Max Tegmark acclaimed it as "The most important book of the decade", writing that "the competition to build smarter-than-human machines isn't an arms race but a suicide race, fueled by wishful thinking." [2]
Stephen Fry called it the most important book he's read for years, writing in a review that the authors, who've studied AI for decades, "sound a loud trumpet call to humanity to awaken us as we sleepwalk into disaster" and applauding their "brilliant gift for analogy, metaphor and parable" used to explain AI engineering, cognition and neuroscience better than any book of the many he's read on the subject. [3]
Ben Bernanke said it's "A clearly written and compelling account of the existential risks that highly advanced AI could pose to humanity."
It also received praise from Vitalik Buterin, Grimes, Yoshua Bengio, Scott Aaronson, Bruce Schneier, George Church, Tim Urban, Matthew Yglesias, Christopher Clark, Dorothy Sue Cobble, Huw Price, Fiona Hill, Steve Bannon, Emma Sky, Jon Wolfsthal, Joan Feigenbaum, Patton Oswalt, Mark Ruffalo, Alex Winter, Bart Selman, Liv Boeree, Zvi Mowshowitz, Jaan Tallinn, and Emmett Shear. [4] [5] [6] [7]
Critical reception
Reviews of the book by critics have been mixed.
Upon its release, it was included in the New York Times best-seller lists for hardcover nonfiction and for combined print and e-books nonfiction. [8]
Writing for The New York Times , Stephen Marche said the book "reads like a Scientology manual" and that it "evokes the feeling of being locked in a room with the most annoying students you met in college while they try mushrooms for the first time." [9]
The Guardian called it one of the biggest books of the autumn, writing: "Should you worry about superintelligent AI? The answer from one of the tech world’s most influential doomsayers, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is emphatically yes. The good news? We aren’t there yet, and there are still steps we can take to avert disaster." [10] It became Book of the day on September 22, 2025. In a review, The Guardian's non-fiction books editor David Shariatmadari wrote that "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies is as clear as its conclusions are hard to swallow" and that "everyone with an interest in the future has a duty to read what [Yudkowsky] and Soares have to say." [11]
Science editor at The Times found the book convincing: "Are they right? Given the gravity of the case they make, it feels an odd thing to say that this book is good. It is readable. It tells stories well. At points it is like a thriller — albeit one where the thrills come from the obliteration of literally everything of value. [...] The achievement of this book is, given the astonishing claims they make, that they make a credible case for not being mad. But I really hope they are: because I can’t see a way we get off that ladder." [12]
Kevin Canfield wrote in San Francisco Chronicle that the book makes powerful arguments and recommended it. [13]
In The Atlantic , Adam Becker wrote that the book is "tendentious and rambling, simultaneously condescending and shallow. Yudkowsky and Soares are earnest; unlike many of the loudest prognosticators around AI, they are not grifters. They are just wrong...Yudkowsky and Soares fail to make an evidence-based scientific case for their claims." [14]
In an article titled "Why we must pull the plug on superintelligence", Paul Wood wrote for The Spectator : "If more and more people understand the danger, wake up and decide to end the “suicide race,” our fate is still in our own hands. If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies is an important book. We should consider its arguments – while we still can." [15]
Publishers Weekly said the book is an "urgent clarion call to prevent the creation of artificial superintelligence" and a "frightening warning that deserves to be reckoned with", but mentioned that the authors "make extensive use of parables and analogies, some of which are less effective than others" and "present precious few opposing viewpoints, even though not all experts agree with their dire perspective." [16]
Kirkus Reviews gave a positive review, calling the book "a timely and terrifying education on the galloping havoc AI could unleash—unless we grasp the reins and take control." [17]
Booklist gave the book a starred review: "Yudkowsky and Soares offer a stark examination of the existential risks posed by artificial superintelligence. [...] This is not a book about innovation; it is a book about survival. Aimed at technologists, policymakers, ethicists, and concerned citizens, it serves as a fire alarm for anyone shaping the future. Whether one agrees with its conclusions or not, the book demands serious attention and reflection." [18]
Steven Levy in Wired wrote that "even after reading this book, I don’t think it’s likely that AI will kill us all" and "the solutions they propose to stop the devastation seem even more far-fetched than the idea that software will murder us all", but mentioned a study of AI contemplating blackmail and concluded "My gut tells me the scenarios Yudkowsky and Soares spin are too bizarre to be true. But I can’t be sure they are wrong." [19]
Ian Leslie, writing for The Observer , said "the authors tell their story with clarity, verve and a kind of barely suppressed glee. For a book about human extinction, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies is a lot of fun", but stated that he wasn't convinced that "superintelligence they describe is remotely imminent, or that we’re goners if something like it ever does come to pass." [20]
Gary Marcus in The Times Literary Supplement wrote that "Things are worrying, but not nearly as worrying as the authors suggest" and that the authors "lay out this thesis thoughtfully, entertainingly, earnestly, provocatively and doggedly. Yet their book is also deeply flawed. It deserves to be read with an immense amount of salt." [21]
Jacob Aron, writing for New Scientist , called the book "extremely readable" but added that "the problem is that, while compelling, the argument is fatally flawed", concluding that effort would be better spent on "problems of science fact" like climate change. [22]
Clara Collier criticized the book in the effective altruist journal Asterisk Magazine for being less coherent than the authors' prior writings and not fully explaining the premises. [23]
Grace Byron in the Washington Post wrote that the book "is less a manual than a polemic. Its instructions are vague, its arguments belabored and its absurdist fables too plentiful" and added that "Yudkowsky and Soares are certainly experts in their field, but this book often reads like a disgruntled missive from two aggrieved patriarchs tired of being ignored." [24]
