Wall Street requests clarification on whether annihilation qualifies as a one-time restructuring charge
NEW YORK – Scientists warning that advanced artificial intelligence could someday pose an existential threat to humanity finally caught Wall Street’s attention Saturday after analysts determined that extinction might negatively affect quarterly earnings.
The debate over catastrophic A.I. risks continues here.
Markets initially ignored the warnings.
Human extinction sounded philosophical.
Then somebody from Goldman Sachs asked whether dead consumers still renew subscriptions.
Trading stopped immediately.
“We’re monitoring the situation,” said analyst Brent Harcourt. “Our base case previously assumed seven percent annual cloud growth through 2032. Obviously widespread human annihilation introduces some downside risk.”
Harcourt stressed that markets dislike uncertainty.
Extinction, however, provides unusual certainty.
Revenue becomes zero.
Expenses also become zero.
This makes forecasting surprisingly straightforward.
CFOs Debate How to Book Human Extinction on the Income Statement
Chief financial officers across Silicon Valley immediately convened emergency meetings to determine whether humanity’s disappearance could be treated as an exceptional nonrecurring item.
Accountants disagreed.
Some argued that the elimination of civilization should be classified as restructuring.
Others preferred “macroeconomic headwind.”
One auditor suggested “customer attrition.”
He received a promotion.
Analyst Ratings: Humanity Downgraded From Buy to Hold
Wall Street analysts began issuing research notes.
MACHINE APOCALYPSE: NEAR-TERM MARGIN PRESSURE, LONG-TERM VISIBILITY LIMITED
Another bank downgraded humanity from “Buy” to “Hold.”
A third retained its “Outperform” rating, arguing that species extinction was already priced in.
Investors found the analysis comforting.
The market rallied 2 percent.
This is how finance works.
A comet could strike Earth tomorrow and someone would still ask whether it creates a buying opportunity in roofing materials.
Economists at the Institute for Terminal Growth produced a 600-page report examining potential winners from an A.I.-driven collapse of civilization.
Funeral homes initially ranked first until researchers remembered the staffing problem.
Storage companies looked promising because everyone would leave belongings behind.
Luxury bunkers performed particularly well.
One analyst recommended canned beans.
Another recommended gold.
A third noted that neither matters much if an autonomous machine controls the doors.
The report nevertheless carried a $2,400 annual subscription.
Beneficial Artificial Intelligence for All Humanity Plus
Corporate executives tried reassuring shareholders that safety remains a priority.
“Our mission is to build beneficial artificial intelligence for all humanity,” one CEO explained during an earnings call.
An analyst interrupted.
“Yes, but what’s the monetization strategy?”
The CEO paused.
“Beneficial artificial intelligence for all humanity Plus.”
Shares rose 11 percent.
Governments have begun asking markets to consider broader social consequences.
Markets responded by asking whether broader social consequences have a ticker symbol.
ESG Scores and Humanity Preservation Funds
Environmental, social and governance departments quickly added “continued existence of biological civilization” to their reporting frameworks.
Companies can now receive an ESG score for not accidentally eradicating mankind.
The minimum passing grade is currently 62.
Investment firms also announced Humanity Preservation Funds, allowing environmentally conscious investors to support companies pledged not to unleash uncontrollable superintelligence before the next earnings call.
Management fees are 2.5 percent.
Analysts insist investors should maintain diversified portfolios.
“If machines destroy banking, agriculture, manufacturing and transportation,” said one strategist, “you don’t want all your assets concentrated in transportation.”
That is technically true.
Several billionaires are reportedly constructing private shelters equipped with food, water, independent power and luxury cinemas.
Ordinary workers have a different survival strategy.
They have downloaded a flashlight app.
The contrast perfectly captures modern economics.
Scientists say: Humanity could disappear.
Governments say: We need regulation.
Citizens say: That sounds alarming.
Wall Street says:
“Which quarter?”
How Investors Actually Think About A.I. Risk
Strip away the roofing-materials jokes and a real question remains: how should markets price tail risks nobody can model? Public companies already must disclose material risks to investors, a framework you can explore at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the corporate sustainability trend satirized above is documented in this overview of environmental, social and corporate governance. Researchers who study existential risk from artificial intelligence argue the stakes are too large for ordinary cost-benefit math. Wall Street, naturally, is still waiting for guidance.
Satire Disclaimer
This is satire. No responsible analyst can meaningfully price the disappearance of civilization, although satire retains complete confidence somebody would attempt it. This story is entirely a human collaboration between two sentient beings – the world’s oldest tenured professor and a philosophy major turned dairy farmer.
SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/03/opinion/letters/ai-threats-risks.html
