OpenAI Co-Founder’s AGI Bunker Plan Sparks Widespread Concerns

In a startling revelation that has reignited the global debate over the risks of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever reportedly suggested building a doomsday bunker to shield top researchers from an AI-triggered catastrophe. The proposal, made during a 2023 internal meeting, came to light in excerpts from journalist Karen Hao’s upcoming book, Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI, and was published by The Atlantic.

Sutskever, widely regarded as the technical mastermind behind ChatGPT, did not make the bunker remark in jest, according to those present. During the meeting, he said, “Once we all get into the bunker…” prompting a puzzled reaction from a colleague who asked, “I’m sorry, the bunker?” To that, Sutskever responded, “We’re definitely going to build a bunker before we release AGI.”

The idea of building a literal bunker to survive the release of AGI—an AI system that can outperform human cognition in virtually all tasks—has sparked fresh concerns about the internal mindset of the teams working at the forefront of artificial intelligence. Hao’s reporting reveals that this was not a one-off statement. Multiple OpenAI insiders confirmed that Sutskever regularly referenced the concept in meetings and discussions about AGI’s risks.

This revelation comes amid a growing chorus of high-level warnings from within the AI community itself. Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google DeepMind and a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, recently stated that society is still unprepared for the scale and speed at which AGI is approaching. “I think we are on the cusp of that,” Hassabis said in an interview. “Maybe we are five to ten years out. Some people say shorter, I wouldn’t be surprised.”

He elaborated further, saying, “It’s a sort of probability distribution. But it’s coming, either way it’s coming very soon, and I’m not sure society’s quite ready for that yet.” His comments echo a growing sentiment among leading technologists that the trajectory of AGI development is accelerating faster than regulators, ethics bodies, or even the general public can keep up with.

The core fear lies in the potential uncontrollability of AGI. Unlike current narrow AI, which is trained for specific tasks, AGI would possess the ability to reason, learn, and adapt across domains just like a human. This level of autonomy, combined with speed and scalability, introduces existential risks that even its creators are openly acknowledging.

Sutskever’s bunker remark is emblematic of that fear. It suggests a scenario in which AGI either escapes control or is intentionally misused, creating circumstances so dangerous that a secure underground facility may be required to protect those most knowledgeable about its construction.

While Sutskever has not commented publicly on the revelations from Hao’s book, his past positions on AI safety are well-documented. As one of OpenAI’s earliest advocates for responsible development, he co-authored papers warning of the unintended consequences of advanced AI. However, the shift from theoretical risk to physical preparation, such as proposing a bunker, indicates a dramatic increase in concern among insiders.

The issue also raises ethical and societal questions: If the creators of AGI feel compelled to plan for an end-of-days scenario, what does that say about the technology’s broader impact? More importantly, how is the public being involved—or left out—of such critical conversations?

Hassabis has called for the creation of a global oversight body, similar to the United Nations, to regulate AGI development. He argues that international collaboration will be essential to mitigate the risks posed by these technologies. It’s a proposal gaining momentum as more researchers admit that existing frameworks are ill-equipped to govern such transformative systems.

Despite the sensational nature of the bunker story, it points to a very real and pressing dilemma. With the race to AGI heating up among tech giants and startups alike, the stakes have never been higher. The potential benefits of AGI are vast—curing diseases, solving climate change, revolutionizing education—but so are the risks. From unemployment due to automation to loss of control over intelligent systems, the consequences could be irreversible if not properly managed.

For now, society remains largely a spectator in the AGI arms race. Most people interact with AI in benign ways—through recommendation algorithms, customer support bots, or tools like ChatGPT. Yet, behind the scenes, the world’s brightest minds are already contemplating worst-case scenarios and drawing up survival plans.

Ilya Sutskever’s bunker may never be built, but the fact that it was seriously proposed by one of the world’s foremost AI researchers is telling. It’s a reminder that AGI is not just a technical milestone—it is a paradigm shift with the potential to redefine life as we know it. And before that shift occurs, perhaps it’s time for society—not just scientists—to decide how to meet it.