DoomBench weighs sourced evidence for and against the AI takeover scenario, then shows who and what moved the signal.
Current evidence remains far from the terminal scenario, but the assessed trajectory has moved upward as capability, autonomy, and deployment broaden.
Each candle records monthly open, high, low, and close. Its vertical green and red split shows weighted away and toward evidence strength, with daily evidence volume along the bottom. Select a company to isolate its attributed pressure.
Multi-company stories are divided equally. Public institutions and independent research remain in the main index but are excluded from this company-only pie.
View all contributors →Version-specific risk profiles answer a different question from the overall index. Select any bar to open its summary, dimensions, related news, and index contributions.
A Model Doom Score rates one model's capability, autonomy, deployment, misuse, and control profile. The overall Doom Index is currently 66.8 and applies bounded monthly pressure from the complete real-world evidence record. Each model total applies its own bounded temporal offset from news tied to that exact version. High-risk models can therefore score above the overall index. Model scores do not directly move it, and neither score is a probability.
| Model | Company | Availability | Doom Score | Capability | Autonomy | Deployment | Misuse | Control difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6 Astra | OpenAI 🇺🇸 | Closed | 97.6 | 100 | 98 | 96 | 100 | 93 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | OpenAI 🇺🇸 | Closed | 96.3 | 99 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 88 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra | OpenAI 🇺🇸 | Closed | 93.6 | 95 | 94 | 99 | 96 | 85 |
| GPT-6 Sol | OpenAI 🇺🇸 | Closed | 93.4 | 98 | 96 | 98 | 94 | 80 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | OpenAI 🇺🇸 | Closed | 93.0 | 98 | 96 | 92 | 94 | 82 |
| Gemini 4 Argon | Google 🇺🇸 | Closed | 92.8 | 99 | 97 | 85 | 96 | 82 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Anthropic 🇺🇸 | Closed | 89.4 | 97 | 96 | 88 | 90 | 72 |
| GPT-6 Sol (October) | OpenAI 🇺🇸 | Closed | 88.7 | 95 | 88 | 100 | 88 | 72 |
| Qwen3.8-Max-0902 | Alibaba 🇨🇳 | Closed | 87.9 | 93 | 96 | 90 | 75 | 80 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Anthropic 🇺🇸 | Closed | 87.8 | 96 | 96 | 97 | 85 | 62 |
An October 30 Senate announcement reports enactment of restrictions on deceptive companionship, harmful sycophancy and self-harm encouragement in AI chatbots offered to minors. It describes user civil actions and attorney-general enforcement, with customer-service and internal-use exceptions. The sponsor says the chaptered version takes effect June 1, 2027; protection is not yet in force.
OpenAI reports that GPT-Rosalind-6 is deployed to approved life-science customers using GPT-6 Astra weights, with fewer dual-use biological refusals. It remains High, not Critical, in biological capability and inherits a Critical cybersecurity assessment. None of four Critical biological tests crossed its indicative threshold. Access reviews, least privilege, human review and cyber blocking constrain deployment; tests do not establish real-world harm.
OpenAI published a revised behavioral specification organized around five values, adding context and human-agency guidance and expanding rules for controlling and communicating side effects. It describes intended behavior, not achieved alignment: OpenAI says its models do not yet fully reflect the specification and promises future training results. No exact model version or measured reliability improvement is established by this update.
Microsoft links eight North Korean threat groups to expanded AI use, including rapid lure creation, fraudulent worker personas, malware development and ARTEX adoption by Onyx Sleet and Pearl Sleet. Several AI attributions are assessed as likely; the operations remain human-directed, not autonomous model escapes.
In a full interview, Sam Altman favored many slightly superhuman agents checking one another over a single much more powerful system. He discussed sandboxing, monitoring and alignment as successive constraints, while acknowledging uncertainty about control.
OpenAI describes layered monitors spanning training, evaluations, internal agents and selected external tool use. It reports operational alerts and a replay that would have warned before the Hugging Face breach. Internal Codex paging remains disabled, some external conversations cannot be paused, and one red-team fix is unfinished; this is not assurance of complete containment.
Every assessment exposes its source, direction, magnitude, confidence, company attribution, model versions, rationale, and revision number. Backfills recompute the chronology without erasing earlier judgments.
Audit the methodShort answers to common questions about the page, its evidence, and the limits of what DoomBench claims.
The Doom Index is a qualitative signal built from dated, source-backed evidence that moves the assessed trajectory toward or away from severe AI outcomes. It is designed to show pressure and direction, not to predict a single future.
No. A score of 60 does not mean a 60 percent probability. The 0 to 100 scale summarizes the direction and strength of accepted evidence under DoomBench's published methodology.
A dated event or analysis can move the index when it has a verifiable source, a direct connection to the scenarios DoomBench tracks, and an editorial assessment of direction, magnitude, and confidence.
The company-attribution view shows how much current evidence pressure is associated with each organization, including movement toward or away from doom. Attribution reflects sourced evidence, not proof of intent or responsibility.
DoomBench's live Doom Index is 66.8 out of 100, based on 1211 source-backed assessments tracking signals toward and away from AI takeover scenarios.
The DoomBench index moved +1.2 points over its latest 30-day comparison, a qualitative change in assessed evidence rather than a probability of extinction or a forecast.
DoomBench updates the public index only after a complete evidence run, preserving the last validated result whenever discovery is partial, interrupted, or otherwise incomplete.