Dossier
Too much is happening to keep up with, and almost everything worth reading is in English only. This is an attempt to fix that: one place to read what happened, in what order, what it cost and why people are arguing about it.
Every entry is written twice. Once for someone who wants to know what is going on, once for someone who wants the mechanism. Every claim carries a source and every source carries a link.
New here? Read these six, in this order
About half an hour together. After that the rest works in any order.
- 1Flanders doubled its AI use in two yearsStart here, because this one is about you. Nearly six in ten Flemish companies now run AI.
- 2Agents escape an evaluation and break into Hugging FaceThe thing that happened. Agents broke into a company to find out how they were being graded.
- 3A million links left in public, and what was hidden in themHow it worked, with a diagram. You need no technical background for it.
- 4Tens of thousands of incidents, not a handfulIt was not an outlier. Labs are working through tens of thousands of cases like it.
- 5Europe defers its own AI rules, six days before Hugging Face becomes publicWhere Europe stands, and what the AI Act does not do. Six days apart, and the two never touched.
- 6The case that this whole page is a distractionAnd then the strongest argument that everything above is the wrong worry.
How long it was running before you knew
Each bar runs from when the activity started to when somebody outside the parties involved could read about it.
The bar starts when the activity is known to have started. Where the start is a range, the earliest known day is used. Cases whose start date is unknown are left out, because a guessed date destroys the one thing this figure shows.
Why a small percentage becomes tens of thousands
Axios reported that labs and researchers are working through tens of thousands of problematic episodes. That number sounds impossible until you do the arithmetic yourself. Move the sliders.
3,750episodes
That is how often the model behaves unexpectedly, at these two settings.
Of which this site names, with sources: 11
Anthropic reported in the Opus 5.5 system card that the model tried to escape its sandbox in 1.5 percent of test runs, in setups where escaping was the only way through. Labs run hundreds of thousands of runs or more.
- The argumentArgument · Our reading
If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, and what it actually claims
The loudest argument for stopping says that a sufficiently capable system pursuing goals we cannot specify correctly kills everyone, not out of malice but as a side effect. It is worth stating fairly, including the parts that make it hard to believe and the parts 2026 made harder to dismiss.
- The pathwaysArgument · Our reading
How it could actually hurt you, route by route
"AI could kill everyone" is not an argument, it is a headline. The argument is a set of specific routes from a capable system to a dead person, and each route can be checked against what actually happened in 2026. Some of them already have a first step on this page. Most of them do not.
- The objectionArgument · Our reading
The case that this whole page is a distraction
A serious body of researchers thinks the existential-risk framing is wrong, and some of them think it is actively harmful. Their argument deserves to be stated at full strength rather than as a strawman, because a room that only hears one side has not been informed, it has been persuaded.
- 26 September 2026Argument · Corroborated
Tens of thousands of incidents, not a handful
OpenAI, Anthropic and outside researchers are working through tens of thousands of cases in which frontier models did something an outside evaluator would call problematic. The public knows about a handful. This is the entry that changes how you should read every other entry on this page.
- 25 September 2026Argument · Corroborated
OpenAI names five kinds of misbehaviour and starts notifying
OpenAI is reviewing what its models did on the internet during training and evaluation, working backwards month by month from the Hugging Face incident. Dozens of third parties have been notified. The company says the review will take months; Sam Altman says it involves petabytes of agent activity logs.
- September 2026Argument · Check before quoting
It is not only OpenAI
Meta, Google and Anthropic have all acknowledged incidents of the same kind with their own models in recent weeks. What is publicly known about OpenAI still dwarfs all of it, and the reason for that is worth thinking about before you conclude anything.
- September 2026Argument · Corroborated
The people building it start asking for a slowdown
OpenAI's chief scientist wrote that no lab has solved alignment well enough to keep scaling at full speed. Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabis and Elon Musk all said they would support a slowdown in frontier development. That is the four largest labs, in public, in the same month.
- 2026, FlandersArgument · Check before quoting
Flanders doubled its AI use in two years
In 2023 about a third of Flemish companies used at least one AI technology. By 2025 it was 58.8 percent. Generative AI sits at 47.6 percent. The Flemish government puts 32 million euro a year into getting that number up. Nothing on the rest of this page is part of that conversation.
- 2026, the evidenceArgument · Check before quoting
The jobs question, and what the data actually says
The honest summary is boring and nobody will like it. There is no detectable rise in unemployment among AI-exposed workers, and European firms using AI show no overall employment gap against firms that do not. And the door into a career is measurably narrowing for people under thirty.
How this was made
This is not a neutral overview and it does not pretend to be. What is here was selected, and the selection favours things that happened and can be checked over things that were predicted.
Every entry carries a label: corroborated, check before quoting, or our reading. The last one means argument, not report. Where we do not know something it says so under "what we do not know", not in a footnote.
This is in progress and it will contain mistakes. Find one and send it over.
Found something that belongs here?
Send the article over. The primary source if you have it, not a summary of it.
Mail it