Political activist based in Fort Worth, Texas. Abolish ICE. Impeach, remove, imprison.
Fort Worth, TX
Joined July 2019
- Tweets4.4K
- Following268
- Followers127
- Likes77.5K
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Now @AshleyMoodyFL. Why would I want to abolish the police when I want you arrested and in jail for stealing $10 million from sick kids? BFFR
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Everyone: Sign up for this and bring your friends, family, colleges, classmates, neighbours! Spread the word and make
some history!: ifanyonebuildsit.com/march
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
There's like 48 new stories about AI going completely rogue that the companies tried to hide and downplay. Every one of these stories are the type that should lead to hitting the kill switch. Pump the brakes on this dumb bullshit and criminally charge the companies. What the fuck are we doing.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
0. The core disagreement was about the inevitability of a race
1. I think leadership is way too paranoid about China and the US government. They don’t believe it will be possible to negotiate.
2. They largely initiated the recent race to RSI, because of a belief in its inevitability. Note that OpenAI had to shed a bunch of dead weight like Sora because Anthropic was going for the jugular.
3. Even if they are **not** being pessimistic, I disagree with their consequentialist philosophy. If the race is inevitable you should not contribute.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
It is so obvious to me that AI is incredibly and perfectly safe. Elon Musk, Dario Amodei, and Sam Altman the thousands of AI researchers working for them simply don’t understand AI and have no idea what they are talking about.
Moreover, Elon, Dario, and Sam are really great friends and it is obvious to me that they are orchestrating a grand conspiracy. They also have thousands of their employees bought in on this too.
AI has never killed a lot of people, and it will never kill a lot of people, because if it was going to it would have already done it!
The AI CEOs are greedy and selfish which is why they are deliberately making their products that make them money worse and alienating their users.
This is part of their grand plan to keep me personally in the permanent underclass and take everything from me.
I am entitled to their internal models as soon as they are developed as well as them making better models as fast as possible because I pay them $20 a month.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Again, do not attack, do not make the jokes, do not make this partisan, and remember the next time that someone says your scenario for how everyone died is unrealistic that this is reality.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
I urge everyone, no matter how bad the statements get, I don't care what Trump says, do not turn this into more of a partisan thing than it already is, do not attack on that basis. That only makes things worse.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
NEW 🚨 I’m calling on the Trump admin to provide an all-Senators briefing on the dangers of unchecked AI development—and to explain its lack of action to protect our country.
We need a full accounting of their framework for testing AI models.
We need clear answers on how we’ll defend against AI-enabled cyberattacks.
And we need to know the steps being taken to prevent China from accessing our most advanced AI chips and equipment.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
“We may be the last generation able to set the terms on which humanity and machines coexist.”
As Artificial Intelligence advances at an extraordinary pace, @antonioguterres has repeatedly stressed it must serve humanity and not the other way around.
medium.com/we-the-peoples/it…
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
'My Goodness Gracious!' CNN Data Guru Says Americans 'Absolutely Despise' Trump's Handling of AI mediaite.com/politics/my-goo…
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Opposition to uncontrolled AI is growing across the political spectrum.
I agree with Peggy Noonan, the former Ronald Reagan speechwriter and conservative Wall Street Journal columnist that we need to “hit the brakes hard” and pause AI for humanity’s sake.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Axios: Ex-Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon will join forces at an event on Tuesday to push for human-controlled AI.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Jacob Coxon stated he was invited to the event but did not agree to go.
x.com/hilbertspaess/…
axios.com/2026/09/14/cox…
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
"China is very unlikely to join a global agreement", @DavidSacks says, without giving any evidence for this statement.
In fact, there is enormous concern for AI's existential risks in China. Andrew Yao, Chinese only Turing Award winner, expressed deep concern for existential risk, as did Xue Lan, the chairman of the state’s expert committee on AI governance. And these experts have Xi Jinping's ear, who himself mentioned loss of control as a major priority during a recent speech (links in the comments).
In addition, since growth without AI is higher in China than in the US, but China's AIs are still at a disadvantage, why would China not be on board with a treaty giving both sides equal red lines?
If the Trump administration would try, we have every reason to believe that the Chinese would in fact join a global agreement, and that such an agreement would be verifiable. It is a political decision to prioritize humanity's continued existence, or not.
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Buttigieg: "I was shocked to hear Speaker Johnson just now saying 'we shouldn't be rushing, shouldn't be moving too quickly on this.' You know what is moving quickly? AI. For Congress to sit on its hands is something that is deeply dangerous it to the American people ... what have they been doing this entire time?"
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
There are currently zero things more important than "don't die to AI" becoming a bipartisan project rather than a Democrat-polarized issue. If you have any political capital you can spend on this, do it now, I beg of you. Life or death.
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
This is exactly the right way to get Trump to take this seriously and take action - promise him a Nobel Prize! If that’s what it takes, I’m for it!
Sam and I also discussed that Presidents Trump and Xi could win a Nobel peace prize by coming together on global AI safety guidelines at the end of Sept. I took it one step further - President Trump could be like Bill Pullman in Independence Day, getting every country to put aside differences for the good of humanity!
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
Jacob Coxon is not alone: AI Superintelligence is an Existential Threat to Humanity
Recently, Jacob Coxon, a former researcher at Anthropic and OpenAI, sent shockwaves throughout the world by stating, “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Incredibly, in less than 48 hours, Mr. Coxon’s social media statement has been viewed by more than 150 million people.
But let’s be clear: Mr. Coxon is not alone in his fears.
Leading experts inside and outside the AI industry have been echoing Mr. Coxon’s clarion call for years.
And that is that unless we reverse course, there is a very real possibility that once advanced AI surpasses human intelligence, it could escape our control with catastrophic consequences.
In other words, advanced AI and superintelligence pose an existential threat to humanity.
That is why I will soon be introducing legislation with Representative @RepCasar to pause advanced AI and ban superintelligence altogether.
Please take a moment to read what just a few of these experts have said in the past few days.
Thanks to @TaylorPopielarz for assembling this research.
Paul Christiano, Member of the OpenAI nonprofit board’s Safety and Security Committee: "Based on the recent trajectory of capabilities and the continued difficulty of alignment, I now believe there is a meaningful risk that rapid acceleration in AI capabilities leads to catastrophic and irreversible loss of control in the very near term. I do not think that the AI industry in general, including OpenAI, is currently on track to reduce this risk to an acceptable level … If we build superintelligence without more robust alignment I expect we will permanently lose control of it. If that happens then most people could die. I believe we would need domestic and international coordination to ensure global consistency and reduce risk to an acceptable level.”
Samuel Marks, Scalable Oversight lead at Anthropic: "AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). This could happen in the next few years.”
Evan Hubinger, Alignment Science lead at Anthropic: "Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!”
Alex Turner, former Research Scientist at Google DeepMind: "I left Google DeepMind in June. Jacob is right: many researchers believe they are building something that could kill everyone on the planet. It was literally my day job to think about how to stop that."
Jakub Pachocki, Chief Scientist at OpenAI: "This is a time that calls for extreme caution. I am concerned no one is prepared for the consequences of a continued rapid rise in machine intelligence.”
Jason Wolfe, Researcher at OpenAI: "I don't know what my probabilities are on literal extinction, but I think there are a number of ways AI could go poorly for humanity, and at the current frankly terrifying pace humanity will be quite lucky if we manage to find and stay on the narrow path between all the bad outcomes.
Jonathan Richard Schwarz, former Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind: "I left DeepMind after 7 years (and since rejected offers to join the other two) due to severe concerns about the concentration of power these labs represent. What is currently happening in this field is deeply unhealthy for society.”
Jonathan Demarest retweeted
My guess is that the recent AI swarm incidents quietly caused a critical mass of elites to get acutely scared of near-term AI x-risk (after years of elites gradually updating in that direction), but the swarm incidents themselves were too weird and complicated to easily go viral.
"This guy quit his job to warn the public" is a simpler story, so it spreads more easily. Most of the public was already pretty anti-AI and pretty open to AI x-risk arguments, so they're happy to reshare. It's the influencers, journalists, intellectuals, politicians, researchers, etc. who were nervous of looking weird; but once the post started taking off, they stopped feeling nervous, which then caused a cascade.
