On September 13, Cathie Wood, founder of ARK Invest, which has long bet on technology growth in capital markets, rarely aimed her fire on the panic narrative of "AI will destroy humanity" on X. She publicly supported David Sacks, who is reported to play an important role in the President's Technology Advisory Council, questioning the sources of such reports. Sacks pointed out that the recent "AI will destroy humanity" comments that sparked public opinion initially came from a long-dormant X account of an Anthropic employee, who left the company about six weeks after joining, yet this statement was rapidly amplified by mainstream media after their departure, almost overnight being packaged as core evidence of "existential risk." In the retweet, Wood admitted that any technology could potentially be used for malicious purposes, emphasizing that "half of solving a problem is understanding the problem," defending those, including Elon Musk, who continuously warn about risks, while subtly shifting the focus to the policy level: when an ambiguous individual's opinion is processed by the media into social panic, and then used by regulatory agencies and legislators as a governance reference, is this narrative truly a naturally generated consensus on safety or an intentionally manipulated agenda-setting? The question of whether AI's regulatory path is replaying the "first there was public opinion, then there were rules" script from the cryptocurrency industry has become the true target of this debate.
From Anthropic Employee's Statement to Media Amplification
The starting point of the controversy was not a formal report from any well-known scientist or safety agency, but rather a few emotional judgments made by an employee who left Anthropic approximately six weeks after joining. The employee's name, specific position, the content of the original statement, and the reason for their departure have not been made public. The only visible aspect is that their account suddenly woke up from a "sleeping" state to directly express extreme risk views surrounding "AI will destroy humanity." Working for a company that positions itself around the core of safety and responsible development, and then leaving shortly after, adds a vague sense of authority to these comments: they are reminiscent of insider leaks but lack any verifiable professional background explanations.
What truly unsettled the policy sphere was not the risk judgments themselves but their subsequent communication path. According to the timeline, the employee's departure came first, followed by concentrated media reporting. These statements, originally buried in an ignored account, were quickly packaged by mainstream media into the narrative framework of "AI may destroy humanity," becoming one of the key sources of recent panic topics. While the names of the media outlets and specific page details have not been disclosed, it can be confirmed that in global AI governance discussions, media reports are often used by regulatory agencies and legislators as references for risk assessment and legislative justification. This exceptionally rapid amplification from "anonymous individuals to public agenda" has been viewed by David Sacks and others as a typical signal of agenda setting. The information source is not transparent, and its professionalism cannot be verified, yet it rapidly gains discourse power and influences potential regulatory directions. This path is weakening regulators' trust in the sources of AI risk information and forcing policymakers to re-examine what evidence base should be relied upon between panic sentiment and institutional design.
Sacks and Cathie Wood's Counter Questions
After this exceptionally diffused chain was dissected, David Sacks chose to publicly express his doubts. He stated that the recent concentrated reporting around "AI will destroy humanity" is likely not a naturally formed social consensus but a result of being "orchestrated or manipulated" by some force, directly pointing to the risk statements originating from the Anthropic employee but amplified by mainstream media after their departure. There are reports indicating that he serves as the chair or co-chair of the U.S. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Although only a single source supports this, the possibility of this policy advisor identity makes his comments seen as a warning to the regulatory sphere: if even the source of the "existential risk" narrative cannot verify professionalism and motivation, then the regulatory paths based on such public anxiety may be led by media and anonymous tech circles.
Following this, on September 13, ARK Invest founder Cathie Wood publicly sided with Sacks on X. She acknowledged the concern that "public opinion is being manipulated," stating, "Half of solving a problem, including AI, is understanding the problem," emphasizing the need to clarify who is defining risks and what narratives are driving regulatory agendas before discussing AI risks. On the other hand, she reminded capital markets and the policy sphere not to overlook the real risks of technology due to a disgust for panic rhetoric. She clearly stated that all technologies can be used for malicious purposes, and those, including Elon Musk, who continuously emphasize potential AI risks, are not participants in some political conspiracy but are playing a positive role from a public safety perspective. Thus, the divergence between Wall Street's investment research and the security faction is no longer about "whether to regulate AI," but rather "who defines the risks, and with what evidence and rhythm to regulate." This kind of public counter-questioning from the investment community and policy advisors is starting to pre-emptively rewrite the boundaries of topics for future legislative hearings and technology regulation schemes, much like the early anti-money laundering and speculation narratives in the cryptocurrency industry.
Reasons for AI's Destruction of Humanity Driving Regulation
After mainstream media intensively painted the narrative of "AI will destroy humanity," this existential risk discussion, originally belonging to the tech sphere, was quickly brought into legislative hearings and regulatory memoranda. The security faction and certain officials began to shape abstract fears with terms like "high-risk algorithms" and "systemic risk": if models have the potential to cause cross-domain chain effects in finance, public opinion, and infrastructure, then more stringent algorithm reviews, data security requirements, and tiered model access can be demanded, transforming complex technological uncertainties into political justifications for expanding authorities. For regulatory agencies, this narrative provides an almost infinitely extensible repository of reasons—everything from training data acquisition and model calling interfaces to the cloud platforms and trading systems that host these models can be bundled into "high-risk AI scenarios," becoming subjects of pre-approval and ongoing monitoring.
This security rhetoric has not stayed within the pure software world but has spilled over into capital markets and the cryptocurrency industry along the "technology risk assessment framework." Markets have long used algorithms and AI for trading, risk control, and on-chain monitoring. Some regulators, in assessing technological risks, have begun to view these tools and the digital asset platforms that support them as a whole, extending the argument that "AI may trigger systemic risks" to "algorithm-driven trading and data infrastructure itself represents systemic risk." Under this logic, any business deeply tied to high-complexity algorithms and large-scale data processing—including on-chain analysis firms, quantitative trading institutions, and even transaction matching platforms—could potentially be included in a stricter technological control framework in the future. What Wood and Sacks question is this slide from media panic to regulatory justification: once the extreme narrative of "destroying humanity" is solidified as a legislative template, it will determine for a long time how algorithms, data, and digital asset platforms are defined as sources of risk.
Security Faction and Media Shaping the Red Line of Anthropic's Shadow
In this round of the "AI will destroy humanity" narrative, Anthropic stands at a subtle intersection. It is positioned around the core of safety and responsible development and should have been the "model student" regulatory expectations, but due to the extreme risk perspective projected by a newly-hired, soon-to-depart employee on a long-dormant X account, it has been thrust into the spotlight. After the employee's departure, this comment quickly entered mainstream media reports, becoming one of the key sources of the "destroying humanity" narrative. From a narrative structure perspective, it is almost tailor-made for regulatory discourse: a warning issued internally by a safety company has been packaged as a symbol that technological development has already touched a "red line" in society.
This is also where Sacks and Wood express caution: the convergence of the security faction and media in shaping red lines. On one hand, Wood does not deny the necessity of safety regulation itself; she agrees that those who continue to warn of risks, including Elon Musk, are playing a positive role and suggests that "half of solving a problem is understanding the problem." On the other hand, when media selectively amplify crisis signals issued by "insiders" like Anthropic, they provide regulatory agencies with a repeatedly citable "typical case." In future rule texts, enforcement explanations, and license threshold designs, any technological paths deeply tied to large models and automated decision-making—including risk control systems for processing on-chain data and algorithms behind cryptocurrency trading infrastructures—could be defined referencing this template as needing extra control as potential danger sources. The cryptocurrency industry has previously experienced the path of "first there was panic narrative, then there were rules put in place" driven by public sentiment towards anti-money laundering and speculation risks, and now the regulatory shadow of the Anthropic incident suggests that the compliance boundaries in the cross-domain of AI and digital assets may also be redrawn along the same narrative template.
Who is Writing the Regulatory Story of AI and Cryptocurrency
Returning to this narrative node around September 13, we see a complete "narrative chain": from an anonymous Anthropic employee using a long-dormant X account to throw out the risk view of "AI may destroy humanity," to mainstream media quickly packaging it into concentrated reports, then to David Sacks publicly questioning whether this wave of reports may have been orchestrated, directing his criticism towards public opinion and agenda-setting mechanisms, and finally to Cathie Wood intervening on X from the perspective of investment research and governance, simultaneously agreeing with Sacks' vigilance about manipulated public opinion while emphasizing that all technologies can be maliciously used, that understanding the problem is half of solving it, and defending the technology leaders who continually emphasize risks. Thus, the regulatory story is not written independently by any single institution, but is shaped by anonymous employees, media editors, policy advisors, and investors in the capital market together; in the absence of transparent evidence, simply labeling public opinions as "manipulated" erodes public trust in regulation and media. For AI and cryptocurrency companies facing rapidly tightening global rules, this means that future compliance communications and policy negotiations cannot passively wait for others to define risk for them but must actively design and publicly share auditable risk narratives, acknowledging technological threats while avoiding being boxed into a single "destroying humanity" panic rhetoric as the sole color of regulation.
Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
