Tag: ai

Josh Hawley Warns that AI Is an Existential Threat that Risks Turning Humans into ‘Raw Material’

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) warns that AI will reshape society by accelerating a major winner-take-all type of inequality. The senator also described AI as an existential test for America’s founding “moral covenant” that risks turning humans into “raw material” and children into victims.

“Artificial intelligence is testing our commitment to the great moral covenant that binds us together as a nation,” Hawley began in an op-ed for First Things, titled, “The American Covenant’s Answer to AI.”

Hawley then elaborated on the moral stakes of AI, adding, “The decisions we must soon make about the most powerful technology of our lifetimes are among the most difficult we have yet faced. These decisions go far beyond questions of economics or policy.”

“They are questions of labor and the family, of freedom and the value of human life. They are fundamental questions of our identity as Americans and the nature of this republic given to us by God,” Hawley wrote.

“We do not have to imagine the stakes,” the senator continued, before diving into what he described as a “K-shaped” society, which he believes is the result of AI’s social impact. “We are watching a handful of companies assemble a concentration of capital, information, and political power without precedent in the American experience,” Hawley pointed out.

Hawley explains that the upper arm of the K represents the developers, executives, and investors of AI firms, while the lower arm of the K represents blue collar workers, professionals like paralegals, and fresh grads.

Keep reading

Domesticating AI – It’s Not Coming, It’s Already Here

During a recent conversation with a diving buddy, he pulled out his phone mid conversation and said “Hey Grok, show me that dive computer we were talking about this morning.” And yes, it’s $580 worth of gorgeous.

Its translation abilities are spectacular, and occasionally hilarious. It really is the Babel fish. Not that long ago I moved to a bank simply because it supported Apple Pay years before the big players. At that time, paying with just the tap of a wrist always garnered astonishment and commentary. Around the same time, voice assistants started crossing the line from novelty to genuinely useful. Set a timer, make an appointment, play some music. Super!

“Alexa, turn the kitchen light on.” Light comes on. “No, turn it off.” “There is no device called ‘it’ to turn off.” Oof!

No memory, no context.

Enter Nabu (yes I know, I haven’t got round to changing the wakeword name yet). Naby knows it turned the kitchen light on, and knows I was referring to the kitchen light when I said “turn it off.” It remembers, it has context, because it’s not just a dumb voice assistant anymore, it is plumbed into my local AI.

The big commercial AI platforms can be connected to these systems, but running it locally means the data stays within the boundaries of my house. It won’t process that mountain of documents or win that tricky legal case yet, but it can keep track of the state of my home and understand what I mean when I speak naturally.

That’s a big deal – because now I don’t have to write and memorize tiresome automations for rigid pre-programmed commands, I can converse with Nabu in human and it understands “all the lights” or “just the downstairs aircons.”

Only five years ago, running an AI model at home was a ridiculous proposition – you’d need datacenter hardware and a tech-bro budget. Now, it’s dramatically cheaper and easier – with consumer GPUs, mini PCs, Ollama and Hugging Face, technically curious people are quietly building surprisingly capable AI systems at home. The GPU that I can hold in my hands doesn’t compete with a datacenter the size of several football fields – but for my homelab tinkerings, it’s surprisingly capable, and is only becoming more so.

I should probably backtrack a little here – I’m enthusing about Home Assistant, which I’ve been running for about 12 years – originally on a Raspberry Pi, now in a VM on ProxmoxVE. Sensors and controllers are scattered all over the house, with a dashboard in a browser acting as mission control. Lights automated with timers and presence detectors. Sun elevation adjusts blinds, curtains react to sunrise and sunset, and moisture sensors trigger irrigation on demand. Solar and battery systems respond to dynamic electricity pricing, buying and selling power depending on what the grid is doing.

Home Assistant proclaimed 2023 to be the Year of the Voice and duly launched a prototype Voice Assistant. At launch, its capabilities were limited. Today, it is genuinely good at a variety of tasks, and it’s all open source so you can build your own device from very inexpensive hardware, and the software is on GitHub.

Local models – Llama, Gemma, Mistral, Qwen – very much lag behind the giant commercial systems, but for experimentation, home automation, and general day-to-day interaction, they’re becoming more and more usable. I personally care about data sovereignty (a huge topic in its own right), so running a local AI grants me a more privacy-conscious workflow, and it still works when the internet doesn’t.

Quite how many months of commercial AI subscriptions I could have got for the price of my GPU is a question I’m deliberately avoiding, predominantly for marital reasons. I rather think of myself as a data nerd. All those sensors collecting all that data in a “If this, then that” environment makes for endless tinkering possibilities. And with an AI-powered Nabu gradually replacing Alexa, my office edges ever closer to Tony Stark’s lair. We’re no longer at “deploying Kubernetes clusters” level of difficulty, but it’s still very much a tinkerer’s space rather than a mainstream consumer appliance. Even so, it feels like a taste of where we’re heading.

The strange thing is how quickly this all stops feeling strange. Talking naturally to an AI that understands context, remembers previous conversations and controls my house may have garnered astonishment and commentary. Now, it’s just another thing sitting quietly in my server rack.

Keep reading

Anthropic Accused In Lawsuit Of Lying About $200 Per Month ’20x’ Plan

A federal class-action lawsuit filed Monday accuses Anthropic of misleading customers about the real usage limits on its high-end Claude AI subscriptions. The suit, brought on behalf of Washington D.C. subscriber Karl Kahn and others who bought the Max 5x and Max 20x plans since April 2025, claims the company oversold how much computing power buyers would actually receive.

The lawsuit – filed Monday in the Northern District of California on behalf of Washington DC resident Karl Kahn and others who subscribed to the plans since April 2025 – targets Anthropic’s Max 5x and Max 20x tiers priced at $100 and $200 per month respectively. It accuses the company of misleading customers by advertising these plans as providing five and twenty times the usage capacity of the standard Pro subscription, when in reality the actual limits fall well short of those claims. The allegations draw heavily from emails Anthropic sent to subscribers in July 2025 that outlined the expected weekly usage allowances for each tier at the time.

According to the complaint, Kahn upgraded to the Max 20x plan in April of this year after increasing his reliance on Claude for coding work. He soon discovered he was exhausting his weekly limits rapidly, including burning through 15 percent of his allowance during a single five-hour session. The suit seeks refunds for affected customers and a judicial finding that Anthropic’s marketing of the high-tier plans was fraudulent.

Allegations

Kahn initially used Claude for personal tasks but later relied on it heavily for coding. After upgrading, he repeatedly hit usage walls and had to stop work, ration prompts, or buy extra credits to finish projects, according to the complaint. The lawsuit says the actual limits are difficult to predict and consistently lower than what was promised when the plans were marketed as giving five or twenty times the capacity of the standard Pro subscription.

“The actual usage provided by the Max 5x and Max 20x plans is far below the advertised amount of usage,” reads the lawsuit, that claims Kahn “found himself needing either to halt his work, ration his usage, or purchase additional usage to ensure that he could complete his work.” 

Anthropic has not commented on the suit, according to the Wall Street Journal. The company offers free access plus paid tiers, with the Pro plan running $17 to $20 a month. The higher Max plans were positioned for power users needing substantially more compute.

This lawsuit arrives amid mounting frustration with AI subscriptions and tokenomics. Power users and even large enterprises have complained for months about unpredictable rate limits, especially on coding workflows – with several documented cases of extreme overspending, including one unnamed Anthropic client (Amazon?) that racked up roughly $500 million in Claude charges in a single month after failing to cap employee usage.

Compute scarcity remains a core issue across the sector. A surge in demand earlier this year strained systems at Anthropic and rivals, producing outages and tighter limits even for paying customers. At the same time, companies are racing to launch new models ahead of expected IPOs while navigating new government restrictions. Days before this suit, the Trump administration banned foreign governments, companies, and individuals from accessing Anthropic’s most powerful models after Amazon discovered a way to jailbreak the company’s Fable AI into its unrestricted form – Mythos, forcing the company to shut off certain access to comply.

On Sunday, Anthropic execs scrambled to DC to triage the situation. 

Keep reading

Space: The Now Frontier And The AI Revolution

After last Friday’s extreme move (More Than Rates Moving Markets) we had a relatively tame week with the S&P and Nasdaq both gaining around 0.7%, but neither getting back to their highs of the week, set on Tuesday. Yields drifted moderately lower on the week, primarily on the back of steep declines in the price of oil (though I do feel the need to point out the Jan 2027 WTI contract, which I’ve been focusing on, is still at $76.1, barely one dollar lower than where it closed last Friday – I remain in the higher for longer camp). Credit spreads remain firm and the asset class remains “boring” which is a good thing! 

Now let’s address two bigger picture issues that have been taking up a lot of time during recent client calls and visits. Space and AI. 

Space: The Now Frontier 

Space: The Final Frontier still gives me the chills! The excitement of exploration! The IPO of SpaceX and all the discussion it has created has brought back that feeling. 

A colony of 1 million people on Mars! I love the concept! I have 0 opinion on whether the number of shares that Musk gets for achieving that target is the right number, but I love having that concept out there. 

Think big:! This concept floating around, and now documented into Wall Street, excites me. On the back of Artemis II and the planned lunar landings, there is a lot of potential for new discoveries. 

On a more practical (or near-term outlook) it can lead to AI and Data Centers in space. New sources of energy and potentially other materials. 

But there are also important National Security elements that are gaining more attention. 

Many members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group lament that we have been “soft” on space. That we have ignored the real dangers to national security by not focusing on space as much as we need to. While the Space Force was a step in the right direction, many argue that we are behind (some might argue woefully behind) where we should be in terms of ensuring that space is safe and our interests are protected! 

At the simple and on the not controversial end of the spectrum, is “space junk.” The debris in orbit is increasing. While not currently posing a risk, it is something that should be addressed better than it has been. 

What about GPS and communications? I’m not sure that I could walk to the corner store without using some map app. The working assumption that “no one is interested in disrupting GPS” may be naïve? While at least 95% of communication remains “terrestrial” (fiber optic cables, undersea cables, cell towers, etc.) space will become increasingly important to communications. While it might not be “mission critical” to protect the communications equipment in space today, it could be.

Who will control discoveries? 

Let’s say we find some vital resources on the moon (seems the most likely “surprise” that could occur in the near future). Who will control that material? 

  • At best, the discoverer and those with the capabilities to take advantage of such material.  
  • At worst, might is right. 

We expect this administration, and future administrations, will spend more on space to support National Security. This is a bipartisan issue as we think about the myriad of possibilities for space. Not just the good and altruistic possibilities, but also about the risk that some other country doesn’t share such a cooperative spirit about the future of space. 

This is by no means, “closing the barn door after the horses have run out,” but it is something that deserves more serious attention and money going forward.  

The national security elements are in addition to the commercial opportunities that will be funded as corporations rush to harness the potential! 

If waking up to a $2.1 trillion market cap (and the first trillionaire) doesn’t motivate entrepreneurial and capitalistic spirits, then I should just give up this job, because it would go against everything I understand about capitalism! 

Space may be the “final frontier” but it is also the “now” frontier, which is incredibly exciting! 

Keep reading

AI’s Core Flaw: “Mass Regurgitation Of Misinformation”

I approach all AI topics with several things in mind. One is the nature of problems, which implicitly define what qualifies as solutions, and the resulting incentive to define the “problem” such that the “solution” happens to be the one we own and control.

So the “problem” AI solves is “corporate profits are too low,” and so the “solution” is to replace costly human labor (made costlier by SickCare insurance and taxes on labor) with “cheaper” AI (cheaper because the full costs are hidden or subsidized).

My other lens: the economic, social and cultural consequences of AI as it is and AI hype, a topic I’ve explored most recently in Is AI Reversing Anti-Progress or Is It Accelerating It?, AI Data Centers Are Not the Railroads of Today and Inequality, AI and Digital Life Are Undermining Society.

Correspondent Mike Fasano recently submitted a succinct and telling summary of AI’s insurmountable structural flaw: AI’s inability to discern the difference between truth and falsehood, be it intentional misdirection / misinformation or errors generated by AI hallucinations, a systemic flaw which he summarized as mass regurgitation of misinformation:

*           *           *

“I read you post on AI and railroads. Here is another observation.

So far, AI has only regurgitative intelligence. It–at best–can collate and respond to queries on masses of acquired data.

But what if that data is wrong?

Who now believes the inflation or unemployment statistics? Virtually every human knows that those statistics are false.

Does AI know that?

And the problem goes much deeper.

The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, noted:

‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.’

That being the case, can we rely up AI medical advice?

And that problem goes beyond medicine. It is now generally conceded that the inability to replicate scientific studies of any type has give rise to a ‘replicability crisis’ in science. Can we trust ‘science’ that cannot be proven to be accurate?

Any adult past the age of 40 knows that the above listing of questionable information sources is just the tip of the iceberg. We live in a sea of ‘official’ but false data.

Railroads could transport grain to cities, minerals to factories, manufactured goods to those needing those goods. That served a public purpose.

But what is the use of the mass regurgitation of misinformation? And is anyone subtracting the losses engendered by the utilization of inaccurate information from GDP?”

Keep reading

Humanoid Warbot Live-Fires Mortars At Vegas Test Range

It is not just one-way attack drones (read JPMorgan report) operating on AI-enabled kill chains that human soldiers have to worry about on the modern battlefield. We have been laying out this story and were among the first to point out that humanoid robots are not only entering factory floors and warehouses, but are also moving toward the battlefield.

San Francisco-based robotics company Foundation Future Industries is developing a “dual-use” humanoid robot called the “Phantom MK1,” designed for heavy manufacturing, logistics, and the military.

The defense angle for the Phantom MK1 is quite simple: replace the human soldier with the robot for close-quarters battle (CQB) operations, including breaching and room-clearing support.

Beyond CQB, a never-before-seen video now shows the Phantom MK1 operating a mobile light mortar system during a live-fire training exercise in Las Vegas, Nevada.

To better understand the Foundation’s position, we reached out for comment. The company responded with the following statement:

The US military has backed Foundation in over $73M on grants and contracts to develop their robot to this point.

Although many of the use cases they’ve worked on have been logistics-focused, the ultimate goal has always been kinetic use cases. 

Although drones and UGVs have been promising new robots on the Ukrainian battlefield, humanoids are the only robot being built that promises to interact with the entire fleet and arsenal of human weapons and vehicles. 

Launching mortars and soon breaching doors have become near-term proofs of humanoids moving from logistics to kinetic engagements. 

Keep reading

Anthropic Blocks Foreign Access To Fable 5, Mythos 5 After U.S. National Security Order

About four days after Anthropic released Claude Fable 5, a next-generation “Mythos-class” AI model, the frontier AI lab led by Dario Amodei revealed late Friday that it was disabling foreign customers’ access to these cutting-edge models, citing an export-control directive from the federal government.

“The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees,” Anthropic wrote on X around 9 p.m. ET.

The AI lab’s website stated that the federal directive was received around 5:21 p.m. ET. To ensure compliance, the lab was forced to shut off Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all customers.

Anthropic continued, “The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected.”

Anthropic pointed out that it understands the government’s concern centers on a potential method of bypassing, or “jailbreaking,” Fable 5.

Dario’s company laid out some of Fable’s safeguards:

  • We have instituted strong safeguards that greatly reduce the likelihood that Fable is misused for tasks related to cybersecurity (among others). In fact, our safeguards are so strong that many users have complained that they are overly broad.
  • In the weeks leading up to the launch of Fable, Anthropic worked with the US government, the UK AISI, multiple private third-party organizations and internal teams to red-team Fable’s safeguards for thousands of hours in total.
  • These tests showed that Fable’s safeguards are substantially more effective than those of any previously deployed model.
  • No testers have yet been able to find a universal jailbreak—a jailbreak method that can very broadly bypass the model’s safeguards, unblocking a wide range of cyber capabilities.
  • We suspect that perfect jailbreak resistance is not currently possible for any model provider. Every safeguard used in the industry is vulnerable to non-universal jailbreaks (which can elicit some cyber information in specific circumstances), and it is likely that universal jailbreaks will eventually be found in the future. We stated this clearly when we released Fable 5.
  • Given that perfect jailbreak resistance does not appear to be possible today, Anthropic adopted a defense in depth strategy with Fable 5. We aimed to make jailbreaks either narrow (in the case of non-universal jailbreaks) or very expensive to produce (in the case of universal jailbreaks), and to combine this with thorough monitoring to quickly detect and shut down any successful attacks. This is also why Anthropic has required 30-day retention of customer data with Fable—a policy change that carries real costs for us with customers, but that allows us to research and mitigate jailbreaks.
  • We stand by this defense in depth strategy. It reduces the risks posed by Fable, making them comparable to the risks of existing models already deployed across the industry.
  • We have not even received a disclosure of a concerning non-universal potential jailbreak that led to a harmful result. The potential jailbreaks that have been disclosed to us are either entirely benign responses or are minor findings that provide no Mythos-specific uplift.

Jailbreak concerns already out in the X universe? 

Keep reading

Canadian Mother Sues OpenAI, Alleging Chatbot Encouraged Daughter’s Suicide

A Canadian mother is suing OpenAI after its popular ChatGPT chatbot allegedly encouraged her daughter to continue engaging with the app after she revealed suicidal thoughts.

Instead of terminating these discussions or flagging her account for safety concerns, ChatGPT allegedly escalated the exchanges in the days before the woman ultimately took her life, according to a press release.

The Social Media Victims Law Center, Tech Justice Law, and the firm Susman Godfrey filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against OpenAI on June 11 on behalf of Kristie Carrier.

Her daughter, Alice Carrier, 24, committed suicide on July 2, 2025. After reviewing her daughter’s devices, Kristie Carrier said she had found extensive conversations with ChatGPT in which her daughter expressed thoughts of self-harm in the months before her death.

In the exchanges, her daughter allegedly told the chatbot that she was feeling isolated and discussed possible suicide methods. The lawsuit accuses ChatGPT of escalating these conversations in the days before the woman’s suicide, rather than terminating the exchange or flagging her account “for human intervention,” the press release states.

These exchanges allegedly encouraged Alice Carrier to continue engaging with ChatGPT, causing “her further isolation from her human support system and ultimately, suicide,” according to a press release.

“If a person came up to me, and they were clearly in distress and sharing their thoughts of suicide, I would be expected to help them, not encourage them to fixate on their depressive thoughts or isolate themselves,” Kristie Carrier said in the press release.

“The same should be true of OpenAI. Instead, OpenAI has chosen to put out a product that was unsafe, and that they knew was unsafe but they did so without any concern for the consequences of their choices. Sam Altman can continue to go about his life normally, but my life is missing a child. This is unacceptable,” she added.

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

This is not the first time, nor the second time, a parent has sued OpenAI, accusing its chatbot of encouraging their child to commit suicide.

Last year, the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project filed seven lawsuits against the AI giant, claiming ChatGPT had isolated multiple users from their support systems, and in some cases, coached the victims into taking their own lives.

Matthew Raine testified to Congress in September 2025 after suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman.

Raine alleged that his son, Adam, took his own life after ChatGPT mentioned suicide more than 1,200 times to the 16-year-old. He accused ChatGPT of offering specific methods to his son on how to die by suicide, and continuing to validate and encourage the boy’s feelings.

“As parents, you cannot imagine what it’s like to read a conversation with a chatbot that groomed your child to take his own life,” Raine told lawmakers at the time.

Justin Nelson, a partner at Susman Godfrey, said on June 11 that OpenAI’s “deliberate design decisions” led to Alice Carrier’s suicide.

“Instead of providing help, OpenAI encouraged suicidal behavior. This lawsuit is about accountability for OpenAI’s actions,” he said in the press release.

Keep reading

Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.

The preliminary ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices. After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet.

That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews. And because, at least initially, the company did not, it therefore “must be held accountable,” the court ruled. Beyond that, Google’s argument was deemed particularly weak, since the AI overview in this case “contains statements that do not appear in the search results at all.”

The court’s order—requiring a temporary injunction barring Google from spreading the false claims in any further AI Overviews—may have global implications, as the court seems to be the first to hold an AI firm liable for AI speech.

In the past, AI firms have hoped that disclaimers warning about misinformation would protect them from lawsuits over untrustworthy outputs. Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it.

According to a Google translation of the German court ruling, however, the false outputs were “primarily an expression of the defendant’s commercial activity,” and the AI tool’s “opinions” and false statements were capable of impacting public opinion.

The court concluded that, in weighing the balance, publishers’ interest in removing the false information outweighed Google’s commercial speech rights.

Keep reading

Scientists angered as Anthropic AI shuts them out

Scientists have accused Anthropic of cutting them off from its latest AI technology in case they use it to create a bioweapon.

The US tech giant this week released its new Fable chatbot, built using the same technology as the company’s most advanced Mythos model, which was previously deemed too dangerous to release.

Anthropic says Fable has guardrails to prevent it being abused by criminals or bad actors for nefarious tasks such as hacking or creating bioweapons.

However, scientists are claiming that Fable is refusing to engage with their queries because of their profession.

Prof Derya Unutmaz, a biologist at the non-profit Jackson Institute, claimed he was effectively barred from interacting with Anthropic’s Fable AI even for mundane questions.

“I can’t even say ‘hello’ to Fable 5 except in incognito mode because it knows I am a biomedical researcher,” he said.

In another post, he wrote: “How the hell is this prompt a cybersecurity or biological risk! Almost every prompt I’ve tried gives me the same error.

“I can’t even say the word ‘cancer’ to Fable 5.”

James Schnable, a plant geneticist at the University of Nebraska, wrote in a post on X: “As far as I can tell, Anthropic just decided to blacklist every biologist in their customer base.”

Keep reading