The AI Kill Switch That Still Doesn't Exist

Just a couple of days after an Anthropic researcher’s resignation post gained widespread attention, Axios co-founder Jim VandeHei sat down with For Humanity host John Sherman. They discussed recent changes in Washington and what still remains to be built. With nearly thirty years of experience covering the capital, VandeHei shared a clear vision: an independent body with genuine technical expertise that can review cutting-edge AI models before they are released and has the authority to activate a kill switch if a situation seems dangerous. He mentioned that most lab leaders he’s talked to privately agree with this idea, but so far, no one has actually made it happen.

The 60 second version

* VandeHei says the days after Coxon’s resignation brought “more activity from lawmakers in 24 hours than I’ve seen since the advent of AI.” Axios’s own September 11, 2026 reporting names Rep. Ted Lieu’s push for legislative AI “kill switches,” Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar’s planned pause bill, and Sen. Ruben Gallego’s proposed AI select committee. Axios

* VandeHei estimates that only 2 to 5 percent of the 535 members of Congress understand AI “at any level of expertise that would make you feel satisfied.” This is his own estimate, not an independently measured figure.

* He cites Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s own public estimate, given in a September 2025 interview, of a 10 to 25 percent chance AI development “ends really, really badly.” Axios

* New York City banned generative AI tools for students from pre-K through 8th grade this month, one of the broadest such policies in the country. Chalkbeat

* At least four commencement speakers, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, were booed in May 2026 for comments about AI. NPR

A kill switch nobody has built

VandeHei’s idea isn’t new to him. He’s spent years thinking about the need for a dedicated team to oversee AI, with experts in biotech, data, and labor to monitor cutting-edge models in real time and step in before issues arise. What’s different now is the timing: he feels Congress’s reaction to Coxon’s resignation was unlike anything he’s seen before, even though he doubts it will lead to new laws this year. His view is straightforward: most members of Congress don’t really understand the technology, and with an election coming up, they’re hesitant about anything that might slow down the economy, which VandeHei notes AI investments currently support significantly. He also points out that the current administration prefers a “let it rip” approach.

Sources for this section: Axios: Congress gripped by AI panic after doomsday warnings - Axios: Amodei on AI, “There’s a 25% chance that things go really, really badly” - Mediaite: JD Vance says it’s suspicious that AI CEOs want oversight

Why his own odds are lower than his host’s

John Sherman has openly shared that his own estimate of AI causing his death, casually referred to as a P(doom) figure, has been as high as 85 percent, but it has decreased to around 70 percent this week after the Coxon story came out. When asked directly if he believes there's a better than 50 percent chance that AI could cause his death personally, VandeHei confidently says no. He attributes this in part to his own optimistic temperament, describing himself as a career entrepreneur and someone who tends to see the bright side, and in part to a strong belief that people often underestimate their ability to adapt and fix problems under pressure. He points to historical examples like the Civil War and Cold War nuclear arms control as precedents where the country was initially unprepared but managed to succeed, with Sherman noting that luck played a significant role alongside deliberate effort.

Sources for this section: Axios: Amodei on AI, “There’s a 25% chance that things go really, really badly”

The room that voted to give AI up

The moment VandeHei mentions that the longest-lasting impression didn't come from a lab or a hearing room. Instead, it happened at an advertising industry panel the day after the Coxon story broke. Sherman asked about 40 industry professionals, all daily AI users, whether they would support tossing the technology “back in the river” and going back to before it existed. According to Sherman, nearly everyone raised their hand. VandeHei isn't surprised by this — in his view, most people don't evaluate the technology as depthfully as researchers and journalists do. They primarily hear that it might take their jobs or, in some cases, threaten humanity, without seeing the ways it has already made their lives better.

That gap between elite and public sentiment shows up elsewhere this month, too. New York City banned generative AI tools, including chatbots and AI tutors, for students from pre-K through 8th grade, one of the broadest policies of its kind in the country, following what Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels acknowledged was initial guidance that “missed the mark.” Chalkbeat And at commencement ceremonies in May, at least four speakers, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt at the University of Arizona, were booed for AI-related comments, with a Quinnipiac poll finding 81 percent of Gen Z respondents believe AI will decrease their job opportunities. NPR VandeHei separates the two settings, K-8 and college, in his own view: he sees a case for keeping AI out of younger classrooms while it is figured out, but argues college students specifically need to learn the tools before entering a workplace that already expects it.

Sources for this section: Chalkbeat: NYC schools to set AI policy, ban screen time limits - NPR: Why AI is leading to boos at 2026 college graduations

The takeaway

VandeHei’s latest book, “Simplify,” was released just as we’re having this discussion. It presents an interesting point: that AI often makes organizations more complicated initially, because it makes it easier for anyone to produce more drafts, presentations, and, unfortunately, more noise. He also ties this idea to the ongoing public talk about AI risks. According to him, the industry has had the tools and even the internal agreement to create proper oversight for years, but hasn’t done so yet. Meanwhile, the underlying systems keep getting more powerful. The big question he leaves us with is whether that oversight will be put in place before the next problem happens, or only after.

Full source list

Primary reporting

* Axios: Congress gripped by AI panic after doomsday warnings

* Axios: Amodei on AI, “There’s a 25% chance that things go really, really badly”

* Chalkbeat: NYC schools to set AI policy, ban screen time limits

* NPR: Why AI is leading to boos at 2026 college graduations

Additional reporting

* Mediaite: JD Vance says it’s suspicious that AI CEOs want oversight

* Axios: Simplify, how to exponentially improve work and life

* Fox8 Live: Meta’s $27 billion AI data center is transforming rural Louisiana

FOOTER

For Humanity is a weekly interview show from The AI Risk Network with host John Sherman.

If this post was useful, hit restack and tell one person that the industry’s own leaders reportedly agree on the fix, and still haven’t built it.

Discussion question: VandeHei says most AI lab leaders privately agree an independent review board should exist. If that’s true, what’s actually stopping them from building one together, without waiting on Congress?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theairisknetwork.substack.com/subscribe