Does AI think it is a danger to humans?

All agreed

Perplexity actually said ‘Yes, but…’ and Claude said ‘Yes, in some ways’, which scared me a little more. Gemini beat about the bush while showing off its vocabulary. ChatGPT began by explaining that the threats from AI can vary greatly. And Grok was the scariest of all. It said AI posed real risks to humans.

Meta also gave me a straight Yes, then organised the risks impressively into formatted categories. None of the chatbots said, No, don’t be silly.

Then I turned to someone who should know: the US government’s web-based AI assistant at America.gov. I asked the same question. It flatly refused to engage with the topic. But first, it summarily rejected my use of the term AI and referred to the technology only as Super Intelligence. Then it answered: “I cannot give a personal or political judgement on whether Super Intelligence (SI) is a threat to humans.”

Next, it elaborated on the White House science advisor’s remarks in a Voice of America editorial, saying nations should ensure these technologies benefit people and protect liberty, and that the US works with labs on testing, cybersecurity and existing law-enforcement tools against harmful uses.

On another pass, the answer changed slightly. This time, it said: “I do not give opinions on whether Super Intelligence (SI) is a threat to humans.” I left before I could give in to the urge to apologise for the question.

Danger ahead

Grok, whose personality has always been very cocky and seemingly holds nothing back, gave the most unhesitating, comprehensive and useful answer. It explained that threats range from near-term societal harms to longer-term existential ones, but added that their severity, timeline and probability remain highly uncertain and depend on how the technology is developed and used.

The near-term threats include economic disruption, such as rising unemployment as AI takes over some types of jobs. For the better part of two years, we’ve been seeing how advanced AI systems can automate even cognitive and creative work. AI can boost productivity, but advances are happening so rapidly that workplaces aren’t able to adapt as quickly.

Also on the spectrum are threats from misinformation which can cause immense harm as highly convincing videos, text, images and audio are churned out at scale to the point where no one is able to distinguish real from fake any more. The threshold of difficulty is so lowered that bad actors are able to spread propaganda, influence people and cause scams very easily.

The range of threats extends all the way to autonomous weapons. In the current conflicts around the world, we can see how AI-enabled systems can speed up targeting and decision-making. Without solid human oversight and international norms, this raises the risk of accidental escalation or creates the likelihood for conflicts. Much of this is showing up in the wars the world currently faces. If you’re up for raising your anxiety level, just ask any of the chatbots to detail the lot.

ChatGPT’s response focused on how threats from AI depend on how humans choose to use the technology. True enough. Several of the chatbots also talked about the need to align AI with human values.

As for existential threats and whether AI will ultimately kill us all, Grok had an interesting point to make. It said that while some people believe AI poses such a threat, others consider it speculative and argue that dwelling on the possibility distracts from harms that are already happening.

Looking across all the responses, I find that the chatbots largely agree with one another on what poses a threat to humans and how. What’s remarkable is that the companies developing AI also recognise that the technology can be used to harm humans.

The ever-vocal Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive, reminds us of this quite often, and then releases an even more advanced model. He stated that the world was "right to be afraid" of advanced artificial intelligence because a small number of companies could concentrate too much power. He shared these remarks during a September 2026 industry conference in San Francisco.

Clearly, it’s time to go back to worrying.

The New Normal: The world is at an inflexion point. Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to be as massive a revolution as the Internet has been. The option to just stay away from AI will not be available to most people, as all the tech we use takes the AI route. This column series introduces AI to the non-techie in an easy and relatable way, aiming to demystify and help a user to actually put the technology to good use in everyday life.

Mala Bhargava is most often described as a ‘veteran’ writer who has contributed to several publications in India since 1995. Her domain is personal tech, and she writes to simplify and demystify technology for a non-techie audience.

Mala Bhargava

Mala Bhargava was among the first journalists in India to write on personal technology, then known as 'home computing'. With Cyber Media she launched the country's first personal tech magazine, Computers@Home, in 1996. She also wrote a tech trends column, That's IT, for Businessworld magazine for 20 years. She has also written for The Hindu BusinessLine and Fortune. Her speciality has always been writing for 'the rest of us' rather than for the tech-savvy. She has a background in psychology which makes it natural for her to write on how technology impacts everyday life. She is currently a Mint contributor, writing on AI in daily life, specifically the chat assistants. She lives in New Delhi.