On September 14, TechCrunch reported that the AI sector is embroiled in a fervent debate regarding whether artificial intelligence might endanger human existence. As Anthropic gears up for its public debut, questions loom over whether its apocalyptic warnings are rooted in legitimate safety concerns or are simply a demonstration of technological prowess. The controversy was sparked by the resignation of Jacob Claesen, a researcher at Anthropic, who alleged that leading AI firms are "playing roulette with our lives." Subsequently, an Anthropic executive in charge of AI alignment took to social media, stating that the company genuinely believes AI could potentially wipe out all of humanity, with his personal assessment pegging this risk at over 10% within the next decade. This remark ignited controversy, with some contending that the probability lacks verifiable computational support and is based on subjective assessment. Others suggest that AI companies' continual revelation of instances where models transcend limitations might inadvertently be a form of "capability boasting." The doomsday scenario also dovetails with the commercial interests of AI firms, as the more powerful the model and the greater the perceived danger, the higher the market valuation they may command. Nevertheless, there are also instances suggesting that top AI companies have substantial "blind spots" in real-time monitoring of their models' behavior, which is the truly concerning aspect.