By Stuart Kerr, Technology Correspondent
Published: 10/09/2025 | Updated: 10/09/2025
Contact: [email protected] | @LiveAIWire
From Fiction to Front Page
When the San Francisco Chronicle asked whether “everyone, everywhere on Earth, will die,” it wasn’t quoting a dystopian novel but summarising two new books on superintelligent AI. In its report on how two authors foretell extinction, the paper captured the sharp rise in apocalyptic AI narratives dominating bestseller lists and think‑tank debates. These aren’t just abstract thought experiments—they are shaping how the public imagines the future.
The Language of Doom
The sense of crisis is amplified by public figures who mix technical warnings with religious imagery. As AP News noted, the rhetoric surrounding AI often sounds prophetic. Terms like “apocalypse,” “Armageddon,” and “existential risk” enter the lexicon not just as metaphors, but as serious talking points from leading researchers and CEOs. Another SF Chronicle analysis highlighted how AI apocalypse language is escalating, blurring the line between scientific caution and cultural myth‑making.
This framing is powerful: when leaders invoke the end of civilisation, it inevitably captures attention—but it may also heighten public fear far beyond the available evidence.
Academic Takes on Catastrophic Risk
The academic community is also dissecting these narratives. One recent arXiv paper reviews arguments for catastrophic AI risk, from the so‑called “Singularity Hypothesis” to the possibility of power‑seeking behaviour in advanced systems. Another study on AI narratives shaping governance argues that stories of apocalypse aren’t neutral—they influence policy by creating urgency, sometimes crowding out more pragmatic concerns like transparency, equity, or regulation of existing harms.
The upshot: how we talk about AI risks directly affects how governments, companies, and citizens respond to them.
Fear, Anxiety, and Attention
For many people, these stories translate not into action but into anxiety. Psychologists warn that the spread of AI doomsday discourse can mimic the effects of doom‑scrolling—constant exposure to worst‑case scenarios feeds despair and paralysis. In the same way LiveAIWire has examined how AI and Emotional Manipulation shapes behaviour, so too can narratives of apocalypse manipulate collective mood.
The parallels extend further. Just as our reporting on Beyond Algorithms — Hidden Carbon & Water showed how environmental debates are skewed toward carbon while ignoring water, the fixation on extinction risk can overshadow urgent but less dramatic challenges—like biased algorithms or uneven access to AI benefits.
And as discussed in Can Publishers Survive Zero‑Click Era?, the media’s incentives often reward alarmism, ensuring that apocalyptic framing circulates widely.
Between Preparedness and Panic
So are we facing a sober warning or a cultural panic? The truth may be somewhere in between. Apocalyptic narratives can spur investment in safety research, regulation, and ethics. But they can also distort priorities, elevate speculative risks above present harms, and leave the public feeling helpless.
The challenge is not to dismiss catastrophic risk outright, but to contextualise it. AI could pose profound dangers—but it is equally a technology already shaping daily life in ways far less dramatic, yet still consequential.
About the Author
Stuart Kerr is the Technology Correspondent for LiveAIWire. He writes about artificial intelligence, ethics, and how technology is reshaping everyday life. Read more