OpenAI’s Doomsday Bunker: Why an AGI Pioneer Wanted to Hide the Scientists Underground

In the summer of 2023, the world was busy doing what it always does…scrolling, swiping, streaming, surviving, trying our best to pay bills and get some money into our savings accounts.

Somewhere inside that digital day-to-day ongoings, a quiet question was asked by Ilya Sutskever: “should we build a bunker?” If you don’t know who that is, I’ll get to that in a moment. In the meantime, I’m not talking about just any bunker or one for the elite or billionaires or presidents, but one for scientists.

More specifically, the researchers at OpenAI…those standing on the edge of a creation so powerful, it could one day slip from their hands and become something else entirely. A mind, or a force, an intelligence that could rewrite the world…or unravel it.

Behind the scenes, Ilya Sutskever is the co-founder of OpenAI and one of the leading minds in artificial intelligence, and he allegedly suggested constructing a doomsday shelter to protect his team.

Because if AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) really arrives, the world might not applaud, it might panic.
And in that panic, the people who gave the machine its mind could become targets.

Boy, I wish I had my own bunker

It feels like lately everyone is buying or building bunkers. Unfortunately for me, none of my ideas have hit lift-off yet, so I’m stuck without a bunker…for now. Although, it seems super trendy and some of the ones I found for sale on Zillow are pretty epic. No, I’m not kidding at all. One I found in Russia was completely self-sustaining and would generate its own electricity and everything, with a full pool in there, a farm area, a movie theater and literally everything you could ever want. It’s definitely on my list of things to buy in the future when I have a few million dollars to spare.

I sort of get where he’s coming from though, this idea that the genius engineers birth a superintelligence, the world panics, governments overreach, rogue agents infiltrate, and the original architects vanish into the ground, guarded by steel doors and encrypted air. Oddly enough, I can see it playing out, or maybe it’s some movie in the recesses of my mind?

Either way, according to insiders, Sutskever’s proposal wasn’t dramatic for drama’s sake. It was rooted in something colder: mathematical risk.

Because if you believe AGI is coming…and OpenAI has made it clear they do…then you also believe the stakes are planetary. Success means solving energy, medicine, economics, even death, while failure means…well, no one’s sure. But the smart ones are scared.

This wasn’t just about paranoia (although, yeah, there’s a touch of that in this whole story, it’s true), it was more about planning for a future where knowledge itself becomes volatile and knowing too much might be as dangerous as not knowing enough.

What Is AGI, Really?

Artificial General Intelligence isn’t Siri getting smarter and it’s not ChatGPT finishing your sentence. To be fair, they’re both decently good at that though.

No, it’s the moment a machine can do everything a human mind can do (reason, create, learn, adapt) and then do it better, faster, relentlessly, without sleep or stopping for a candy break (I’m currently eating some watermelon Sour Patch Kids), without ego,, and without end.

Some believe AGI will be our salvation, while others, believe it’ll be our extinction. Like most things in life, I’m sort of of the belief it’ll be better and worse at the same time (yeah, I’m a Libra). In the uneasy middle though, stand the people building it…like engineers standing at the base of a volcano, hoping the pressure they’ve stirred won’t blow.

Risk analysts have tried to calculate the existential danger of AGI.

Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute once estimated the chance of AGI-induced catastrophe within this century at 1 in 10.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, a respected voice in AI alignment, thinks we’re likely doomed without radical intervention. Bold claim, but okay.
Others, like OpenAI themselves, publish papers on how to align superintelligence…as if that’s something we could just…code into place.

So yes, a bunker starts to sound less like science fiction, and more like risk mitigation.

Protect the Scientists

Okay, so why bother hiding away the scientists you might be wondering? Well, because they hold the keys, and like all of them. Not just to the source code, but to the frameworks, the failsafes, and the philosophies going into these programs.

If AGI goes rogue (or if society fears it has) they could be the only ones who can shut it down, redirect it, or…convince it to change its mind.

The bunker wasn’t just to shield from outside chaos, it was to ensure continuity. Like a seed vault after a nuclear war, except instead of plants, we’re storing brains. And not in that weird way in jars or something, I mean in just totally normal living people.

But here’s where it gets a little sticky: why do they get a bunker?
Why not the farmers or the parents? The teachers? The people who didn’t build the problem, but would still suffer its consequences?

It’s the classic dystopian dilemma: is survival the right of the brilliant, or the shared hope of the collective? Some argue that protecting researchers is like protecting firefighters in a blaze…they’re the ones who might fix it. Others see it as elitism in its most sterile form.

The truth might be simpler than all of that though, when you stand near the epicenter, you build a wall, plain and simple.

Where This Leaves Us

If OpenAI’s co-founder really considered a doomsday vault for his team, it tells us something profound, that they’re not really sure how this ends, and neither are we.

We live in an age where the architects of tomorrow aren’t just thinking about stock options or splashy launches, they’re wondering if the code they wrote might one day need to be contained by blast doors and biometric locks. They’re also not planning for ten years from now, I mean they’re planning for next summer.

There’s something about planning for collapse that feels unsettling, we can build storm cellars and stash away canned beans while stocking away emergency kits, not just for what’s likely…but for what is possible. I mean, we don’t build tornado shelters in areas that don’t get hit with tornados. Is building this bunker the same as acknowledging the downside of AGI?

I mean fear, when it comes to AGI, isn’t irrational.

We’re not talking about a stronger engine or a smarter phone, I’m talking about something that could outthink us in every domain, forever. Something that could rewrite its own rules (and even ours) with a logic we might never fully understand. For the people building that future, a bunker isn’t defeatism, it’s humility, more of a concession to the unknown than anything else. A dash of modesty amongst the hubris.

Oppenheimer famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita after witnessing the atomic bomb’s birth: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” History repeats in strange ways. Among AGI researchers, there’s a split, on one side: accelerationists…those pushing the limits, eager to see what happens when we pass the threshold. On the other: alignment theorists and cautious ethicists…those who warn that power without guardrails isn’t progress, it’s peril.

Sutskever has danced on both sides.

In early OpenAI papers, he helped lay the groundwork for powerful language models. Later, he co-authored work outlining the necessity of AI alignment and control. The bunker idea, if real, could be where his caution crystallized into a plan.

We’ve Been Here Before

Bunkers aren’t new.

During the Cold War, the U.S. government buried entire cities beneath the hills. Cheyenne Mountain, Raven Rock, Mount Weather…they weren’t just for military personnel. They were for continuity of government…so the country wouldn’t crumble if the worst happened.

Now, the threat isn’t nuclear fission, it’s neural networks. It’s not fallout we fear at the end of the day, it’s runaway logic. The eerie parallel is this, we keep repeating the same pattern. Build a powerful thing, realize it might be dangerous, then retreat underground and hope for the best.

If the leaders of OpenAI (the same ones demoing consumer-facing chatbots and advocating ethical guidelines) are quietly prepping bunkers, it raises an uncomfortable question: how much do they trust the future they’re selling? The stocks go up and billions of dollars are poured into the next big AGI or AI and we do it at a rate so fast, it feels like lately anyone building anything that isn’t artificial intelligence is pushed to the side (me).

If AGI is safe, you don’t need a bunker, you need a boardroom. If AGI is controllable, you don’t need a fail-safe, you need a framework.

So what are they seeing that we’re not?

Is it just fear of backlash, or do they know (truly know) that something they’ve built might slip its leash? And if so…why hasn’t the public been told more?

Build a Safer Home Lab

If you're a coder, researcher, or just someone curious about experimenting with AI or robotics safely from home, this faraday-shielded electronics kit includes components for building and testing digital systems without emitting external interference…perfect for those taking their curiosity seriously, but cautiously.

In the end though, the bunker isn’t just a place, it’s a symbol of uncertainty and of brilliance. The delicate tension between creation and consequence is dancing before our eyes and I’m here to admire the careful way people say what they are thinking but in tangled webs.

Whether this thing ever gets built is almost secondary, what matters is that the idea was considered. That someone at the core of one of the world’s most influential tech companies looked ahead…and saw enough chaos to make hiding seem like wisdom. The rest of us don’t have bunkers (yet, I still have my eye on Zillow). We have voices though, questions, and some of us have so much curiosity it’s spilling out of us every day in the form of blog posts (it’s me, I’m some of us). Also, I believe that’s what the future needs most…not fortresses, but conversations.

If we’re all passengers on this strange journey toward artificial general intelligence, then we deserve a map, or at least a warning.