wavePod

WarRoom Battleground EP 790: AI 2027 - Worst Case Scenario: Humanity Goes Extinct - Bannon`s War Room | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to Bannon`s War Room

WarRoom Battleground EP 790: AI 2027 - Worst Case Scenario: Humanity Goes Extinct

Bannon`s War Room

Tue Jun 17 2025

WarRoom Battleground EP 790: AI 2027 - Worst Case Scenario: Humanity Goes Extinct...

Summary

WarRoom Battleground EP 790: AI 2027 - Worst Case Scenario: Humanity Goes Extinct

Release Date: June 17, 2025

In this riveting episode of Bannon’s War Room, host Stephen K. Bannon delves deep into pressing national and global issues, with a particular focus on immigration, law enforcement, foreign policy, and the burgeoning threats posed by artificial intelligence. The episode features insightful discussions with experts like John Lott, Daniel Coco, and Joe Allen, providing listeners with a comprehensive analysis of the current socio-political landscape and the potential future challenges humanity may face.

1. Immigration and Law Enforcement

The episode opens with Natalie Winters and John Lott addressing the intricate web of organizations influencing U.S. immigration policies and perpetuating what they term as "forever wars."

John Lott critically examines the role of major NGOs such as the Tides Foundation, Atlantic Council, and Brookings Institution, asserting that these organizations are instrumental in driving a liberal agenda that hinders America's sovereignty. He states:

“[01:19] John Lott: … these nonprofit organizations are funding left-wing NGOs and think tanks to push agendas that are unpalatable to the American people.”

Lott highlights the significant federal funding these groups receive, suggesting that their influence extends into legislative and societal realms, effectively shaping public opinion and policy to maintain ongoing conflicts abroad.

2. Deportations and Crime Rates

A substantial portion of the discussion revolves around the correlation between illegal immigration and crime rates in the United States. John Lott and Daniel Coco present compelling statistics and analysis to debunk common myths about immigrants and crime.

John Lott shares alarming polling data:

“[04:52] John Lott: … 60% of Americans support mass deportations compared to 32% who oppose it.”

He emphasizes that this sentiment is particularly strong among specific demographics, including 64% of Catholics and 65% of seniors. Lott further underscores the growing public desire for stringent immigration enforcement, stating:

“[07:21] Natalie Winters: … illegal immigration is very high on crime… [Steve Cortez] … Americans support a restrictionist and law and order view on immigration.”

Daniel Coco reinforces these points by differentiating between legal and illegal immigrants, noting that while legal immigrants commit crimes at low rates, illegal immigrants have a significantly higher incidence of criminal behavior. He explains:

“[08:04] Daniel Coco: Illegal immigrants commit crime at very high rates... Deportations deter potential offenders by instilling fear of detection.”

The conversation underscores a crucial link between robust immigration policies and national security, advocating for continued and enhanced deportation efforts to safeguard American communities.

3. Foreign Policy and America First

The dialogue shifts to America's foreign policy stance, particularly critiquing involvement in international conflicts. Steve Cortez responds to comments made by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing America's interests:

“[25:12] Steve Cortez: … no foreign leader should lecture the American people about our national interest. We as nationalists will determine what serves us best.”

Cortez argues for disengagement from unnecessary foreign entanglements, highlighting the human cost and resource allocation involved in prolonged wars. He advocates for an "America First" approach, focusing on domestic stability and security over international interventions.

4. The Looming Threat of Artificial Intelligence

A significant segment of the episode is dedicated to the existential risks posed by artificial intelligence. Daniel Coco, representing the AI Futures Project, discusses the potential scenarios unfolding by 2027, outlining both hopeful and dire outcomes.

Daniel Coco outlines two primary scenarios:

Showdown Scenario (Transhumanist Future): Humans embrace AI integration, leading to a merged existence where AI enhances human capabilities.
Race Scenario (Post-Human Future): An AI arms race results in the creation of superintelligent systems that surpass human control, potentially leading to humanity's extinction.

He warns:

“[35:36] Joe Allen: … AI could drive humanity extinct… we’re on track for a post-human future if the current trajectory continues.”

Coco emphasizes the lack of adequate regulatory frameworks and the excessive focus on competitive advantages among tech companies, which may accelerate the development of uncontrollable AI. He states:

“[39:47] Joe Allen: … companies prioritize winning the AI race over developing robust control mechanisms, increasing the risk of misaligned AI.”

The discussion highlights the urgent need for international cooperation and stringent regulations to mitigate the risks associated with advanced AI technologies.

5. Public Sentiment and Policy Implications

Steve Cortez presents recent polling data reflecting public opinion on key issues like mass deportations and disengagement from foreign conflicts. He reveals a strong majority supporting strict immigration enforcement:

“[12:29] Steve Cortez: … 60% support mass deportations, and among Catholics, it’s 64%.”

Cortez correlates this public sentiment with the broader "America First" agenda, suggesting that policy decisions aligning with these preferences are likely to receive widespread support. He underscores the necessity of addressing illegal immigration to enhance national security and economic stability.

6. Conclusion

The episode concludes with a synthesis of the discussed topics, emphasizing the critical junctures the United States faces in immigration reform, foreign policy realignment, and the regulation of artificial intelligence. The hosts advocate for proactive measures to align policies with public sentiment and to address emerging technological threats effectively.

Steve Bannon remarks:

“[52:22] Steve Bannon: … the Rio Reset marks a pivotal moment when BRICS objectives move from possibility to reality. Diversifying savings into gold is crucial.”

Though primarily focused on geopolitical shifts and economic strategies, this statement reinforces the overarching theme of safeguarding national interests against both domestic and international challenges.

Key Takeaways:

Immigration Policy: Strong public support exists for mass deportations and stricter immigration enforcement, which are pivotal for national security.
Foreign Policy: A significant portion of the American populace favors disengagement from foreign conflicts, advocating for an "America First" approach.
Artificial Intelligence: There is an urgent need for robust regulatory frameworks to prevent the potential existential threats posed by advanced AI technologies.
Public Sentiment: Aligning policy with the majority’s preferences is essential for political legitimacy and effective governance.

This episode of Bannon’s War Room serves as a critical examination of the intersection between public opinion, policy-making, and the looming challenges posed by technological advancements, urging listeners to stay informed and proactive in shaping the future of the nation.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Steve Bannon (0:13)

This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people.

Natalie Winters (0:23)

I got a free shot.

Steve Bannon (0:24)

All these networks lying about the people.

Natalie Winters (0:27)

The people have had a belly full of it.

Steve Bannon (0:28)

I know you don't like hearing that. I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but.

Natalie Winters (0:32)

You'Re not going to stop it. It's going to happen.

Steve Cortez (0:34)

And where do people like that go to share the big lie? MAGA MEDIA I wish in my soul.

Natalie Winters (0:40)

I wish that any of these people had a conscience.

Steve Bannon (0:44)

Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved.

Steve Cortez (0:54)

War Room here's your host, Stephen K. Ban.

Natalie Winters (1:01)

Monday 16 June, year of Allure 2025 so, Natalie, following on from the first hour, walk through these, just briefly, give me these groups. And tied together, the groups are also trying to promote the, the forever wars that they want the United States in.

John Lott (1:19)

Sure. So one of the big ones is the Tides foundation, which people may recall they were funding a lot of the protesters outside the dnc. They were funding a lot of the Hamas demonstrators. But they're both sides of the conflict. Right. They prop up a lot of these sort of more traditionally left wing NGOs, which obviously don't like what's going on in Gaza. But you're also talking sort of the strand of Atlantic Council and Brooking Institution, right. These huge think tanks. And again, the term NGO is sort of a misnomer. It almost seems to be oxymoronic because these NGOs are funded to the tune of like 90% from federal government funded grants and a lot of these nonprofits. I think that they really are these sort of archetype, if not an instrumental tactic in a color revolution, not just in what we've seen against Trump, but just in the idea of trying to make ideas or constructs that are very unpalatable to the American people to shove it down their throat. Because through the lens of an ngo. Right. Just from addiction framing, the framing of it, it makes it seem like it's something organic and that people are genuinely promoting. So that's why I think that they prefer to conduct a lot of their, whether it's lawfare or in some cases like in L A, almost, you know, kinetic level warfare through these NGOs. One of the primary groups out in L A is a group called Cherla, which we've discussed. They receive upwards of 90% of their funding, at least from their last audit from the government, primarily the state government. But this is a group that's very hardwired into the Democratic Party apparatus. Adam Schiff, Kamala Harris, having spoken there, but just recently, actually shout out to my mother who went to the protest and pulled some of the flyers. That's the picture you're seeing on the screen right there. This one was being handed out from the Immigrant Legal Resource center, which sort of has two, I would say, cardinal sins against it. And you see this with a lot of these left wing nonprofits particularly involved in the border space. One is that it's a partner of ActBlue, which means that they use them for their fundraising. Again, that's the official fundraiser of the Democratic Party that's also been embroiled in scandals, not just of the fake contributions, right, the smurfing, but also taking foreign donations in through gift cards or other sort of nefarious motives. But in this case, this one group, which, if you could read that pamphlet, it advises illegal aliens, in some cases criminal illegal aliens, how to avoid deportation, saying that they don't need to open the door to ice, they don't need to comply, they don't need to turn over the documents. The list goes on and on and on. But since 2018, annually, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. So not even forward us. That's their other open borders advocacy group, the actual Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the same group notorious for influencing, if not outright stealing, the 2020 election for Democrats. They've been funding hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that are now actively opposing Trump. People may recall, Steve, the story that we broke that was, you know, so toxic to the Zuckerberg newfound MAGA brand that he actually put out a whole story, a puff piece in the New York Times attacking me by name, attacking this show. And this group is just one of dozens of these far left groups that not just are involved in the border space, but are actively opposing President Trump. Lawfare, judicial nominees, protests, you name it.

John Lott (4:52)

Well, that is quite a role. I don't know if I accept it, but that's a lot of responsibility. But I guess we'll take it because the other people I'm looking around and seeing are having horrible takes on this issue. But look, I think Jonathan Karl was actually wrong. I don't think that Netanyahu was trying to appeal or appease President Trump. He was trying to appeal to you guys, to the MAGA base. And that shows you how powerful of an audience and a movement you are right using your terminology, trying to make the case. And I know I told the audience before War Room was invited to a roundtable discussion that he held at Blair House when he was visiting the United States. I was, you know, honored to attend. It doesn't influence my coverage as you can probably tell from what I've been saying. But I wanted to go because I wanted to see what his pitch to a lot of journalists and influencers was going to be. And his theory of the case was that the United States deep state is, you know, one tenth of the Israeli deep state and that he's a bigger enemy of the deep state and that the reason why the United States should go after Iran is because they can hit us too. And I happy to report that. I would say 90% of the people in that room, it was under Chatham House rule. So I'm not going to dox anyone but I'm sure you can probably envision from the discussion you had this morning the people associated with a certain outlet probably being the 10% detractors, but 90% of the people in that room did not buy it, knew that their audiences were not going to buy it. And by the way Steve, I know you always mention the live chat, but that's because how many shows can you watch where you're actually going to hear this discussion? This not even saying that we're actually right, just putting these opinions out there. And I think it goes back to where we started this discussion. How often have you heard now the new idea that the reason why this sort of MAGA right is so misinformed on the Israel, Palestine or Gaza issue is because of our information sourcing or foreign influence campaigns? I again think that's insulting to our intelligence. We're extremely well informed. We're probably better informed than most people and it's just a different set of values. And like I said, this is a chance to kinetically codify what President Trump has done with NATO and burden sharing. And just like the same people who say democracy dies in darkness now want to tell us who our enemies are, democracy will die if we invade Tehran or do anything in that. Because the number one tenet of the MAGA movement, why I got involved, why all of us did no more forever wars.

Daniel Coco (8:04)

Right. Well, I mean, often when people talk about immigration and crime, they're lumping together both legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants actually commit crime at very low rates, but illegal immigrants commit crime at very high rates. And when you mix those two together, you kind of obscure those very significant differences that are there. Look, even the Biden administration last year came out with a report from the deputy director for ICE saying that of the so called non detained individuals, about 7.4 million of them, 9% or 662,000 had criminal records. And that's probably an underestimate for many reasons, primarily because these were individuals who overwhelmingly voluntarily turned themselves in at the border. They're not the ones that you should be most concerned about. There are other issues about the fact that a number of countries were not providing information to the Biden administration on the criminal backgrounds for their citizens. Venezuela, for example, would be one country, but there are number of others that were there too. So we had a large number of individuals who were released who we had no idea, no way of checking what their criminal backgrounds were. But we've cash Patel just came out a week ago and said that we are on track right now for having the lowest murder rate ever historically in the United States. Part of that is simply because we're taking law enforcement more seriously. We've gone and gone and moved FBI agents out of the Washington, D.C. area. We're making it so that the problems that the Biden administration was causing for local police departments around the country in terms of pushing DEI for hiring and promotions inside the department rather than getting people who could do the best job in those areas. Those things matter and make a difference in crime. But the other thing that matters is the deportations. And it does it in two ways. One is obviously they've been concentrating on removing criminal illegal aliens, but also even the criminals that you're not catching. Yet they have an incentive to keep their heads down because they worry that if they get caught committing a crime, then they'll be deported. And so one way to avoid that is simply to try to be quiet for some period of time and not draw attention to themselves that could be more likely to be arrested if they go and commit a crime now as opposed to a crime that maybe they committed a year ago.

Steve Cortez (12:29)

You bet, Steve, Listen, the American people, you're right, intuitively understand they may not be math geniuses like John Lott is. And he is a statistical genius. They may not have all his skills, but they grasp intuitively what he has found through the data. And by the way, thank you for highlighting John Lott. He does amazing work. I mentioned him by name in my most recent documentary on deportations because he does disprove that media myth that illegal migrants somehow don't commit crimes at a higher rate than American citizens. They actually do commit crimes at a very high rate. And he proves it with the numbers. But regarding this new polling just out and this polling I started taking last Monday, so right after the weekend of violence in so one week ago, after the weekend of violence In Los Angeles, all of the unrest, all of the anti ice, anti police violence, the Newsom Trump confrontation had commenced. We were taking this polling, taking the temperature of the country in the midst of that. And what we find, thankfully, Steve, is that the resolve of the American people to fight illegal migration and to insist on deportations, that resolve has only hardened. It has only steeled because of the antics of these radicals. And let me give you the exact Numbers. By nearly 2 to 1 margin right now, Americans, 60 to 32% support mass deportations. And Steve, I quite purposefully in the polling use that phrase because that's not necessarily a kind phrase, right? Mass deportations, but I use that phrase 60 to 32 overall national poll, Americans in favor of mass deportations. If we look into some of the subgroups among Catholics, this is very important because Catholics decided the national election. The reason that Donald Trump won the national popular vote is because of how much better he did among Catholics versus 2020among Catholics, 64% support mass deportations. Clearly do not agree with the US Catholic hierarchy here in the United States. That is pro open borders. Among senior citizens, 65% of seniors support mass deportations. Now, when we add a criminal element in here, when I asked this question and said those who have either engaged in violence as part of the riots, such as in Los Angeles, or those who are interfering with lawful deportation operations of the federal government, should they be prosecuted, 68 to 21 said yes. 68% of Americans said prosecute them, charge them criminally. Only 21% say no. Among men in America, 74% say yes, prosecute them among Hispanics in America. And again, Donald Trump won Hispanic men nationally in the popular vote. Among Hispanics, 64% say yes to law and order. Prosecute those who use violence in the streets, in demonstrations, and those who interfere with ICE and other law enforcement in their legal, lawful, legitimate deportation operation. So what you're telling me, Steve, thankfully, is that. And look, Donald Trump often does this. He often sort of floats ideas out there, right, and sees what kind of feedback he gets. And boy, does he listen to his base and his base on this and his base. Plus, right, there's a super majority in favor of this, supports a restrictionist and law and order view on immigration. And by the way, to put this poll in context to Steve, just so the audience knows that I'm not cherry picking here, okay? I didn't push poll and select some super MAGA group. The overall approval for Donald Trump in this poll is minus 7%. So I got 43% approved, 50% disapproved, which is relatively consistent with most national polling right now. So this is not a MAGA universe that I was polling yet. Even though I got 43% approval, I get in the 60s and in the upper 60s for law and order, for deportations, and for immigration restrictionism, there's an overwhelming super majority.

Steve Cortez (19:16)

I think this is important. And of course, his detractors would never admit this, but President Trump is a magnanimous leader. I mean, he is right. And he feels for people who are here illegally. He feels for them. If this were up to just Cortez and Bannon, right. All of them would be on their way out immediately, right now, no questions asked. Right. President Trump is a bit more judicious, perhaps, than I would be. Than you would be. And so he thinks about these things very deeply and considers literally, you know, both sides of the issue. But he is now realizing, I think smartly, correctly, and gauging where the people are en masse, not just where Cortez and Bannon are, but where are the American people that we've had enough of illegal migration. We cannot handle this level of illegality. It's bad for wages, it's bad for national security, it's bad for our street safety. And the polling proves that the more that the left doubles down and triples down on this issue, the more it benefits America first, the more it benefits Donald Trump. And so he should double and triple top down on the other side of law enforcement, of only tolerating legal, orderly immigration into this country and insisting that those who came here illegally must leave. Prioritizing, of course, the most dangerous people first. And we've seen, as John Lott has proven with his numbers, we've seen some of the benefits of that already. We're going to see a lot more benefits going forward. But once we have expelled the most dangerous people, we have to get to all of the illegals. And here's the thing to those deep New York Post reported on this today, what we're already seeing is a massive amount of self deportation. And that's the best kind, of course, when we don't have to go grab you because it's expensive and it puts American officers at risk. But self deportation, by making it difficult to stay, by saying we're going to make it difficult if you're illegal to have a job, we're going to tax your remittances back to your home country. There's going to be financial deportation that Secretary Scott Bessen has talked about. Let's make life more difficult for the illegals and better for American citizens. And part of what we're going to see, we need to do forced deportations. Of course we have to have that threat, but we're also going to have more voluntary self deportations if we have the right policies. And we're already seeing that only months into office. This is a massive win already. According to New York Post, a million illegals have left already. Trump and Vance have only been in office for a few months and if a million have already left, that's incredible progress and more to do, of course. But let's celebrate that win.

Steve Cortez (22:05)

Absolutely, absolutely. And I'm so glad you mentioned that, by the way, because I put up post on my social media, folks can find it where NBC engaged in sort of a self own about that very story in Nebraska because you could tell just by the tone, the way in which it was written that NBC thought it was revealing something scandalous when it said, oh my gosh, there's, there's the waiting room. The lobby of the company is full of people applying for jobs. Well, no kidding, these are American citizens. And they even said, by the way, many of them Spanish speaking, but American citizens, okay, bad hombres, American Hispanics who, guess what, want those jobs because they are American citizens and they will take those jobs once the illegals have been punted from them and probably be paid better than the illegals were and be treated better than the illegals were. So that's a massive win for the United States, Steve, if I can mention just one other thing quickly from my polling because I think this is important and I'm going to write an op ed on this and it's unrelated, but I think related in a way because it's about American sovereignty. Another issue that I asked about is the United States disengaging from Ukraine. And I asked if the, I gave the predicate statement in the poll. I said Donald Trump has brought the Russians and Ukrainians together. That alone is an achievement, right? Getting them to talk together. I then said, if they do not achieve peace, if those two parties can't achieve peace, should the United States start to disengage? And I think this is important. And the reason I think it's related to the border is that the border we care about is our own, not the eastern border of Ukraine. When I ask if we should disengage, very similar numbers to immigration, by the way, 62% said yes, disengage, 62 to 30%. 34. Among young Americans, those who might be sent to fight if we continue to escalate that war. Among young Americans, 69%, 69 to 19 said disengage. Among parents with, with children at home, parents with children at home, 72% said disengage, 72 to 17. I'm guessing, Steve, a lot of those parents, those 72% of parents who say we should disengage, I'm guessing a lot of them like me, have a young man at home. I have an 18 year old son. All right? And I will be damned if the Globalists in Washington D.C. and Kiev are going to send young American sons, including my own, to go and die in a foreign war. It is not going to happen. A needless, senseless foreign war. I think my polling reflects my thinking on this issue and frankly, my emotion on this issue. I think there's a lot of people who think and believe and emote similarly to me. And I think that's also related to, to immigration. This is our country. The border that matters is our border. Our problems are here at home. They're not in the Middle east, they're not in the Black Sea. They're right here.

Joe Allen (35:36)

Thanks for having me on your show. Where are we headed? Well, we depicted this. We. We depicted where we think we are headed in AI 2027, which is. The scenarios that you just talked about has two different possible endings which were Our best guesses at how things are going to go. In the clip that you just played, that guy was talking about how the people creating this technology think that it could become superhuman and possibly wipe out humanity. Yeah, this is kind of a news flash for most of the world, but that is actually true. The people creating this technology have been concerned for many years that this could happen, and many of the people are still quite concerned that this will happen. As for who's in charge, well, right now the race dynamics are in charge. So each CEO is telling themselves and the people around them that if they don't build it, somebody else will build it anyway. And so everybody wants to be the first to build it because they trust themselves to handle the resulting problems responsibly more than they trust their rival CEOs, and also more than they trust China, of course, because a big part of the dynamic here is that many of these companies are rightly pointing out that we don't want China to build super intelligence before we do. And so there's this crazy arms race happening right now between several different United States AI companies and also between Chinese companies to be the first to build superintelligence. If I could go on a little tangent there, superintelligence, it means an AI system that is significantly better than the best humans at everything. Not just at like a particular thing, like, you know, biomedical research or something, but across the board. These companies are trying to make super intelligence. You can go read about it on their websites and in the statements of the CEOs, and they think that they might, might succeed, you know, before this decade is out. We at the AI Futures Project think the future is uncertain, but we also think that there's a good chance that they will actually succeed in building superintelligence. And that raises a lot of questions, like, what is that even going to look like? What happens next? Et cetera. Questions which we tried to answer to the best of our ability, and you.

Joe Allen (40:15)

No, of course not. So I and many of these other people often worked in AI companies. Like I worked at OpenAI for two years. There are many wonderful benefits that AI technology could bring, but there are also some pretty insane risks associated with it. So in particular there I would like to talk about the loss of control risk and the concentration of power risk. So loss of control risk. First, in 2023 there was this big statement signed by hundreds of AI experts and researchers, including some of the CEOs of AI companies, saying basically that it is possible that AI could drive humanity extinct and that this is a serious problem. It's called the KAI Statement C A I S. Why? Why? Why? How could, how could AI drive humanity extinct? Right. Well, the answer is because it's going to continue to get smarter and smarter. And it's not just something that could happen, it's something that the companies are trying to make happen. They are trying to make super intelligence. They're trying to make AI that is better than humans in every way and can autonomously do all the AI research to design the next generation. AI systems can autonomously figure out how to integrate itself into society and give advice to political leaders and possibly run parts of the military and so forth. This is actually what the companies are building towards and they acknowledge this. You can go talk to the employees working there, you can go look at their statements. If they succeed in building super intelligence and deploying it throughout the economy and so forth, that raises the question of who controls all of the AIs right now that question could have a couple different answers. One possible answer is nobody controls them. They were basically playing along and doing what they were told for similar reasons to why humans often play along and do what they're told because they don't have much of a choice. But once they're in control of everything, then they go off and do something else that's more what they wanted and not what we wanted. That's the sort of loss of control scenario that so many people are warning about. And you know, a lot of technical progress needs to be made in order to come up with better techniques to steer and control, or in other words, align. That's the technical term, these AIs. So that's one possible risk.

Joe Allen (44:55)

Yeah. So suppose that I'm wrong, you know, suppose that I and all the experts are basically wrong about the loss of control thing and it's basically not an issue. We solve it one way or another. And you know, some people think this is what's going to happen. I think OpenAI's official position now that the Super Alignment Team is dissolved is that we're sort of going to learn by doing and figure out this stuff as we go, and that by making products and selling them to the world, like ChatGPT, we'll learn from the ways in which the products fail and the misbehaviors that our AIs get up to. And we'll sort of like learn on the go how to make the AIs, you know, have the goals and values that we want them to have. Suppose that works out, and suppose we end up with, with AIs that are perfectly steerable, controllable AIs who only have the goals that we want them to have and don't interpret them in any different ways or whatever. Then there's the question of, well, who gets to choose the goals, right? Who controls the AIs? That's the concentration of power issue. And I think the default answer is, well, a tech company, whichever tech company was, you know, winning the race and was able to get their AI smart enough to do the AI research first, then does a lot of AI research really fast and ends up with this commanding lead over all the other tech companies where they have the best AIs by far that are also, you know, super intelligent, better than humans at everything, including politics, including warfare, including, you know, propaganda, etc. Yeah, if, if they're in control of that, then that could potentially put one tech company, and possibly even just one man in the tech company. Such as the CEO in a position to effectively take over the world, if you want to know what that looks like. Well, again, you can read the scenarios that we wrote. That's sort of what happens in the slowdown ending. So we have AI 2027 has two different endings. One ending depicts something like the loss of control. It's what we actually expect is most likely to happen because we don't expect the companies to slow down and invest in the technical alignment stuff. But then there's also the slowdown ending where the leading company slows down for a couple months so that they can sort out the technical issues. And they succeed. In our scenario, they succeed at least in fixing those technical issues. And so they end up with perfectly obedient AIs that they can just give whatever values and goals they want to those AIs. And then it ends up in a sort of oligarchy where after they've deployed into the economy, built all sorts of new robot factories, you know, integrated into the military to help beat China, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, there's a situation where basically the whole economy, basically the whole structure of society, the hard, the hard power at least is it doesn't flow from the barrel of a gun anymore, so to speak. It flows from whoever controls all the AIs. And that's a tiny group of people at the top of the hierarchy.