Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

We speak to the prominent AI researcher and leading critic of the AI industry, Timnit Gebru, who was recently awarded a 2026 Right Livelihood Award for her work investigating the harms and hype behind the global buildup of artificial intelligence.

“Instead of discussing faulty, unreliable systems,” Gebru says tech leaders like SpaceXAI’s Elon Musk, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei are “marketing their systems as all-knowing, superpowerful, superintelligent,” and lobbying for “self-policing and self-regulation” to avoid being held “liable through existing laws.” Gebru expresses skepticism over increasingly widespread claims that AI algorithms pose an existential risk to humanity, warning that such claims are overblown and that “what is actually happening is regulatory capture.”

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: On Tuesday, President Trump and leading tech and AI executives signed a set of voluntary safety standards for artificial intelligence. Trump announced the agreement at the White House alongside SpaceX’s Elon Musk, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, Google’s Sundar Pichai and others.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: These are the most brilliant people in the world, and the job they’ve done is unbelievable. We have a very big lead, and we’re going to keep our lead. And it’s a very positive thing. It’s an amazing industry. There are those that say it’s bigger than the Industrial Revolution. Now, I don’t know if that’s so, but everyone seems to think it is, and it could be substantially bigger. And we’re leading, and we’re going to keep it that way. Related Story Op-Ed | Politics & Elections AI Company Leaders Capitalize on Fear to Lobby for Regulations That Suit Them We can’t let AI companies launder responsibility for tools they created. By Talia Ringer , Truthout September 28, 2026 Truthout

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: These are the most brilliant people in the world, and the job they’ve done is unbelievable. We have a very big lead, and we’re going to keep our lead. And it’s a very positive thing. It’s an amazing industry. There are those that say it’s bigger than the Industrial Revolution. Now, I don’t know if that’s so, but everyone seems to think it is, and it could be substantially bigger. And we’re leading, and we’re going to keep it that way.

AI Company Leaders Capitalize on Fear to Lobby for Regulations That Suit Them

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The White House meeting came after weeks of warnings from AI companies about their own products. In early September, an Anthropic researcher named Jacob Coxon resigned and warned that there’s more than a 10% chance AI could kill all humans. Anthropic has warned investors that advanced AI could pose, quote, “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.” But the claims and motivations of the leading AI firms have also been questioned by some.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show with a leading critic of the AI industry, Timnit Gebru. She’s an AI researcher and the founder and executive director of the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, or DAIR. Prior to that, she served as co-lead of the ethical AI research team at Google. She was fired in 2020 for writing a paper warning about the dangers of large language models and raising issues of discrimination in the workplace. Timnit Gebru also co-founded Black in AI. Her forthcoming book is titled Deep Unlearning: The Rise of AI and the Radicalization of a Tech Idealist.

On Wednesday, Timnit Gebru received the 2026 — it was announced she’s receiving the 2026 Right Livelihood Award, known as the Alternative Nobel. In a moment, she’ll join us. But first, this is a short video produced by Right Livelihood.

TIMNIT GEBRU: Most people think that AI is an existential risk. MATTHEW AMROLIWALA: There is a 10% chance AI will kill us all in the next decade. It’s pretty clear why that statement has worried so many people. SAM ALTMAN: If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong. TIMNIT GEBRU: But it’s actually the people who are building it that are the existential risks to humanity. If a bridge collapses, we don’t ever ask, “Was the bridge uncontrollable? Was the bridge unethical?” And really, AI is no different than that. When we describe these systems and artifacts like they have their own agency, we’re at the very same time helping the companies market themselves. But more importantly, what we’re doing is we’re also helping them sidestep accountability. I’m a scientist trying to just do science, but it’s not possible in our world to just do that. Ten years ago, I was focused on changing the minds of powerful people, whereas now I’m focused on building grassroots power. The institute that I created, DAIR, we have technologists, we have refugee advocates, we have labor organizers, we have artists, and we also collaborate a lot with other people. I’ve been able to create a safe space for people like this to make their mark on technology and also imagine and reimagine what it means to build technology. What motivates me to keep going is the belief that we have to try to make things better, and I really do believe in human agency, and I believe in the ability of collective action. We can change things.

TIMNIT GEBRU: Most people think that AI is an existential risk.

MATTHEW AMROLIWALA: There is a 10% chance AI will kill us all in the next decade. It’s pretty clear why that statement has worried so many people.

SAM ALTMAN: If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.

TIMNIT GEBRU: But it’s actually the people who are building it that are the existential risks to humanity. If a bridge collapses, we don’t ever ask, “Was the bridge uncontrollable? Was the bridge unethical?” And really, AI is no different than that. When we describe these systems and artifacts like they have their own agency, we’re at the very same time helping the companies market themselves. But more importantly, what we’re doing is we’re also helping them sidestep accountability.

I’m a scientist trying to just do science, but it’s not possible in our world to just do that. Ten years ago, I was focused on changing the minds of powerful people, whereas now I’m focused on building grassroots power. The institute that I created, DAIR, we have technologists, we have refugee advocates, we have labor organizers, we have artists, and we also collaborate a lot with other people. I’ve been able to create a safe space for people like this to make their mark on technology and also imagine and reimagine what it means to build technology. What motivates me to keep going is the belief that we have to try to make things better, and I really........

© Truthout