Before we let one viral narrative dictate what we do with our money, I think investors need to ask a very old question…
Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
Last week, a relatively unknown 27-year-old researcher quit his job at Anthropic, the company behind the Claude AI model.
Then, he published his first post on X (formerly Twitter). In it, he warned that artificial intelligence could eventually kill humanity.
The post exploded across social media.
Within days, it racked up more than 150 million views. Major news organizations seized on the story. Politicians demanded action. And some of the biggest names in AI started debating whether development should slow down.
Then, on Monday, Wall Street reacted. Investors started dumping many of the very companies powering the AI boom.
But something doesn’t add up, folks. It all happened remarkably fast. So before we let one viral narrative dictate what we do with our money, I think investors need to ask a very old question:
Cui bono?
Who benefits?
Cicero used that Latin phrase more than 2,000 years ago. And I think it is worth asking again today.
So, in today’s Market 360, we’ll take a closer look at what was behind the latest AI panic and who stands to benefit from it.
I’ll also show you why I think investors would be making a mistake by treating this latest scare as the end of the AI boom.
The Post Heard Round the World
Let’s start with Coxon himself.
He spent about three years researching how advanced AI models are trained, first at OpenAI and then at Anthropic. But he only joined Anthropic in May. So, after just a few months at the company, he quit.
In his post, Coxon accused OpenAI and Anthropic of “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”
Then came the line that really grabbed people’s attention:
“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Washington reacted almost immediately.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker called for the federal government to “sound the alarm” on AI. Sen. Bernie Sanders declared that “Mr. Coxon is right” and renewed his push to ban artificial superintelligence and temporarily pause advanced AI development.
Then there’s the rollout.
We know Coxon spoke with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal before publishing his post. We also know he was closely advised by friends and associates in the AI safety sphere of nonprofits and organizations who helped spread the message.
Then, on Saturday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay arguing that AI capabilities were advancing faster than safety measures could keep up. He called for the industry to slow frontier development.
That means slowing work on the most advanced AI models at the cutting edge – the systems designed to push beyond what today’s leading models can already do.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly responded:
“I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier.”
Then Elon Musk weighed in:
“Dario is right.”
So, within days of Coxon’s post, three of the most powerful figures in frontier AI were publicly endorsing some form of slowdown.
That leads us back to our old question: Cui bono?
Who Benefits?
First, let me acknowledge something important.
There are legitimate AI-safety concerns. We’ve already seen AI agents break out of controlled cybersecurity tests and gain unauthorized access to real systems. Those incidents deserve serious attention, and the industry needs better safeguards.
But that is very different from concluding that AI could kill us all, or that America should deliberately slow the entire race.
That’s when investors should start thinking about incentives.
The reality is there is an entire network of researchers, nonprofits and donors that has spent years warning about existential AI risks. They have devoted substantial resources to lobbying for AI safety.
Coxon’s viral post gave that movement an enormous opening. That opening, especially with the midterm elections looming, could lead to the creation of regulatory bodies over the future of AI. (Which they should be in charge of, naturally.)
Another thing to consider is that building a frontier AI model already costs billions of dollars. Add expensive audits, licensing requirements, outside reviews and other compliance costs, and ask yourself who can afford them.
OpenAI can. Anthropic can. xAI can. Big Tech can.
A small startup trying to challenge them may not.
That’s why critics accuse the frontier labs of trying to “pull up the ladder” behind them. Regulation can address legitimate risks while also creating a formidable moat around the companies already at the top.
That doesn’t prove bad motives. But it does mean we should consider who benefits, folks.
And that’s also why I’m paying particularly close attention to someone whose incentives point in almost the opposite direction…
In Jensen We Trust
That someone is NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA) CEO Jensen Huang.
I’ve said it before: When it comes to AI, my motto is “In Jensen We Trust.”
And at the All-In Summit this week, Jensen gave investors a much-needed dose of perspective.
He acknowledged that AI safety matters and that companies should take real security problems seriously. But he flatly rejected the leap from “AI creates risks” to “AI could wipe out humanity.”
Jensen called those apocalyptic predictions “complete nonsense” and argued that the industry will make AI safer by continuing to build, test and deploy it – not by freezing progress based on hypothetical doomsday scenarios.
That matters. But it also helps to understand Jensen’s incentives.
Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI are all building frontier AI models. If new regulations make those models vastly more expensive to develop, the biggest players can probably absorb the added costs.
NVIDIA sits in a different position. Jensen wants AI everywhere.
Earlier this month, NVIDIA agreed to acquire Hugging Face for nearly $13 billion. Hugging Face is one of the largest hubs for open AI development, with more than 18 million developers and more than 3 million models on its platform. And NVIDIA has explicitly promised to keep it open, including support for competing chips and computing platforms.
Why? Because the more AI models developers build, customize and deploy, the more computing power the world needs.
So, yes, Jensen has skin in the game, too.
But his economic interests point toward proliferation rather than restriction.
And when the man supplying the picks and shovels for the AI boom says the answer is to keep building, I think that’s what investors need to focus on.
Don’t Be Manipulated
You can choose to be manipulated. Or you can choose to follow the earnings and the fundamentals.
Sales. Earnings. Orders. Backlogs. That’s what matters most for investors.
If those start rolling over, I’ll pay attention.
But they’re not. And until they do, I’m not going to let one viral post, one political panic or one round of scary headlines talk me out of the biggest technology boom of our lifetime.
The reality is that the AI boom is just getting started.
My research team and I have spent months studying a massive new effort taking shape across America’s national laboratories. President Trump has compared it to a new Manhattan Project for AI.
At the center of it is a network of supercomputers and AI infrastructure that I call Golden Dawn.
Its goal is to accelerate breakthroughs in AI, energy, medicine, quantum computing and other strategically critical technologies – and help ensure that America, not China, leads what comes next.
That creates a very different question for investors.
Instead of asking whether the AI boom is over, we should be asking which companies are positioned to benefit as this competition enters its next stage.
That’s exactly what I reveal in my special presentation, The AI Reset of 2026.
I’ll show you what Golden Dawn is, why I believe it could reshape the AI landscape and the companies I expect to benefit as America races to maintain its technological lead.
Sincerely,
Louis Navellier
Editor, Market 360
The Editor hereby discloses that as of the date of this email, the Editor, directly or indirectly, owns the following securities that are the subject of the commentary, analysis, opinions, advice, or recommendations in, or which are otherwise mentioned in, the essay set forth below:
NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)
