AI Giants Prepare for a “Catastrophic AI Event” and the Revolt That Could Follow
America’s leading artificial intelligence companies are quietly preparing for a catastrophe that some of their own executives consider inevitable. They envision a major AI-driven cyberattack that could cripple banks, communications, electricity, or water supplies.
But their preparations go beyond preventing disaster. Executives are also anticipating public outrage, political backlash, and government intervention. And they are already working to shape Washington’s response.
“The Day After”
Top executives at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI developers are privately preparing for what an October 9 Axios investigation calls a “public and political revolt after a catastrophic AI event.” Per the report,
These officials anticipate a large-scale event, most likely a cyberattack, that shuts down access to financial services, internet connectivity, or even power and water.
How would it happen? Axios describes it:
The blame game will start whether a rogue-agent swarm breaks containment from an internal testing environment or a bad actor finds unexpected ways to use available models.
Either scenario could affect millions of Americans and turn public anger against the technology, its leaders, and President Donald Trump over his “reluctance to regulate it.”
Many industry insiders, Axios says, expect a major incident within “the next six to 12 months.”
OpenAI, however, rejects the suggestion that catastrophe is certain. It conducts preparedness exercises where teams discuss and work through a range of potential scenarios.
“These scenarios are not treated as inevitable,” a company spokesperson told the outlet.
Anthropic declined to comment.
Scenario planning is hardly unusual. What distinguishes the AI industry’s preparations is that, according to Axios, “many top AI researchers and executives believe a major incident is inevitable.”
More revealing is what comes next. Executives expect Washington to respond aggressively after a catastrophe. And they are already trying to influence the policies lawmakers might adopt.
“Educating” Congress
According to Axios, the companies are racing to “educate members of Congress” before a catastrophic event triggers demands for regulation.
Industry planners reportedly anticipate stronger Democratic influence after November’s midterm elections. Several lawmakers already favor harsher restrictions.
In September, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Representative Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced legislation to ban artificial superintelligence and pause advanced AI development until federal safety rules are established.
Other proposals, including mandatory emergency shutdown capabilities, commonly called “kill switches,” have attracted bipartisan support.
On the Republican side, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) proposed the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act. It would require developers to assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, disclose safety information, and report serious incidents to federal authorities. The proposal would also establish national AI standards while limiting state-level regulations.
Axios also suggests that an “aging Congress” could struggle to understand the technology it seeks to regulate.
But technical complexity does not require lawmakers to defer to “savvy” industry executives. And efforts to “educate” Congress deserve scrutiny when the companies providing that “education” have enormous financial interests in the outcome.
Too Big to Slow Down?
The industry’s next argument concerns the economy. Axios warns that slowing AI development could hurt an already “fragile economy” because of massive investments in computing infrastructure.
Yet investment, backed by the administration’s strong support, does not equal economic necessity, let alone success. American commerce, banking, manufacturing, and essential services functioned long before generative AI.
Much of today’s spending comes from technology giants pursuing future market dominance. Indeed, Reuters reported that soaring AI investments have fueled Wall Street far more visibly than America’s real economic growth.
AI investment does support economic activity, and a sudden collapse could cause financial disruption. But protecting corporate valuations is not the same as protecting the public interest.
The industry’s security argument adds another twist.
Powerful open-weight models already circulate beyond corporate control. Governments cannot simply switch them off. Some cybersecurity experts consequently argue that only AI can fight “rogue” AI.
That may be technically justified in some circumstances. But it also creates a convenient business proposition: The dangers of AI require more AI, supplied by the very companies advancing the technology.
Concentration of Power
The deeper concern is who controls the technology. Increasingly, that power rests with tech oligarchs — wealthy elites whose economic dominance translates into political influence.
Key AI developers, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Microsoft, and Amazon all hold significant government contracts. Their technologies are increasingly embedded in government operations, national security, and public infrastructure.
Some of Big Tech’s most influential figures, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and billionaire investor Marc Andreessen, sit on the White House’s new technology advisory council.
Some of them, along with other Silicon Valley elites, wield enormous influence through campaign financing, supporting both Republicans and Democrats. As BlackRock CEO Larry Fink remarked ahead of the 2024 election:
I’m tired of hearing this is the biggest election in your lifetime. The reality is over time, it doesn’t matter…. We work with both administrations and are having conversations with both candidates.
His point concerned the continuity of “business” across administrations. But it also illustrates a broader reality: For financial and technology elites, presidents and legislators come and go, while their access to power and influence over policy endure.
In other words, their wealth, often built with substantial government backing, buys political access. Their control of critical infrastructure, in turn, makes governments increasingly dependent on them, and so economic and political power reinforce each other.
And while decentralized AI could empower individuals and businesses without dependence on corporate gatekeepers, centralized AI presents a far grimmer prospect.
When advanced computing, vast datasets, and automated decision-making converge inside corporations closely connected to government and nefarious globalist planners such as the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF), the potential for surveillance, dependency, and institutional control becomes the real threat the public should anticipate.
AI Critics as Enemies of the State
The anticipated public revolt would unfold against an already troubling political backdrop.
As we previously reported, the Trump administration has begun scrutinizing what federal intelligence assessments call “anti-technology extremism.” Some reports addressed threats of violence or sabotage. Others examined peaceful protests, criticism of technology companies, and opposition to data centers.
Trump has added his own rhetoric.
In September, he warned of a “SICK conspiracy” against AI and data centers, invoking China and telling “Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers” to “BEWARE!”
In October, he went further, declaring that anyone who continued using the term “Artificial Intelligence” instead of his preferred “Super Intelligence” was “THE ENEMY!”
Public skepticism, meanwhile, is widespread.
An October AP-NORC poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe AI is developing too quickly. Only 27 percent consider its pace about right. Roughly eight in ten see keeping AI under human control and protecting workers from displacement as important priorities.
An earlier Heatmap poll found that 75 percent of registered voters opposed building a data center near their homes.
Now consider the aftermath of a catastrophic cyberattack, whether caused by a “rogue” AI agent, foreign hackers, domestic criminals exploiting AI tools, or even government actors.
The public revolt envisioned by tech executives would hardly be surprising. Nor would the political pressure to identify culprits, impose restrictions, and expand government authority.
Yet as we previously examined, genuine technological dangers can coexist with exaggerated narratives that justify greater centralized control.
That is why the danger extends far beyond a potential AI catastrophe. A crisis could give the very corporations and government agencies promoting the technology a powerful justification to expand their authority, while portraying public resistance as a security threat.
