Date September 21, 2026
Media Contact

‘This is not inevitable’: Brown University professor weighs in on the future of AI

Ellie Pavlick, a computer scientist who leads Brown’s National Science Foundation AI research institute, discusses AI doom scenarios, the frontier labs “slowdown” and how to make AI safer.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Even by Silicon Valley standards, things have been moving incredibly quickly in the world of AI over the past few weeks.

Late last month, OpenAI revealed that some AI agents it was testing had escaped their sequestered sandbox, jumped on the internet and hacked into Hugging Face, a sharing platform for AI models and datasets. Other frontier labs have recorded similar instances of agents performing in unexpected, potentially dangerous ways.

After several warnings from industry insiders about AI safety, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an open letter proposing that frontier AI labs should collaborate to slow down model development, invoking, with apparent earnestness, the specters of civilizational collapse and human extinction. As lawmakers scramble to keep up, industry insiders are talking openly about their “p(doom)” — the estimated probability that AI will become so powerful and autonomous that it simply decides to kill all humans. 

While deeply skeptical of the idea of putting a probability on human extinction at the hands of robots, Brown University computer science scholar Ellie Pavlick says there are very real reasons to be concerned about the trajectory of AI development. Pavlick leads Brown’s National Science Foundation-funded AI Research Institute on Interaction for AI Assistants (ARIA), which aims to develop models for trustworthy and safe AI assistants. 

She spoke about recent AI developments in an interview. 

Q: Should I start by asking your p(doom), in the parlance of our time?

Talking in terms of probabilities never makes a ton of sense to me. I think those numbers are just purely made up. I would say in general, however, I don't think it's crazy to say there could be some very severe consequences to AI being deployed more quickly than we have time to get our heads around and to apply the appropriate checks and regulations. I'm not living my life as though the world is about to end, but I think we definitely should be taking these things seriously.

Q: What about the other side of that coin? People have been talking about amazing breakthroughs — cancer cures, renewable energy breakthroughs, new materials. Are those things possible?

I consider myself to be an optimistic person in general, and optimistic about technology in particular. So, yes, I think there are some real potential benefits here. But I don't think that the potential positive benefits justify racing ahead at all costs and not thinking it through. People always promise that AI will cure cancer. It’s kind of a joke, but I’ve been saying that if AI leads us to this hellscape with no art or music or humanity, I would prefer to just have the cancer. These are real philosophical conversations. Does extending life justify all else? I think some people in Silicon Valley have a really clear opinion about what the answer to this is, and I don't think it would be shared by the average person on the street.

I don't think it's crazy to say there could be some very severe consequences to AI being deployed more quickly than we have time to get our heads around and to apply the appropriate checks and regulations.

Ellie Pavlick Professor of computer science
 
a person sitting in a chair

Q: How about Hugging Face and other instances in which AI agents have behaved unexpectedly and ended up hacking into other companies’ systems? What should we make of those incidents?

These kinds of software attacks seem within scope of stuff we could have expected to happen. I think we're realizing that there are a lot of cracks in a lot of code, all over the internet. So, yes, I think a real concern is things like software attacks. A version of this that worries me could happen if we hook these up to things in the real world — a factory floor or the means of production, so to speak. To me that sounds like something we should objectively not be doing at this point. 

What do you think about the proposal by the frontier AI labs to slow things down?

I would be very supportive of them slowing down. This has been discussed for five or six years in academia and outside the labs. I feel like many people I know have been supportive of this since then. I wish it had happened a while ago, and we'd be in a less panicky situation now.

But I also think about this in terms of supply and demand. The frontier labs are the supply side, and we could certainly be doing things on that side. But there’s more to it. Something that has frustrated me about this conversation is that it really puts the frontier labs as the main characters. People seem to just be asking which lab has the most powerful model and is it powerful enough to kill us all. But that backgrounds everything else. AI doesn't get control of stuff that we don't give it control of, or that we don't expose it to. We still have control over how widely it’s deployed. I think it's worth remembering that there are still decisions to be made on that. There's not an inevitable progression outside of our control. There are a lot of powerful players in government and in non-AI corporations that have control over the deployment side, and I think that can make a big difference into how well or badly this could go. For some reason, in the national discussion, it's always just taken for granted that this is inevitable and we have no control. But in reality, we can say “no.”

Q: I realize you’re an AI expert and not a public policy expert, but what would you as a technologist say is a practical thing the government can do in the short-term?

Right, not my expertise, but I think one approach might be to just require humans in the loop — simply making it so you're not allowed to give control over certain things to autonomous agents. I think that could make a big difference. I’ve also heard people making an analogy to how we investigate plane crashes. When planes crash, third parties are allowed free rein to investigate what happened. But for something like the Hugging Face attack, there were like three third-party researchers who looked at this. They’re smart, credible people, but they’re pretty close with that company. That’s not the most robust way to investigate something. I think something closer to the crash investigation model is the way to go. 

Q: How has all of this influenced the work that ARIA is doing?

ARIA is a research institute that brings together computer scientists, cognitive scientists and civil society experts to think about how we build AI that interacts safely with humans. We’re focused primarily on the basic science that will help us answer hard questions about humans, AI and their interaction.

We just met with our external advisory board to talk about this exact question — basically, how does an institute like ARIA have impact in this kind of an environment? There’s absolutely a role for academic research in this, but academic research works on a different timeline than Silicon Valley. And so we're trying to kind of figure out how to thread this needle. What I would hate to see is a situation where everything feels so time-sensitive that no one thinks long-term anymore. This is a common thing I hear from Silicon Valley: We don't have 10 years to think things over at the rate things are moving. But if we don’t do forward thinking now, we’re going to be far worse off 10 years from now.

Tags