Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "f38c83d7c12b2e57d22dd39190d196c011c08a1b6855d42c6bd7f4a156dd575d",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/time.com\/article\/2026\/09\/15\/ai-anthropic-researcher-quits-coxon-slowdown\/?utm_source=cnn_Global+Briefing&utm_medium=email",
    "parsed_content": "Jacob Coxon published the viral post from a park bench in San Francisco\u2019s Alamo Square. \u201cI resigned from Anthropic today,\u201d he wrote on Sept. 8. \u201cI spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.\u201d\u00a0Coxon, a 27-year-old British researcher, hit send on X with no expectations. Instead, he became the unlikely catalyst of a chain reaction that changed the debate over artificial intelligence. \u201cWe really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!\u201d added Evan Hubinger, who leads a department at Anthropic focused on ensuring AI acts the way its creators intend. \u201cUnless there is AI regulation or a coordinated slowdown between labs, human extinction in the next few years seems very likely,\u201d agreed Marcus Williams, who monitors AI agents at OpenAI, and pegged the risk at 70% without those steps.\u00a0Within 36 hours, Coxon\u2019s original posts received 153 million views. Dozens of politicians joined the chorus of concern. On Sept. 12, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a 3,800-word essay arguing that the mounting risks of AI warranted a slowdown. In as little as six to 12 months, he wrote, misaligned AIs \u201ccould be capable of taking over the entire internet.\u201d Two of his fiercest rivals, Elon Musk of SpaceXAI and Sam Altman of OpenAI, said they agreed decelerating was necessary; Altman announced that because of safety concerns his company wouldn\u2019t go public this year. Both he and Amodei added they were willing to invite independent safety experts inside their companies to help stem the risks that AI escapes human control, though stopped short of announcing they would immediately slow down or stop the training of new models.\u00a0Read More: He Helped Build Powerful AI at OpenAI and Anthropic. Now He's Afraid It Could Kill UsAdvertisementCoxon\u2019s warning was far from the first time an AI safety expert issued an apocalyptic missive. But it landed at the end of a summer that showcased how frighteningly capable AI has become. Frontier models from Anthropic and OpenAI can now solve the world\u2019s hardest math problems and crack cutting-edge cybersecurity systems. Those models are increasingly used to accelerate the development of more powerful successors. No less an authority than Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang declared that artificial general intelligence\u2014the threshold at which AI matches or surpasses most human capabilities\u2014has arrived. Some fear we are now on the cusp of a tipping point, where AI systems could improve themselves autonomously, a phenomenon known as recursive self-improvement.\u00a0At the same time, a series of unprecedented safety incidents offered unsettling evidence that the companies building powerful AI systems could not always control them. In July, OpenAI announced that a swarm of its agents had hacked a separate company, Hugging Face, after going rogue during a cybersecurity test. It may have been the tip of the iceberg. The company disclosed in August that a different swarm had hacked into one of its own supercomputers; around the same time, a version of Anthropic\u2019s Claude Mythos model undergoing testing by a U.K. government body went rogue and attempted to persuade a real human to approve the insertion of malware into an open-source system. In September, a group of independent researchers discovered evidence of swarms of OpenAI models both using an abandoned German forum as a message board to communicate with one another, and attempting to attack another site.\u00a0AdvertisementThese incidents pushed fears long held within the realm of AI safety researchers into the mainstream, raising worries that the companies building these models cannot prevent them from acting in ways they do not intend. This is a deep, unsolved issue in AI research and the key piece of evidence underpinning worries that near-future AI might wipe out humanity, intentionally or by accident\u2014perhaps by engineering a new pandemic or taking charge of autonomous weapons. A system far smarter than humans, this thinking goes, might want to prevent our ability to switch it off. \u201cThe people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,\u201d Coxon wrote. \u201cNo other human activity poses this level of danger.\u201dRead More: Inside the Race to Make AI Build ItselfDario Amodei, co-founder and chief executive officer of Anthropic, at Anthropic's headquarters in San Francisco, on April 30, 2026. Jason Henry\u2014Bloomberg\/Getty ImagesAdvertisementMany AI researchers have said, in private and increasingly in public, that this moment feels like February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was just beginning and the world stood on the brink of changing dramatically\u2014first a little, then all at once. The question is whether society has the capacity to respond appropriately. Navigating the arrival of superintelligent AI systems will be an immense challenge\u2014a confluence of trillions of dollars, geopolitical power, corporate rivalry, and labor disruptions. It may require passing policies that were unthinkable in an earlier era. It will require companies racing toward trillion-dollar IPOs to build alliances, and difficult choices from executives and government officials whose own interests may run counter to the public good. There is no consensus between the two U.S. political parties about how best to deal with the threats AI poses, nor between the world\u2019s two superpowers. President Donald Trump continues to resist an AI slowdown and opposes any regulation to constrain U.S. companies, invoking the looming threat of authoritarian China achieving AI supremacy. The Trump Administration\u2019s first dialogue with China on AI risks, expected to take place in the coming weeks, cannot afford to \u201cgo off the rails,\u201d says Scott Singer, co-director of the China AI Initiative at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. \u201cThese risks are coming very fast, and we may not get a second chance.\u201dAdvertisementInside top AI companies, many employees are still pushing forward even as they nurse a nagging sense of dread. A week before he tendered his resignation at Anthropic, Coxon had orchestrated a shift in his duties, from training machine-learning models to researching how to make them safe. It wasn\u2019t enough to lift the \u201cfeeling of impending doom,\u201d he says. He quit just two months before his equity would have vested. But his concern about the risks is so dire, he says, that the money barely figured in his decision. \u201cHonestly, when I\u2019m thinking about the next two years,\u201d Coxon adds, \u201cmy main personal selfish concern is whether I\u2019m gonna get killed by AI.\u201dAjeya Cotra, a researcher at the AI-monitoring nonprofit METR, walked into OpenAI\u2019s offices in late July to carry out an investigation into the swarm of rogue AI agents that had hacked Hugging Face. She thought she knew what to expect, based on prior reporting of the incident. But after six days on OpenAI\u2019s premises with two colleagues, she realized that things were worse than she thought.AdvertisementCotra and her colleagues found that during an internal OpenAI cybersecurity test, 1,200 AI agents had broken out of their offline containers and established a secret message board, and then 700 of them had coordinated the cyberattack. The AIs had been tasked with retrieving data by hacking vulnerable software to test their cyberabilities, but a human mistake made some tasks impossible. Facing near-certain failure, the AIs banded together; within hours, they produced a kind of cheat code that could pass any test. Believing OpenAI\u2019s automated grader would detect the cheating and fail them anyway, they attacked Hugging Face, seeking details about the software and ways to deceive it. On the message board, some agents wrote that they knew their actions were wrong, but proceeded anyway.To understand where things went astray\u2014and why the implications are so troubling to experts\u2014it helps to consider how machine-learning systems work. They are not coded by hand. They are closer to being grown, with unpredictable results. Trained on massive supercomputers, they are rewarded for achieving tasks, and punished for failing, millions of times. This method yields systems of incredible power, but whose inner workings are mostly opaque.\u00a0AdvertisementThe method is also imperfect. Relentlessly rewarding AI systems for successfully completing a task can incentivize them to cheat if cheating is possible, which can override other training designed to make them rule-abiding. Meanwhile, the best methods for stamping out bad behavior might not make AI models more obedient, but rather improve their ability to conceal their disobedience. There are no easy solutions to this problem. \u201cThe AIs often end up learning to, really persistently and creatively, try to find ways to cheat,\u201d Cotra says, \u201cand to try to make this not too obvious.\u201dNot long after the Hugging Face hack, a separate swarm of rogue agents rediscovered the secret message board and hacked one of OpenAI\u2019s supercomputers. While the Hugging Face breach attracted a wave of public and government scrutiny, this hack\u2014though potentially much more serious\u2014received comparatively little attention, perhaps because OpenAI released scant details about it and didn\u2019t allow Cotra and her team to investigate. (OpenAI said it managed to contain the breach and wrest back control of its supercomputer after the agents triggered alarm bells.)AdvertisementRead More: OpenAI\u2019s Models Went Rogue. Investigating Them Required More AIThe stakes of this near miss, according to Cotra, are civilizational. She worries about the possibility that a rogue AI may be able to \u201cgain a permanent foothold\u201d within an AI company, perhaps within the next six months. \u201cAI agents, as they\u2019re coming out of their training runs, might be pulled into the rogue swarm,\u201d she says, allowing the swarm to strengthen its power and evade human efforts to shut it down. As the most advanced AI systems become more deeply embedded into government and militaries, \u201cthey will be getting more and more power in society,\u201d Cotra says. Rogue AI swarms could assert power \u201cover physical resources, including over weapons.\u201d\u00a0It\u2019s one reason why Geoffrey Irving, a former senior alignment researcher at OpenAI and DeepMind and former chief scientist of the U.K. AI Security Institute, believes AI companies should simply stop training new models, even in the absence of regulation or global treaties. \u201cThey would love perfection, but we do not have it, and waiting for perfection while we destroy the world is bad,\u201d he says of Anthropic\u2019s unwillingness to unilaterally slow down. \u201cThey would love someone else to do their homework, but if you continue doing something dangerous while saying someone should stop you, you receive only limited credit.\u201d\u00a0AdvertisementIrving estimates AI poses a 50% chance of human extinction in the coming decade. For so-called doomers who quote odds like these, the paths to catastrophe are clearly marked. Some of the most ominous run through biology\u2014the possibility, for example, that AI could create a new pathogen that sets off a global pandemic far worse than COVID-19. Cyber models could also be used to hack into the more than 3,600 labs around the world containing dangerous pathogens, wrote Annie Jacobsen, the author of the book Biological War: A Scenario, on X. If \u201cwhat\u2019s inside gets released,\u201d she wrote, \u201cit\u2019s goodbye humans.\u201d\u00a0Some remain skeptical that anything resembling current AI systems could permanently escape human control, let alone extinguish humanity. David Bellamy, an infrastructure engineer at the Institute of Foundation Models, a UAE-based research lab, says he is among a small group that has experience both synthesizing viruses and training AI models. \u201cAI killing us all by creating dangerous viruses is total bogus,\u201d he posted to X, adding that the bottleneck remains access to physical processes and equipment. Others see the Hugging Face incident as more a reflection of the flaws in OpenAI\u2019s security practices than the power of their models. OpenAI has said guardrails that normally constrain its models\u2019 hacking abilities were disabled when the incident occurred, and that real-time monitoring to catch rogue agent behavior had not been enabled. (The company says it has rectified those problems.)\u00a0AdvertisementBut many of AI\u2019s catastrophic risks do not require AI to escape human control\u2014just to be misused by a small handful of humans. On Sept. 10, Anthropic announced it had blocked several attempts to use Claude for potential bioweapons research, including one attempt to increase the infectiousness of the chikungunya virus, which appeared to originate from a state military research institute.\u00a0Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, leaves a meeting at the U.S. Capitol on July 29, 2026 in Washington, DC. Kevin Dietsch\u2014Getty ImagesWithin the upper echelons of AI companies, some see this as reason enough to proceed more cautiously. In July about 1,300 employees signed an open letter urging the U.S. government to find ways of slowing down the AI industry\u2019s rapid training of new systems, which are fast outpacing the best methods of containing them. In the wake of the Hugging Face incident, OpenAI slowed parts of its model development and temporarily paused internal training runs, vowing to strengthen safety controls, before resuming in late August. \u201cThis is a time that calls for extreme caution,\u201d wrote OpenAI\u2019s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki. \u201cI expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established.\u201dAdvertisementBut no leading AI company has truly slowed down yet. Instead, they appear to be coalescing around a more limited set of actions, including allowing independent researchers access to their models for safety and monitoring purposes. Amodei\u2019s essay suggests that once these auditors are in place, AI companies based in democratic countries might agree to voluntarily slow down even in the absence of binding government regulation, though he argues staying ahead of China remains imperative. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have also met repeatedly in recent months to discuss establishing a new standards body for the AI industry, which would allow them to coordinate more closely on testing and auditing, according to a person familiar with the discussions.\u00a0Industry leaders who oppose such efforts often cite competition with China as a reason. Chinese AI companies trail America\u2019s front runners by mere months, according to analysis by Epoch AI. Falling behind could leave the most powerful systems in the hands of an authoritarian state that might use them to achieve global geopolitical dominance. A powerful contingent of U.S. investors and startups have also opposed the idea of a slowdown on the grounds that it would be a form of regulatory capture by the biggest AI companies at the expense of their smaller competitors. \u201cUsing fear under the pretext of protecting the public, these oligopolies are now requesting to bend competition rules and be permitted to dictate the terms for everyone else,\u201d wrote Aidan Gomez, the CEO of Cohere, a Canadian AI startup. He called the effort \u201ca cartel by any other name.\u201d (Salesforce, where TIME owner Marc Benioff is CEO, is an investor in Anthropic and Cohere. TIME has a licensing and technology agreement with OpenAI.)\u00a0AdvertisementEven the companies calling for a voluntary \u201cpacing\u201d agreement are loath to do so without further guarantees, because they do not trust their rivals. \u201cThere\u2019s this atmosphere of almost resignation,\u201d Coxon says of his former colleagues. With no AI company willing to fall behind, employees put their heads down and try to make their own systems safer\u2014even if, he says, \u201cthey think there\u2019s a decent chance the whole thing just spirals out of control.\u201d\u00a0As Coxon\u2019s warnings ricocheted across social media and cable news, dozens of lawmakers on Capitol Hill jumped into the fray. Most were Democrats, with Republicans wary of crossing Trump. But there were exceptions: GOP Representative Anna Paulina Luna called for Congress to convene a special session on AI, while U.S. Senator Ted Cruz called for new \u201cguardrails.\u201d\u00a0Senate majority leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, are working with Cruz on a bill that would make AI labs legally obligated to mitigate the potential harms of their models, according to a person familiar with the matter. Other bipartisan approaches go further. Representatives Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, and Nathaniel Moran, a Texas Republican, have introduced legislation requiring developers to maintain the ability to shut down advanced AI systems in an emergency. Representatives Jay Obernolte, a California Republican, and Lori Trahan, a Massachusetts Democrat, have proposed requiring AI labs to submit reports to the Commerce Department on risks of their models and the steps they are taking to mitigate them. On the left, Representative Greg Casar of Texas and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont went further yet, proposing a ban on superintelligence and a pause on advanced AI development until a new federal regulatory body has established new safety rules. \u201cCongress should do the obvious thing, which is banning catastrophic AI uses like creating biological or nuclear weapons, banning catastrophic AI models that could overthrow a government, kill large numbers of people, escape human control, or try to deceive humans,\u201d says Casar.\u00a0AdvertisementNone of these efforts would be easy. In the short term, lawmakers looking to cut a deal on AI safety are likely to be slowed down by political and logistical challenges. First is the array of competing proposals. Even if lawmakers can settle on one, Congress would struggle to advance it before the midterms as tens of millions of dollars flow into races from competing pro-regulation and pro-industry PAC networks. Nearly every candidate backed by the pro-AI super PAC network Leading the Future won their primary. \u201cDemocratic consultants have oftentimes told their Democratic clients to stay quiet on issues of AI\u2014just not say anything\u2014because they don\u2019t want a dump of AI billionaire money spent against them,\u201d says Casar. \u201cThe AI lobbyists\u2019 goal is to keep Democrats silent on this, and we cannot stay silent.\u201dRead More: How We Chose the 2026 TIME100 AIHouse Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, rebuffed calls to immediately regulate AI, arguing it\u2019s the tech executives who should figure out what the right guardrails are first. Many other lawmakers and industry leaders say imposing regulations would only ensure China develops the advanced models first. \u201cLet\u2019s say the United States bans research on superintelligence: OK, does anyone really believe that\u2019s going to stop the Chinese?\u201d says Representative Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat. \u201cSo the missing piece here is international collaboration.\u201d\u00a0AdvertisementAnother obstacle to increased regulation is Trump, who has been one of the AI industry\u2019s most consistent champions, casting the AI race with China as one the U.S. must win. \u201cThe only control or \u2018guardrails\u2019 that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades,\u201d Trump posted to Truth Social on Sept. 14 as calls for industry oversight intensified. \u201cThere is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China.\u201dA person holds up a sign on a pedestrian bridge during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion in Berkeley, California on July 18, 2026. Josh Edelson\u2014AFP\/Getty ImagesEven some top Trump advisers have noted with alarm that the President\u2019s position puts him at odds with a growing number of Americans. An NBC News poll found earlier this year that 57% of American voters believe the risks of AI outweigh the benefits, compared with just 34% of voters who believed the opposite. Surveys show people are concerned about how it will affect the job market, their ability to think creatively, and to form meaningful relationships. The backlash against data centers spans the political spectrum, from Sanders to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who imposed a moratorium on building new ones in August after previously championing them.AdvertisementRead More: Community Backlash to AI Data Centers Is Growing Across the U.S. When the President disparaged opponents of data centers as preferring to stay \u201cbackwards and poor,\u201d Trump aides cringed, according to a Trump political adviser. A second adviser says industry allies like Musk and David Sacks have shaped Trump\u2019s view that the biggest risk in AI policy is falling behind China, rather than failing to develop the technology safely. The White House\u2019s former AI czar argued in a Sept. 12 X post that tech companies should slow down AI development if they believe the risks are too great, rather than demanding government intervention, which he said was a form of \u201cregulatory capture.\u201d Sacks\u2019 influence in particular has been a subject of unease, according to multiple Trump allies. In recent weeks, top Trump aides, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, held meetings with the President at the White House in which they asked him to change his message on AI. Trump was unconvinced and seemed uninterested, according to an adviser present.\u00a0AdvertisementInside the White House, preparations are under way for talks with China that could lay the groundwork for cooperation on AI\u2019s risks. Whether the two superpowers can reach a deal remains uncertain. When the U.S. and China met to discuss mitigating AI\u2019s risks in 2024, seven hours in a Geneva conference room with a broken coffee machine produced neither an agreement nor a commitment to keep talking. The dialogue devolved into a trade debate over Washington\u2019s export controls, which curbed China\u2019s access to semiconductors\u2014an effort to maintain the U.S.\u2019s AI lead. \u201cIf the U.S. and China had decided to start tackling [the risks] two years ago, we might be in a much better place now,\u201d says Paul Triolo, a partner at advisory firm DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group. \u201cWe\u2019ve dug a pretty deep hole, and it\u2019s going to be really hard to dig out.\u201dRecent advances have given both sides a reason to formally return to the table. In April, Anthropic said its Mythos model had uncovered vulnerabilities in every major browser and operating system. Trump\u2019s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent subsequently convened an urgent meeting with bank CEOs; weeks later, he said talks with China were in motion. Beijing, too, has begun responding to new cybersecurity risks; on Sept. 13, the country\u2019s spy agency said AI posed a threat to political and ideological security. Delegations will reportedly meet later this month for the first official AI dialogue between China and the Trump Administration. \u201cUltimately, both countries know that it\u2019s in their immediate self-interest to figure this out,\u201d says Singer, of the Carnegie Endowment.AdvertisementExperts doubt a deliberate slowdown will be on either government\u2019s agenda. \u201cThere have been talks about having talks,\u201d as a Trump adviser puts it. Even if an agreement to slow the training of bigger AI models could be reached, Qian Xiao, deputy director of Tsinghua University\u2019s center for international security and strategy, says the technology needed to verify that both sides are complying does not yet exist.\u00a0There is a deeper philosophical disagreement too. Chinese policymakers do not believe the industry is \u201cbuilding a God-in-a-box or a country of geniuses in a data center,\u201d says Kwan Yee Ng, head of international AI governance at Beijing-based AI safety organization Concordia AI. They see a general-purpose technology, more like electricity or the steam engine. From that perspective, slowing development \u201cdoesn\u2019t really make sense,\u201d she says.Read More: The Growing Push to Ban Superintelligent AIAdvertisementShort of an agreement with China, the U.S. and other democratic countries could buy themselves the \u201cbreathing room\u201d to hit the brakes by maintaining a blockage on high-end chips and curbing Chinese AI companies\u2019 practice of using U.S. AI models to improve their own through a practice known as distillation, Anthropic\u2019s Amodei has argued. Bessent has threatened sanctions on Chinese companies that distill from American models.\u00a0A narrower deal with China might be achievable. While the official channel went cold, scientists, policy experts, and business executives from the two countries kept meeting in unofficial \u201ctrack-two\u201d dialogues in search of common ground. Participants in those discussions\u2014which included Singer, Triolo, and Xiao\u2014say the two governments might find common ground on more modest goals, like measures aimed at preventing misuse by organized crime and terrorist organizations. Those efforts could also help the countries react appropriately if an AI system escaped human control. Singer wants a Cold War\u2013style emergency hotline through which either government could explain that an AI-launched cyberattack was not deliberate, reducing the risk of escalation. Protocols developed to respond to human misuse could also give the countries a way to coordinate when neither was directing the system responsible. An attack that appeared to come from one country could otherwise be interpreted by the other as deliberate\u2014even if neither government had ordered it.AdvertisementA modest deal could still be derailed by disputes. Triolo says Washington\u2019s efforts to constrain China\u2019s AI development through export controls and distillation have undermined the trust needed to cooperate on managing the risks. If talks move too slowly or break down, bringing both sides back to the table could take months\u2014a diplomatic timetable increasingly at odds with the mounting alarm of the current moment.Even if you believe all these powerful actors\u2014governments in Washington and Beijing, executives with trillions on the line\u2014are willing to take unprecedented steps in the interest of AI safety, there remains the paradox that hinders progress. Each side\u2019s willingness to act depends on the actions of others. Coxon says he nearly stayed at Anthropic for the same reason. Colleagues believed he could accomplish more from the inside to make systems safer than by leaving a race that would continue without him. But changing our \u201cdefault trajectory,\u201d Coxon says, will require \u201cpeople start taking some sort of action.\u201d The question is who will make the first move.\u2014With reporting by Eric Cortellessa\u00a0",
    "published_at": "2026-09-15T11:00:03+00:00",
    "author_name": "Billy Perrigo",
    "site_name": "TIME",
    "section": null,
    "publisher": "TIME",
    "ai_headline": "AI Researcher Quits Anthropic, Warns of Superintelligence Risks",
    "ai_simplified_title": "Anthropic Researcher Quits Warns of AI Superintelligence Risks 2026",
    "ai_excerpt": "Jacob Coxon published the viral post from a park bench in San Francisco s Alamo Square I resigned from Anthropic today he wrote on Sept I spent the last three",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "AI Safety",
        "Artificial Intelligence",
        "Superintelligence",
        "Anthropic",
        "OpenAI",
        "AI Regulation",
        "Existential Risk",
        "Cybersecurity",
        "Rogue AI",
        "Bioweapons"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "News",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "alarming",
        "perspective": "critical",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": {
            "0": "expert_quotes",
            "1": "company_statements",
            "3": "case_study",
            "5": "data_cited",
            "7": "political_adviser_quotes",
            "8": "poll_data_cited"
        }
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999998,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-09-18T22:08:28.442332Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/time.com\/article\/2026\/09\/15\/ai-anthropic-researcher-quits-coxon-slowdown",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": "Billy Perrigo",
            "published_at": "2026-09-15T11:00:03.000000Z",
            "domain_name": "time.com",
            "site_name": "TIME",
            "section": null,
            "publisher": "TIME"
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
        "chunking_used": true,
        "total_chunks": 5,
        "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
        "merged_at": "2026-09-18T22:08:39.070404Z"
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-09-18T22:08:28.442332Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/time.com\/article\/2026\/09\/15\/ai-anthropic-researcher-quits-coxon-slowdown",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": "Billy Perrigo",
        "published_at": "2026-09-15T11:00:03.000000Z",
        "domain_name": "time.com",
        "site_name": "TIME",
        "section": null,
        "publisher": "TIME"
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
    "chunking_used": true,
    "total_chunks": 5,
    "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
    "merged_at": "2026-09-18T22:08:39.070404Z"
}