Six AI catastrophe claims reveal one argument with no shared scale

The Guardian asked six experts to examine common claims about catastrophic AI risk: that a model could hijack the internet through a botnet, that leading researchers place the probability of doom above ten percent, that safety warnings are a regulatory-capture strategy, that AI deserves nuclear-scale treatment, that development should slow, and that China makes restraint impossible. The result is not a verdict. It is a map of incompatible evidence. Skeptics argue that the internet is heterogeneous and resilient, present systems still struggle outside weak targets, exact doom probabilities are not falsifiable, and broad regulation can entrench incumbent laboratories. Risk-focused researchers answer that powerful systems could exploit vulnerabilities at machine speed, present safeguards may not generalize, and uncertainty is not reassurance when the consequence is irreversible. Superintelligence does not exist and its arrival is not guaranteed. Current misuse, unreliable systems, cyber escalation, and compressed human decision-making are nevertheless observable concerns. The reporting's value is to separate mechanisms that are too often bundled together. Institutions should stop asking whether AI catastrophe is real as one binary proposition. They should require each claim to identify the demonstrated capability, access conditions, time horizon, defenses, reversibility, confidence, and evidence that would change the assessment. That discipline will not end disagreement. It can prevent the most dramatic claim from erasing present harm and prevent uncertainty about the future from becoming permission to ignore a credible mechanism.