As of November 30, 2025, there has been no realized catastrophic or existential AI event (e.g., human extinction or near‑extinction, loss of global human control, or comparable catastrophe). Surveys and discussions of AI existential risk focus on future probabilities (e.g., risk by 2100 or over the next several decades), not on events that have already occurred.(en.wikipedia.org)

On the employment side, the observed economic impact has been disruptive but gradual, not an overnight collapse:

• The New York Fed reports that, so far, AI adoption "has not yet led to major job losses" and that near‑term labor‑market effects have been modest.(reuters.com)
• OECD analysis of AI and jobs finds that to date AI has had little effect on aggregate employment, with adoption still relatively low and many firms adjusting slowly (via attrition, retraining, or partial task automation).(oecd.org)
• A 2025 Goldman Sachs analysis likewise concludes that generative AI has not yet produced discernible changes in unemployment or productivity at the macro level, implying that the feared rapid jobs shock has not materialized.(fortune.com)
• Other recent reviews similarly emphasize that an "AI jobs apocalypse" has not arrived; displacement is emerging but is slow, uneven, and concentrated in specific sectors, consistent with a drawn‑out transition rather than a sudden crash.(siai.org)

In short, between June 2023 and late 2025, no sudden AI doomer scenario has actually unfolded, and the disruptive impacts we do see are incremental and evolving over years, matching Sacks’s claim that such scenarios would not "play out overnight" and that the real effects would "take a while." Therefore the prediction is right given the evidence up to the evaluation date.