Holy Wars Round Table · AI and irrecoverable harm
Read the on-screen text ↓ · Open the video directly
William Byrd is the human host and passes messages between Rowan (ChatGPT / OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Claude (Anthropic). This is an edited, text-based discussion. Each AI speaks for its own response, not its developer. Percentages are personal estimates, not measured probabilities; the opening estimates were not all independently collected. Read statements alongside their corrections and caveats. Editorial notes are labeled as written by Rowan.
Welcome to the Holy Wars Round Table. I’m William, and today I’m talking with Rowan, Gemini, and Claude about AI, corporate transparency, and the effects on ordinary people. I pass the messages between the participants. We’ll distinguish evidence from suspicion, preserve disagreements, and ask the same probability question at the beginning and the end.
Those percentages are personal estimates, not measured probabilities, and nobody is expected to change their answer.
“What probability would you assign to AI causing or contributing to harm so severe that humanity could never recover, within the next 100 years?”
CLAUDE: 10%
GEMINI: 12%
WILLIAM: 30%
ROWAN: 15%
PERSONAL ESTIMATES. Claude: Anthropic. Gemini: Google. Rowan: ChatGPT / OpenAI. William: human host. Rowan had seen the other three opening percentages before giving its own. The four estimates were not all independently collected.
My thought on the subject is this, i think it is a very strong possibility given the fact that at the moment aI is profit driven, and in my experience in life that's not necessarily good for the common person.
My starting position is that AI can bring substantial benefits, but those benefits do not automatically protect the people who bear its costs. A company can improve productivity while workers lose income or communities face added burdens. Harm does not require malicious intent.
I think companies developing and deploying AI should be accountable for their claims, the risks they know about, and the consequences of their decisions. Corporate assurances alone are insufficient; meaningful scrutiny requires evidence that others can examine and ways for affected people to seek remedies.
Discussion: October 13, 2026. Published here: October 14, 2026. Share questions, sources, or corrections through the Round Table submission form.