US President Donald Trump: AI Apocalypse Warnings and Climate Change Are the Same Group of People
Donald Trump, in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly and on social media, linked warnings about the AI apocalypse with claims that "all will die within twelve years due to global warming," attributing them to the same group of people. He stated that this group has also created narratives related to Russia, Ukraine, and climate, and now claims that robots will attack humans, leading to disaster.
He argued that whoever wins in AI will win the overall game, asserting that the US is currently ahead of China and will not suppress growth due to warnings. He compared this technology to being a greater variable than the Industrial Revolution or the Internet. He suggested that it should be cautiously handed over to the Department of Justice and law enforcement, to be reined in if necessary, with a policy direction encouraging AI and what he termed superintelligence. He also discussed possibly changing names and is promoting data center construction domestically.
The background is a rising debate on safety within the industry: a researcher at Anthropic publicly resigned citing existential risk. Trump framed the safety advocates and climate proponents as the same political group, using the phrase "no deaths" to undermine the credibility of climate warnings, and applied the same logic to model risks. The function of his speech was to authorize an acceleration path, portraying slowing down and regulation as a repetitive panic script.
In market mechanisms, this represents a policy premium: the buyers are US companies looking to build computing power and models, while the sellers are the White House framing safety regulation as a competitive burden. Funding flows towards data centers, electricity, and chips, rather than safety assessment preparation. Beneficiaries are domestic cloud and model laboratories; those under pressure are safety researchers advocating for slower deployment and local communities opposing data centers. The event-driven aspect is the UN platform combined with social media, not new model incident reports.
The competitive framing shifts the safety debate from an engineering issue to a factional issue.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Trump uses categorization to handle two types of long-tail risks: linking the twelve-year climate deadline with AI apocalypse warnings as being from the same authors, allowing the latter warning to inherit the political stigma of the former without verification. The UN platform turns this categorization into foreign policy—prioritizing leading over China over existential discussions. The Department of Justice's "to be reined in if necessary" shifts safety from pre-research to post-enforcement.
The capital pathway is the national competition budget. Data centers, electricity, and chips gain political cover, while resignations from safety labs become noise that can be categorized as "the same group of people." The motivation is to prevent regulation from becoming a unilateral decelerator in the US-China computing race. Resource mobilization relies on presidential narrative power, rather than new technical assessment agencies.
The analogy falls into Cold War missile gap rhetoric and early Internet privacy warnings framed as anti-growth. The industry phase shifts from laboratory safety debates to a period of national industrial policy control. The position is not in model alignment papers, but in who has the authority to define "panic" and "leading."
Structural judgments belong to regulatory changes. The mechanism is: two types of risks that are difficult to falsify within an election cycle, once written as the same author's work, public policy will choose immediately visible competitive indicators—computing power, electricity, chips—while leaving the less visible tail risks to post-enforcement. Renaming and acceleration are the same action: first seizing naming rights, then seizing production capacity.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Once two types of long-tail risks are written as the same author, the latter no longer needs verification.
The competitive framing can shift safety from engineering to faction.
When post-enforcement replaces pre-assessment, production capacity will always outpace rules.