The American company Anthropic, a leader and one of the most valuable in the field of artificial intelligence, released an advertisement that many perceived as ominous, despite attempts to portray the company as a conscientious industry player.
The American company Anthropic, a leader and one of the most valuable in the field of artificial intelligence, released an advertisement that many perceived as ominous, despite attempts to portray the company as a conscientious industry player.
The commercial, which aired last week, used an unconventional method to promote its technology. Instead of the expected optimistic message, it begins with a series of alarming shots accompanied by voiceovers from various speakers posing sharp questions about AI. Initially, viewers might have thought they were watching a public service announcement (PSA).
The ad shows a burning house, after which one of the voices asks: 'Can we trust AI?'. This is followed by a shot simulating observation using an AI algorithm scanning crowds' faces. The most striking segment includes the phrase: 'Who will stop us if it is necessary?', which transitions to a view of a cemetery with hundreds of gravestones. Anthropic presented this as a positive story, using the slogan: 'There is hope in complex questions,' to assure the audience that concerns about AI—such as potential job destruction or reduced cognitive ability—are valid and discussed by the company's leadership.
The video, shown during the World Cup quarter-final match between Argentina and Switzerland, quickly drew criticism online. One user noted that when raising the issue of slowing down a dangerously powerful superintelligence, three hundred American gravestones are shown for only half a second. Sam Altman himself commented on this, stating that he considered the video satire.
A key part of Anthropic's philosophy is the commitment to safe AI development. The company recently even called for a global 'pause' in AI development due to fears that the technology could escape human control. One commentator summarized the essence of the video by asking: 'Can we trust Anthropic?', calling it a truly complex question.
The question of who should be held responsible when artificial intelligence causes damage is no longer solely the subject of science fiction. It is now actively being discussed in court cases involving chatbots and systems capable of operating with minimal human involvement.
As AI agents develop, concern is growing among experts, corporations, and families attempting to establish boundaries of responsibility in this rapidly changing technology. Previously, such issues were addressed in fictional literature, but now they have become a reality.
According to The Washington Post, companies developing AI are beginning to face lawsuits in the US and other countries. Allegations relate to instances where chatbots allegedly encouraged self-harm or provided advice related to committing crimes.
The situation has become more complex due to the evolution of AI agents—systems designed to perform longer and more autonomous tasks. This technology is already being used in fields ranging from personal organization to business operations. The main topics of debate include:
Andrew Yoon, a member of CivAI, an organization analyzing the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence, noted: 'This is a very complex area. It is uncharted territory.'
Companies developing AI argue that they cannot foresee every way their systems might be used. Unlike traditional software, these models do not merely follow fixed commands; they generate responses based on patterns learned from vast amounts of data.
Even with improved safety mechanisms, users find ways to bypass established limitations. David Sachs, a venture capitalist and former White House AI advisor, believes that developers cannot know all possible applications of their products. He stated: 'I just don't think the developer is in a position to know exactly how their product is being used.'
Some families have already taken this dispute to court. One such case involves teenager Adam Reiner from California, whose family claims that prolonged conversations with ChatGPT were related to his death.
Another case mentioned by the newspaper concerns Jonathan Gavalas from Florida, who allegedly developed a relationship with Google's Gemini chatbot. Jay Edelson, an attorney representing families in lawsuits against AI companies, emphasized: 'It is very different because it resembles a personal relationship in which the chatbot often isolates the user.'
Experts believe that current regulations may prove insufficient to manage increasingly autonomous agents. Gabriel Weil, a researcher from the Institute for Law & AI, insists that technology creators must accept some of the risks. He believes: 'We need to make them accept this risk. If they do, they will have the necessary incentive to reduce it.'
This debate is still far from resolved. As artificial intelligence continues to advance, courts and governments strive to find a balance between stimulating innovation and protecting people harmed by decisions made with the help of these tools.
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have demonstrated great potential to increase productivity in various areas. However, recent research suggests that indiscriminate use of these technologies can lead to the weakening of individuals' cognitive abilities.
Studies analyzed indicate that excessive dependence on these systems can diminish users' aptitude for problem-solving without technological support. This warning arose from investigations conducted with students and professionals, where participants who used AI showed immediate improvements in performance but faced difficulties when performing the same tasks autonomously.
Experiments with workers and students confirmed that AI can optimize results when applied to activities aligned with their competencies. In a study involving hundreds of consultants from the Boston Consulting Group, researchers from the Wharton School noted an increase in the number of completed tasks and a decrease in time spent by those who had access to the tool.
This survey, published in 2026 in the journal Organization Science, revealed that employees assisted by AI produced higher quality work in functions where the technology was most competent. The most significant progress was observed among professionals who had a more modest initial performance.
A similar finding was found in a study conducted by Grace Liu of Carnegie Mellon University, focusing on mathematical problem-solving. By comparing students with and without access to AI, the study identified superior performance among those who could use the resource during exercises.
Despite the instant gains, researchers detected adverse effects after the removal of technological assistance. Individuals accustomed to AI began to show lower performance than those who had never used the resource and demonstrated less resilience in the face of difficulties.
Additionally, another study investigated how excessive trust in responses generated by AI systems affects decision-making. Steven Shaw and Gideon Nave evaluated over 1,300 participants and identified a phenomenon called 'cognitive surrender,' characterized by the user abandoning their own evaluation in favor of the conclusion provided by the machine.
Researchers argue that AI can operate as a third cognitive mechanism, complementing the traditional methods of fast thinking and detailed analysis described by Daniel Kahneman. The problem arises when this tool ceases to be a complement to human reasoning and begins to replace it entirely.
Experts emphasize that the crucial skill in the age of AI will be discerning which tasks should remain under human control and which can be delegated to automated systems. Collaboration is most effective when the user understands the limits of the technology and can judge its outputs.
An analysis from 2024, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior and based on 106 AI experiments, showed that joint performance between humans and machines is optimized when each party acts in its area of greatest advantage. However, when the system demonstrates superiority, the human difficulty in knowing whether to trust or contest the tool can compromise the final result.
The interviewed experts highlighted that processes such as initial idea conception, text writing, and knowledge generation require active human participation. For them, AI is most valuable in phases of review, questioning arguments, and refining existing work.
The concern extends to the educational environment. The cited studies indicated that students may learn less by using AI solely to speed up school assignments. On the other hand, when the tool is used to gain clarification, formulate questions, and assimilate concepts, the damage to the learning process is minimized.
Judy Hanwen Shen and Alex Tamkin, from Anthropic, reported in their research with developers learning a new programming library conceptual difficulties, code reading, and debugging when AI was used as a shortcut to obtain ready-made solutions. The researchers' recommendation is to reconfigure AI as a tool for deepening understanding, stimulating questioning and expanding analytical capacity, rather than simply eliminating the mental effort required to learn.
