When it comes to artificial intelligence, the average human being—or American, anyhow—is probably feeling one of three things: head-in-the-sand blissful ignorance, mild existential anxiety about what’s to come, or full-blown doomscroll-esque dread about becoming obsolete and losing your job, much less some Skynet-level singularity leading to catastrophic annihilation. In that regard, “The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist” is for everyone: a film that informs the uninformed, shakes the complacent, mollifies fears (slightly), while also likely exacerbating your worst terrors.
READ MORE: The Best Documentaries Of 2022
The reality is, there’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. AI is here; we have to learn how to live with it, use it, and use it responsibly, ethically, and morally—while also employing it in a way that doesn’t cause the end of human civilization. So “The AI Doc” is not only a great overview but also a strong deep dive into the existential worry many of us already carry.
What helps is that co-directors Oscar-winner Daniel Roher (“Navalny”) and Charlie Tyrell (“My Dead Dad’s Porno Tapes”) don’t package that anxiety into some dry policy explainer. What they craft is engrossing because it plays like a panic attack with footnotes, but one grounded in recognizably human fear rather than abstract futurist hand-waving.
The duo crafts the movie around a deceptively simple device: a soon-to-be father trying to determine whether the world he’s bringing a child into is on the brink of transformation, ruin, or both. That frame keeps the documentary from turning into TedTalk sludge. Roher isn’t some neutral moderator presiding over a symposium; he’s visibly unnerved, and the film lets that unease accumulate until it becomes the movie’s central dramatic engine.
The access makes the whole thing click. Roher and Tyrell get inside the room with some of the people shaping the technology and some warning about it: Sam Altman of OpenAI; Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind; Dario and Daniela Amodei of Anthropic; Fei-Fei Li; Tristan Harris andAza Raskin; Yuval Noah Harari; Emily M. Bender; and a wider bench that includes Yoshua Bengio, Timnit Gebru, Karen Hao, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Deborah Raji, Sanmi Koyejo, Jason Matheny, Connor Leahy, Peter Lee, Sneha Revanur, and Nitasha Tiku (Musk and Zuckerberg sit this one out). It’s a serious roster, and the film gets mileage out of the friction between true believers, cautious optimists, skeptics, and outright alarmists.
That tension gives the first half of the doc its teeth. This is the peril section, and it’s nerve-racking. The movie doesn’t indulge in sci-fi cosplay, but it’s scary because so many of the people closest to the subject sound rattled, evasive, or both. Eliezer Yudkowsky warns of extinction-level risks. Harari describes AI as a deadly threat. Harris lands one of the film’s most upsetting gut punches when he talks about researchers who don’t think their children will make it to high school.Shane Legg bluntly suggests that today’s systems are only a warm-up. Roher’s anxiety rises with each interview, and because he has no poker face, the dread becomes contagious.
But a full-on doom sermon this is not. The back half leans into the promise side of the equation, and to the film’s credit, it lets that case come through with real force. Altman, Hassabis, the Amodeis, Fei-Fei Li, and other techno-optimists argue that AI could transform medicine, accelerate scientific discovery, extend human longevity, and help tackle problems that have beaten human institutions for decades. The doc is smart enough not to laugh those hopes out of the room. It knows why people are racing toward this technology, and it understands that some of those aspirations are not ridiculous.
One of the film’s recurring ideas is that humanity may yet rise to the occasion, that if we can become the most mature version of ourselves and steer this moment responsibly. It’s a noble thought, maybe even a necessary one. But it’s also where the film starts to show its limits. The missing question hovering over the movie is whether human beings, as presently constituted, have done anything lately to earn that faith. We’re living through an era of division, reaction, speed, resentment, and institutional collapse. The movie lays out the stakes of AI clearly enough, but it doesn’t fully stare down the uglier part of the equation: all of this remains in human hands, and human nature hasn’t exactly been putting on a clinic.
To its credit, though, the film gets much sharper once it starts tracing the incentive matrix driving the AI sprint—arguably a race to the bottom. This is where the doc’s anxiety becomes structural rather than speculative. It’s not simply that AI can do extraordinary or terrifying things; it’s that the people and institutions building it are operating inside a system that rewards haste, scale, first-mover advantage, and profit maximization. The movie’s comparison to the nuclear arms race isn’t empty rhetoric. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and their geopolitical counterparts are all competing under conditions that rarely reward caution.
That idea also leads to one of the doc’s most chilling practical points: there may be around 20,000 people working on AGI, but fewer than 200 working on alignment and safety. Even allowing for some fuzziness in those numbers, the imbalance is the point. A tiny number of people are racing to build systems that could radically alter civilization, and an even tinier number appear devoted to containing the risks if things go sideways.
And then there’s the question the movie keeps brushing up against without ever fully resolving: intelligence versus wisdom. One of the film’s most persuasive undercurrents is that intelligence may be scalable, but wisdom is something else entirely. AI can aggregate information, detect patterns, simulate language, and maybe one day outstrip human beings in every measurable cognitive category that matters to a lab or boardroom. But wisdom is slower. It comes from failure, conscience, reflection, guilt, humility, error, self-knowledge—the whole bruised and contradictory mess of being a person. That’s the gap the doc finds most haunting.
Near the end, the ‘AI Doc’ reaches for zen practicalism: control what you can control, don’t dissolve into dread over forces larger than yourself. As life advice, that’s sound. As a political or technological answer, it’s obviously not enough. Personal calm won’t regulate billion-dollar companies or cool a global arms race. But maybe that’s why its ending lands as both consoling and faintly helpless. Roher is about to become a father, and the film never stops being about inheritance.
That unresolved tension is what makes “How I Became an Apocaloptimist” worth seeing. It’s disturbing and engrossing. It doesn’t fully grapple with every moral, political, or philosophical consequence of the AI rush, and there are moments when it arguably lets some of its most powerful interview subjects off the hook too easily. But it still lands because it understands the essential terror at the center of this conversation: not simply that we are building intelligence at breakneck speed, but that wisdom—human, moral, civic—may be arriving nowhere near fast enough. [A]
