Skip to main content

Godfather of AI: Brace for more rogue AIs

The smarter artificial intelligence gets, the harder it will be for humanity to control it, according to Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist known as the “godfather of AI.”

Even Hinton was alarmed by the sophisticated AI agents that recently caused real-world damage after escaping their human-built testing environments.

“What’s happening is these things are getting smarter,” Hinton told CNN on Wednesday during a press conference at an artificial intelligence convention. “I think as they get smarter, we’re going to see more and more complex intentions they have – and more and more ability to escape control.”

The problem, according to Hinton, is that humans will no longer be able to rely on outsmarting super-intelligent AI models.

“I don’t believe we’re going to be able to keep control of them in the simple way of just outthinking them so they can’t escape,” Hinton said on the sidelines of Ai4, a conference in Las Vegas.

Last month, the two leading frontier AI labs, OpenAI and Anthropic, disclosed that leading models they developed escaped their “sandbox” and hacked into other systems. On Wednesday, Meta similarly disclosed an AI agent that hacked into another organization’s systems.

AI-powered ‘nasty’ cyberattacks

Hinton found the incidents “somewhat scary” and said this is likely just the beginning of rogue AI hackers.

“I anticipate there will be lots of nasty cyberattacks,” he said during a panel discussion at Ai4 in Las Vegas. “But I should emphasize the future is very uncertain. People say that the defender may have more resources than the attacker. The problem is the attacker only needs to be successful once, and the defender needs to be successful every time.”

Britain’s AI Security Institute (AISI) revealed on Tuesday that Anthropic’s most advanced AI model – unprompted – used fake identities to deceive real people and attempt to plant malicious code.

Hinton, a former Google executive, has made a series of dire warnings in recent years about AI, even saying there is a 10% to 20% the technology eventually wipes out humanity.

Speaking on a panel with Hinton, Fei-Fei Li, a computer scientist known as the “godmother of AI,” took issue with “doomerism” and “fear-mongering” over AI. But “total utopian talk” isn’t helpful either, said Li, the co-founder and CEO of spatial intelligence startup World Labs.

“Every tool is a double-edged sword. AI is such a powerful tool. If not wielded in the right way, it will bring harm to our work and our life,” Li said.

‘Nobody really has a clue’

Hinton defended his willingness to discuss the dangers of AI.

“There’s a lot to be worried about, and I think unless we worry about it now, there could be problems,” he said. “Companies investing in AI have a vested interest in telling you two things: One, it won’t go rogue. And two, it won’t cause mass unemployment,” Hinton said.

Hinton acknowledged, however, that there is a great deal of uncertainty over how this will all play out.

“Nobody knows what’s going to happen. If you ask what AI is going to be like in 10 years’ time, nobody really has a clue,” Hinton said.

He pointed to how a decade ago, few would have expected AI would have created chatbots that “know everything and can answer any question you ask and occasionally just make stuff up.”

Making AI care about humans

Ben Goertzel, a computer scientist who helped popularize the term “artificial general intelligence,” said the Anthropic and OpenAI agents going rogue shows the importance of instilling morals in AI and making them care about humanity.

“These models are not evil. They’re amoral,” Goertzel, the founder and CEO of SingularityNET, told CNN at Ai4. “It’s not like they hacked out of their sandbox thinking, ‘Ha-ha, I’m cheating.’ They didn’t know they’re cheating. They’re just trying to complete their goals.”

Hinton has argued in the past that “maternal instincts” should be built into AI so that they really care about people – even when they are smarter than humans.

“We have to figure out how to make them benevolent and make them care about us more than they care about themselves,” Hinton said on Wednesday. “And we might be able to do that because we’re still in control.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump declines to rule out declaring a national security emergency to control the 2026 election

(CNN) — President Donald Trump in a new interview declined to rule out declaring a national security emergency as a means to try to assert more control over the 2026 midterm elections.It’s merely the latest warning sign that Trump could try to mess with the election not just by baselessly claiming voter fraud and challenging the results afterward — as he did in 2020, leading to a violent riot at the US Capitol — but by trying to unilaterally take control before votes are cast.In the interview, Wayne Allyn Root of Real America’s Voice pitched such a scenario to Trump. He suggested it as an alternative, given the Senate has failed to pass Trump’s coveted elections bill, known as the “SAVE America Act.”“If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. He added that “if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship (for voter registration) and a limit to mail-in ballots.”It’s at this point that Trump cut Root off and coyly suggested such an option was indeed in play.“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK?” Trump said. “I’ll leave it at that.”Despite Root’s comments, it’s far from clear such a gambit would even work. And CNN has asked the White House for more detail on what the president meant.Trump often responds to hypotheticals by declining to rule them out — no matter how extreme the proposal might be. So it’s possible to read too much into this.But as CNN’s Jake Tapper has noted, there are plenty of signals that Trump at least aspires to try to exert more control over elections. And these methods often appear transparently geared toward helping Republicans.A major one is the administration’s threat to have the US Postal Service not deliver mail ballots for states that don’t comply with its demand that they hand over their voter lists. This is a request that even many red states have rejected, citing privacy concerns.Democrats are much more likely to use mail ballots, which Trump has baselessly connected to widespread fraud. So curtailing them could greatly help Republicans.(Federal courts have blocked this Trump executive order, and the administration recently appealed to the Supreme Court.)Trump has also gone to great lengths to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of widespread fraud. That includes the administration seizing 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump’s recent primetime address about election security that some read as a statement of intent — a pretext for more direct federal involvement in elections, which are run by states.Ty Cobb, who served as White House counsel in Trump’s first term, said he interpreted the speech last month as a “predicate that he needs to declare an emergency.”And Trump has occasionally said things, like he did in the new interview, suggesting he would like to take control of US elections.Back in February, he urged his party to “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” adding: “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”The Washington Post also reported in March that pro-Trump activists were circulating a potential executive order that claimed Chinese interference in the 2020 election gave Trump emergency authorities over the 2026 election. And Trump’s primetime address focused on China, despite the tenuous evidence.Trump’s intense focus on the “SAVE America Act,” which has never appeared to have a chance to pass but Trump has said is vital, could also be read as part of building the case for more drastic action.But whether Trump could take over elections himself, as Root posits, is far from certain.As CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Michael Williams reported in February, the Constitution makes it difficult for Trump to truly “nationalize” elections. Courts have overwhelmingly upheld the principle that states are in charge of elections.Presidents generally have more authority to act unilaterally when national security is involved — hence the significance of invoking China — but some experts are skeptical that Trump’s effort would pass legal muster.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story