iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
At a New York City Council hearing on October 5, 2026, former AI-lab employees warned that companies may not be able to keep increasingly capable systems under human control. Company representatives defended their safety work and engaged with proposals for new safeguards. The testimony documented sharply different views; it did not establish that a loss of control is inevitable or produce a measured probability of catastrophe.
What happened at the hearing?
The City Council’s Committee of the Whole held the hearing on October 5, 2026, bringing all 51 Council members together to examine risks from rapidly developing artificial intelligence and possible protections for New Yorkers. In its September 28 advance notice, the Council said it had sought testimony from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, and national experts. That notice described the companies’ responses to the Council’s requests and said a subpoena had been issued to SpaceXAI. The Associated Press’s account of the hearing reports that representatives of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta participated.
The central dispute was not whether AI can pose risks, but how confidently those risks can be assessed and whether current safety measures can keep pace with development. Former employees raised concerns about speed and controllability. Company representatives described safety work and, in some cases, expressed openness to regulation.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallWhat did former AI-lab employees warn about?
Jacob Coxon, identified by the Associated Press as a former Anthropic engineer, gave the hearing’s starkest prediction: “On the current path, I think it is more likely than not that humanity loses control to these AIs and it could end in human extinction.” This was Coxon’s judgment, not an independently established probability or a finding by the Council.
#1 Best Overall
Coxon also criticized what he described as companies’ approach to development: “The companies run on a startup mindset: Move fast, break things, fix them later. That works for a photo sharing app. It does not work for building the most powerful technology ever built.” His remarks, as reported by the Associated Press, argued that the consequences of errors in advanced AI could be far more serious than those associated with ordinary software products.
How did company representatives respond?
When Council Speaker Julie Menin asked company representatives to quantify the chance of a catastrophic outcome, OpenAI representative Morgan Dwyer did not provide a single estimate. Dwyer said: “I don’t know – I also don’t think it matters whether it’s 1% or 10% or 20% chance that something catastrophic will go wrong. None of these levels is remotely acceptable. We should not train models that we cannot make an extremely strong case that we can keep under human control.”
Rank #2
The percentages in Dwyer’s answer were examples, not forecasts or measured estimates. Menin called the response “flippant at best,” according to the AP account; Dwyer then emphasized OpenAI’s commitment to safety, saying: “I share your commitment to ensuring that technology is developed safely and that its benefits are widely shared.”
Anthropic representative Logan Graham described the stakes in terms of the consequences of failure: “AI is powerful enough that getting this wrong has real consequences, for individuals, institutions, public trust. We have to work relentlessly to do the science of mitigating the risks.” The hearing coverage records these competing statements, but does not establish a shared risk estimate or settle whether current safeguards are adequate.
What safeguards were under consideration?
The Council’s September 28 notice highlighted several proposed measures: a whistleblower incentive program, a private right of action for New Yorkers harmed by AI agents, and independent third-party validation requirements. The AP also reported discussion of disclosure rules for AI tools and whistleblower rewards. These were proposals under consideration at the time of the hearing; the cited accounts do not establish whether any later became law.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What AI oversight does New York City already have?
Before the hearing, New York City had enacted AI oversight measures for City agencies. The Council’s September 16 hearing announcement says laws passed in 2025 created an Office of Algorithmic Accountability. The office is tasked with reviewing agency use of AI and algorithmic systems, conducting risk assessments, investigating potential harms, and requiring corrective action when appropriate.
The measures also establish standards for agency AI development, procurement, and use. The Council describes those standards as addressing privacy, civil rights, security, monitoring, and risk management, alongside a public inventory of covered systems. This framework concerns City agencies; it should not be confused with the broader proposals debated at the hearing or treated as proof that every risk raised by witnesses is addressed.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
