In a revealing interview with the Irish Times, journalist Karen Hao, author of the newly released book “Empire of AI: Inside the Reckless Race for Total Domination,” disclosed a chilling sentiment among some of the most influential figures in artificial intelligence. Hao, who has spent years embedded in the tech industry as a former senior AI editor at MIT Technology Review and a correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, shared that many AI executives are so convinced of impending catastrophe that they’ve opted out of parenthood. “Many choose not to have children because they don’t think the world is going to be around much longer,” she stated, highlighting a profound pessimism that contrasts sharply with the utopian promises these leaders publicly peddle.

This revelation stems from Hao’s extensive reporting, including interviews with insiders at companies like OpenAI, where she uncovered how the pursuit of AI dominance often prioritizes profit over human welfare. Her book, published by Penguin Press and detailed in a recent profile on Rest of World, argues that AI firms operate like modern empires, exploiting global labor forces and resources in a race that could exacerbate inequality and environmental harm.

The Pessimism Driving AI’s Elite

Hao’s insights draw from firsthand accounts, painting a picture of an industry gripped by existential dread. Posts on X, formerly Twitter, echo this sentiment, with users like Nyokabi Jesse amplifying Hao’s quote and sparking discussions about the irony of tech moguls engineering tools that could hasten societal collapse. One such post, garnering over 100 views, questioned the ethics of leaders who build AI while harboring apocalyptic fears, reflecting broader online conversations about accountability in tech.

Industry insiders might recognize this as part of a larger pattern. Hao’s previous work, including a 2023 Wall Street Journal investigation co-authored with Deepa Seetharaman, exposed the human toll of AI development, such as data annotators suffering PTSD from moderating toxic content for models like ChatGPT. As she noted in that piece, companies like OpenAI have relied on precarious global pipelines of low-wage workers, often in developing nations, to train their systems—a practice she likens to colonial exploitation in her book.

Ethical Lapses and Global Exploitation

Delving deeper, Hao critiques how AI’s “reckless race” mirrors imperial ambitions, with tech giants extracting value from vulnerable populations without regard for long-term consequences. In a podcast interview on The Radical AI Podcast, she discussed bridging tech ethics with public policy, emphasizing how journalism can expose these power imbalances. Her Wikipedia entry, updated as recently as May 2025, highlights her role in producing “In Machines We Trust” and the newsletter “The Algorithm,” which have long scrutinized AI’s social impacts.

Recent news on X, including a June 2025 post by Mario Nawfal with over 100,000 views, hyped Hao’s exposés on OpenAI’s internal power struggles, underscoring how the nonprofit’s original mission devolved into a for-profit empire under leaders like Sam Altman. Hao’s book, as reviewed in a May 2025 article on TechPolicy.Press, calls for “decolonizing the future” by resisting AI’s unchecked expansion, which she argues threatens democracy through surveillance and misinformation.

The Broader Implications for Society

For industry veterans, Hao’s warnings resonate amid growing regulatory scrutiny. Her Atlantic contributions, as noted on her personal site karendhao.com, train journalists worldwide on AI coverage, fostering a more critical lens on tech’s hype. A Reddit thread in r/technology, with users debating Hao’s Irish Times interview, reveals public frustration: one commenter likened AI bosses’ childless choices to a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” where their doomsday mindset accelerates the very risks they fear, like climate inaction amplified by energy-hungry data centers.

Yet Hao remains cautiously optimistic, advocating in her book for ethical reforms that prioritize human rights over dominance. As she told the Irish Times, the massive investments in AI—often at the expense of exploited workers—may yield innovations, but at what cost? Industry insiders must grapple with this: if even AI’s architects doubt the world’s longevity, perhaps it’s time to rethink the race altogether.

Pathways to Accountability

Hao’s reporting, cited in government inquiries and university curricula, pushes for transparency. Her 2019 MIT Technology Review interactive on AI bias, still referenced today, demonstrated how systemic flaws compound societal harms. Recent X posts, such as those from Gabriel Reid sharing excerpts from “Empire of AI,” highlight threats to democracy, including AI’s role in creating a “new colonial world” through data extraction from the Global South.

Ultimately, Hao’s work challenges tech leaders to align their actions with their rhetoric. As detailed in a 2021 WiDS Worldwide blog post, she has long called out “ethics washing” in the industry—superficial commitments that mask deeper issues. With AI’s footprint expanding, her insights serve as a clarion call: the empire of AI may promise progress, but without ethical guardrails, it risks leaving a barren legacy for generations that some bosses already believe won’t exist.