MIT Technology Review recently hosted a subscriber roundtable asking whether AI could erase humanity. One article serves as the event's page, offering the recording; another is a follow-up column that tackles questions the live 30-minute session left unanswered.
Both pieces agree on the urgency behind the discussion: people inside prominent AI labs have said that advanced systems might pose an existential threat. The roundtable description sets up a contrast between treating those warnings as credible and writing them off as hype, and the Q&A carries that same uncertainty forward.
The two texts do not conflict; they differ in role. The event page archives the conversation, while the follow-up reflects how much more the audience wanted to know. Taken together, they suggest that public debate over AI risk is still broad, unresolved, and hungry for expert input.