its part, should seek to build resilience economywide. It should test frontier models for risky capabilities and get defensive technology into as many legitimate hands as possible, building on the AI cybersecurity clearinghouse it created in June. It should wield procurement policy to improve software-security processes and accelerate patches and automated defenses. It also needs to improve information sharing, including with allied countries, about serious risks.

No set of policies will produce perfect safety, of course, and AI models will surely cause further havoc. But advancing any new technology requires ambition, experimentation and risk-taking — including leaps into the unknown. Such is the price of progress.

___

The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.