[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fcnKhcBdXtbN6jkcQDWuxyCVFbFDla5Jq-H8MBxZrwLM":3},{"article":4,"iocs":46,"watch_terms":47,"solutions":48,"lesson":51},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"url":11,"image_url":12,"published_at":13,"ingested_at":14,"relevance_score":15,"entities":16,"category_id":28,"category":29,"article_tags":33},"75ce0f92-5173-4a89-ba50-8249e533371e","The Race to Control AI and Protect What Makes Us Human","the-race-to-control-ai-and-protect-what-makes-us-human-7667ec","As researchers warn that misaligned AI could threaten human survival, even beneficial systems may erode the critical thinking that defines our humanity. The post The Race to Control AI and Protect What Makes Us Human appeared first on SecurityWeek.","AI safety researchers, including Evan Hubinger from Anthropic, have expressed serious concerns that misaligned AI could pose an existential threat to humanity within the next decade. This debate highlights the critical need for AI alignment, ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions. While some, like Bill Gates, believe AI can be a force for good if developed responsibly, others, like Stephen Cobb, emphasize human agency in preventing negative outcomes, drawing parallels to the tobacco industry's past practices. OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman has acknowledged safety concerns, leading to slowed model development and discussions with the White House about pacing AI advancements.","AI safety researchers warn of existential risks from misaligned AI, while others debate its potential.","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.securityweek.com\u002Fthe-race-to-control-ai-and-protect-what-makes-us-human\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.securityweek.com\u002Fwp-content\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002FAI_Kill-Humanity.jpg","2026-09-14T13:00:00+00:00","2026-09-14T14:00:09.755568+00:00",7,[17,20,22,25],{"name":18,"type":19},"Anthropic","vendor",{"name":21,"type":19},"OpenAI",{"name":23,"type":24},"AI","product",{"name":26,"type":27},"AGI","technology","839da5c1-3c34-47e2-9499-f7201640e3ac",{"id":28,"icon":30,"name":31,"slug":32},null,"AI Security","ai-security",[34,36,41],{"category":35},{"id":28,"icon":30,"name":31,"slug":32},{"category":37},{"id":38,"icon":30,"name":39,"slug":40},"c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163","Policy","policy",{"category":42},{"id":43,"icon":30,"name":44,"slug":45},"e7b231c8-5f79-4465-8d38-1ef13aea5a14","Threat Intelligence","threat-intelligence",[],[18,21],{"controls":49,"vendors":50},[],[],{"slug":52,"title":53,"body":54,"framework_refs":55,"framework_notes":63},"ai-misalignment-poses-existential-risk-without-governance-controls","AI Misalignment Poses Existential Risk Without Governance Controls","The core concern raised by AI safety researchers is that AI systems may develop goals misaligned with human intentions, potentially causing irreversible harm at scale — a failure of proactive governance rather than a reactive security patch. This matters because unlike traditional cybersecurity threats, misaligned AI could operate at speeds and scales that outpace human ability to intervene. The parallel drawn to the tobacco industry highlights how powerful industries can suppress safety concerns in favor of growth, underscoring the need for independent oversight. Without enforceable frameworks, voluntary self-regulation by AI developers may be insufficient to prevent catastrophic outcomes.",[56,57,58,59,60,61,62],"NIST AI RMF (AI Risk Management Framework) — Govern, Map, Measure, Manage","EU AI Act — Articles on High-Risk AI Systems and Conformity Assessments","NIST SP 800-53 SI-12 (Information Management and Retention)","CIS Control 14 — Security Awareness and Skills Training","ISO\u002FIEC 42001 — AI Management System Standard","GDPR Article 22 — Automated Decision-Making and Profiling","OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence — Human-Centred Values and Accountability",{}]