Jeremie Harris

Things Jeremie Says on Podcasts

Physicist-turned AI startup founder who co-founded the AI safety company Gladstone AI and the AI mentorship marketplace SharpestMinds. Has briefed senior government and security officials in Canada, the US and the UK on AI risk. Co-hosts Last Week in AI, the weekly AI news podcast and newsletter, with Andrey Kurenkov. Previously hosted the official Towards Data Science podcast.

Where to Find Them

Jeremie Harris hosts and writes Last Week in AI , hosts Last Week in AI and writes Your Undivided Attention . They have also been a guest on NonZero Newsletter , Limitless: An AI Podcast , The Gradient , Doom Debates! , Bankless , The Cognitive Revolution" | AI Builders, Researchers, and Live Player Analysis and Super Data Science: ML & AI Podcast with Jon Krohn . They also write for Jeremie Harris on Substack.

Recently: ““AI Chernobyl” Will Scare Trump and Xi To Order An Immediate Pause — Jeremie & Edouard Harris” on Doom Debates! (October 2026); “#260 - Muse, Misalignment, Math” on Last Week in AI (October 2026); “The Race to Control AI (Robert Wright & Jeremie Harris)” on NonZero Newsletter (October 2026); “#259 - Dots, Sonnet, Self-Safety, Rogue AI” on Last Week in AI (October 2026); “LWiAI Podcast #258 - Opus 5.5, Sol and Luna, Muse, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, Xi” on Last Week in AI (October 2026); “LWiAI Podcast #257 - GPT 6 Astra, AI Extinction, Security Incidents” on Last Week in AI (September 2026).

What They Said

“We were expressly told by OpenPhil not to talk to the U.S. government to really do much of anything on the AI risk issue. Because if you talk to the U.S. government, you see, they're going to hear you say AGI is going to be a really big deal. … And then they're going to ignore everything you say about the risk. They're going to do a Manhattan project and just get us killed sooner. That was literally the frame that we were given by multiple people at OpenPhil at the time.” — Jeremie Harris, Doom Debates!

Harris is explaining why he and his brother stayed outside the effective-altruist AI safety world in the early 2020s, when Open Philanthropy was the main funder of the field. He says they ignored the advice after a couple of weeks and started talking to officials anyway. He adds that he doesn't mean it as a gripe against Open Philanthropy.

Doom Debates! · 2026-10-20 Permalink → Listen →
Doom Debates! Around 09:36 into the episode
Edouard Harris

…the Kaplan paper, scaling laws for neural language models. And the GPT-3 paper itself also had these scaling laws. This is back when the Frontier Labs actually published stuff, right? So you could actually look and see, like, well, ask yourself, what happens if this just keeps going? And it has.

Liron Shapira

Nice. And then even before 2020, what was your guys' entry into the rationalist community or any adjacent community or EA? How far back do you go?

Speaker 3

…arguments for loss of control found them pretty hard to refute. And from, I think from outside that world, it was a lot easier to decide to do something. There was like a period in 2020 where like Open Philanthropy was like the only funder of AI safety kind of work, right? And obviously they were aligned to like Dustin Moscovitz and there's all the kind of politicization that comes from that. We were expressly told by OpenPhil not to talk to the U.S. government to really do much of anything on the AI risk issue. Because if you talk to the U.S. government, you see, they're going to hear you say AGI is going to be a really big deal. Maybe the labs have figured out how to build it. And then they're going to ignore everything you say about the risk. They're going to do a Manhattan project and just get us killed sooner. That was literally the frame that we were given by multiple people at OpenPhil at the time. And we took it seriously for all of two weeks before we, our instinct, the startup founders was really just like…

Edouard Harris

Within the government also, it's, you know, it's kind of cliche to complain about bureaucracy, but it really is a huge, huge problem. We've seen this in our business that we want. Like we mostly sell to the U.S. government or the armed forces, but also just like talking to people. Some of the best…

Liron Shapira

Nice. Okay. We're going to definitely keep diving into your latest report about what's going to go down with the U.S. and China and your recommendations. But first, backing up a little bit, I want to get some more info about you guys. I first became aware of your work in, I don't even know, a…

Speaker 3

Oh, geez. How, so are we special or are we really super duper extra special? I think that's a question for our mom first and foremost. But the, so I. I do think there's something we're so Ed, with your apologies, I'll say that I think there's something neuroatypical about Ed in particular. In…

Speaker names from our own diarization · position estimated from where the line sits in the episode
“It's an open secret that a lot of the people in the frontier labs will tell you 10% or more when what they really mean is like 70%.” — Jeremie Harris, Doom Debates!

Asked for his "P(doom)", the chance that AI goes catastrophically wrong, Harris puts his own estimate at 60 to 70% if things carry on as they are. He then says people at the labs tend to understate their own numbers in public, though he thinks deliberate action can still change the outcome.

Doom Debates! · 2026-10-20 Permalink → Listen →
Doom Debates! Around 1:20:52 into the episode
Speaker 3

…say that I think it's starting to matter between 10 and 90%. And the reason I'm saying that is as we contemplate scenarios like the phone call, the sort of Trump she phone call, we actually do have to weigh what is the probability of escalation to nuclear war with our adversaries. And what's that?

Edouard Harris

That's a good point. Yeah. No, you're right. We're in a new regime.

Speaker 3

…say there's the agentic version of this and there's the non-agentic version of this. If we just like in a vacuum, say, you know, things proceed as they appear to be proceeding, like, what's your P doom? I'm pretty goddamn pessimistic. And, you know, some combination of weaponization versus loss of control. I don't know. I might be sitting at like 60, 70%, something like that. By the way, I mean, it's an open secret that a lot of the people in the frontier labs will tell you 10% or more when what they really mean is like 70%. And I think that's its own problem. But like agentically, we actually can do stuff. We'll have to surprise ourselves with the level of agency we demonstrate, but I think we absolutely can do it. We've done it before in cases like COVID. And weirdly, and this sounds like it should be priced in. I don't know how to price this in. I expect us to do something super agentic. I hope it's not something…

Liron Shapira

Got it. Got it. Okay. Last question I want to ask you guys is so PAS AI US. I'm a volunteer for that organization. Also Pause AI Global. I'm part of that as well. Do you think that those movements are net positive or negative?

Speaker 3

Ed, do you have a take on this? I need a second to think about this.

Edouard Harris

Um it's very so there was always going to be a focus point for such things, I think. I can't confidently answer the question, I think. I'm not I'm not actually sure.

Speaker names from our own diarization · position estimated from where the line sits in the episode

Collections They Appear In