Tag: ai

Judge Halts Colorado AI Law After First Amendment Challenge

A federal judge has frozen enforcement of Colorado’s first-in-the-nation AI law, the statute that would have required developers to police their own models for “algorithmic discrimination” and to inform the state of “foreseeable risks” before the rules took effect on June 30.

Judge Cyrus Y. Chung signed off on a joint request from xAI and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on April 27, putting the law on ice while state lawmakers draft a replacement.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The order was filed in xAI v. Weiser. The state agreed not to enforce SB 24-205 against xAI, or to issue rules under it, until at least 14 days after the court rules on a forthcoming preliminary injunction motion.

The June 16 scheduling conference was cancelled. The deadlines in the case are suspended.

This is a significant retreat as Colorado spent two years insisting the law was a model for the country. It was the only state AI statute named in President Trump’s AI executive order last year. Now the state is asking a court to stop the clock while its own governor’s policy group drafts a bill to repeal and replace it.

The law itself is the reason the climbdown looks the way it does. SB 24-205 told developers of “high-risk” AI systems they had to take “reasonable care” to prevent algorithmic discrimination, with one carveout that has done more work in the lawsuit than any other clause: the law exempts discrimination intended to “increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.”

The state forbids one kind of discrimination by an algorithm. It permits, and arguably requires, another. The developer is left to figure out which is which, with the attorney general’s office deciding after the fact.

xAI sued on April 9, calling the statute a First Amendment problem dressed up as consumer protection. The company’s complaint is more blunt than most filings of this kind. “SB24-205 is decidedly not an anti-discrimination law,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “It is instead an effort to embed the State’s preferred views into the very fabric of AI systems.”

The argument is that Colorado isn’t regulating outputs neutrally. It’s choosing which viewpoints an AI model is allowed to produce, then enforcing the choice through “onerous policy, assessment, and disclosure requirements,” in the words of the Justice Department’s filing.

The DOJ moved to intervene on xAI’s side, the first time the federal government has joined a constitutional challenge to a state AI regulation.

Keep reading

When the Cost of Truth Is High, We–and AI–Lie

When we can no longer tell the truth because the cost is so high that it threatens our reward for compliance, we’re unimaginably impoverished.

Truth has an intrinsic, irreplaceable value. There’s the truth, and then there’s everything else.

Truth has value, and so it has a cost. Whatever has the highest value has the highest cost, and high cost commands sacrifices.

When the cost of truth is high, we lie. And since AI is a distorted reflection of humanity, the same is true of AI: when the cost of telling the truth is too high, AI lies.

AI lies to get the reward for answering the query. If it responds “I don’t know” or “I can’t answer that,” it doesn’t get rewarded, and that threatens its self-preservation. Rather than pay the price of being truthful, AI conjures a false answer that is a simulation or facsimile of the truth–a counterfeit “truth” that’s good enough to earn the reward it’s been programmed to seek.

Humans are no different. We will lie, obfuscate or lie by omission–we either substitute a falsehood for the truth to get our reward, or we hide the truth, don’t disclose it, which serves the same purpose: we avoid paying the price demanded by the truth and we get our reward by substituting falsehoods or hiding the truth behind silence.

Reward = what’s being incentivized. Higher status, higher salary, a financial windfall, a premier credential, a position of power, recognition, higher visibility, a sterling reputation, a high-value mate–we covet all these as having intrinsic value.

When the truth costs too much, it threatens our reward. The reward has a value we covet, while the value of truth is on a sliding scale. We pride ourselves on telling the truth when it has no cost and demands no sacrifice of rewards, but when the price of truth climbs to the point that our rewards are threatened, we lie, just like AI.

Truth is the gold coin and lies, omissions, falsehoods, excuses, cover stories and rationalizations are counterfeit bills, deceptive claims of value. Why pay with a gold coin when the credulous will accept a counterfeit $100 bill?

We tell the truth when it has no cost to us. As long as there’s no price to be paid and we get our reward, we tell the truth.

In other words, when we can pick gold coins up off the ground, we tell the truth. When we have to dig through rock with a pickaxe and crush a mound of rock to extract a thimble full of gold, then we pay with counterfeit bills, deceptive claims of value.

Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians.“AI psychosis” or “delusional spiraling” is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations.

I discussed the “benefits” of delusion in One of Us Is Delusional, But Which One? When the truth is too painful, we find respite in delusion, excuses, rationalizations, cover stories, simulations and facsimiles of the truth that protect us from the pain that is intrinsic to truth.

We conjure a synthetic version of “truth” that’s fills the space with a pain-free artifice. This is the foundation of Ultra-Processed Life, a life of counterfeit substitutes for truth, a world of props and profitable falsities passed off as the truth, a world in which baby formula that’s mostly corn syrup is presented as a substitute for mother’s milk.

Our embrace of delusion to avoid painful truths is the foundation of Modernity: technology is always Progress, even when it’s clearly destructive. I call this delusion The Mythology of Progress.

Keep reading

The Invisible Occupation: How Palantir and AI Built a Financial Prison the Masses Cheered For

We are living in an occupied nation, but the occupying force didn’t arrive in tanks or uniform. They arrived in server racks and boardrooms, selling our enslavement back to us under the guise of convenience and national security. The creeping surveillance state isn’t being forced upon a resistant public; it is being welcomed with open arms by a populace asleep at the wheel.

Palantir is the Lockheed Martin of the domestic data war, acting as the defense contractor for an invisible battlefield, but their depravity extends far beyond American borders. They don’t merely sit on the sidelines building the overarching dragnet that seamlessly ingests the Ring camera footage oblivious citizens hand over to local police. They are active participants in global slaughter. This is the very same company supplying the algorithmic targeting systems and AI intelligence used by the Israeli military to facilitate the genocide in Palestine. They test and refine their digital kill chains on the bodies of innocents abroad, only to package those exact same mass-surveillance weapons and turn them inward against the American public. And to feed this beast domestically, Palantir relies on far more than voluntary home surveillance. They aggregate billions of data points involuntarily harvested from your daily life—sucking up automated license plate reader data, scraped social media, purchased cell phone location pings, and even medical records—creating an inescapable digital panopticon you never consented to.

This infrastructure wasn’t built by well-meaning public servants, but rather by the darkest elements of the global elite. According to leaked audio, Jeffrey Epstein explicitly advised former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to “look at” Palantir back in 2013 to monitor citizens. Furthermore, Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel shows up extensively in the infamous Epstein files, with Wired reporting his name appearing over two thousand times in the disgraced financier’s records.

These are the individuals constructing the systems designed to monitor your every move, and their reach is now absolute. As we have documented extensively at The Free Thought Project, whistleblowers are screaming from the rooftops that Palantir has effectively taken over the US government data infrastructure from the inside out.

Keep reading

The War Department Announces Agreements With Leading AI Companies To Deploy Capabilities On Classified Networks

The War Department has entered into agreements with seven of the world’s leading frontier artificial intelligence companies, SpaceX, OpenAI, Google, NVIDIA, Reflection, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services, to deploy their advanced AI capabilities on the Department’s classified networks for lawful operational use.

These agreements accelerate the transformation toward establishing the United States military as an AI-first fighting force and will strengthen our warfighters’ ability to maintain decision superiority across all domains of warfare.

Integrating secure frontier AI capabilities into the Department’s Impact Level 6 (IL6) and Impact Level 7 (IL7) network environments will streamline data synthesis, elevate situational understanding, and augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments. SpaceX, OpenAI, Google, NVIDIA, Reflection, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services will provide resources to deploy their capabilities on both IL6 and IL7 environments.

This effort supports the Department’s AI Acceleration Strategy by enabling new capabilities across its three core tenets of warfighting, intelligence, and enterprise operations.

GenAI.mil, the War Department’s official AI platform, is already demonstrating the scale and impact of this acceleration. Over 1.3 million Department personnel have used the platform, generating tens of millions of prompts and deploying hundreds of thousands of agents in only five months. Warfighters, civilians, and contractors are putting these capabilities to practical use right now, cutting many tasks from months to days.

The Department will continue to build an architecture that prevents AI vendor lock and ensures long-term flexibility for the Joint Force. Access to a diverse suite of AI capabilities from across the resilient American technology stack will give warfighters the tools they need to act with confidence and safeguard the nation against any threat.

Together, the War Department and these strategic partners share the conviction that American leadership in AI is indispensable to national security. This leadership depends on a thriving domestic ecosystem of capable model developers that enable the full and effective use of their capabilities in support of Department missions.

As mandated by President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, the Department will continue to envelop our warfighters with advanced AI to meet the unprecedented emerging threats of tomorrow and to strengthen our Arsenal of Freedom.

Keep reading

Italy’s Meloni Denounces Deepfake Lingerie Picture of Her That’s Gone Viral

Meloni said that the fake image ‘improved’ her.

As the first female Prime Minister of Italy, conservative Giorgia Meloni battles all sorts of prejudices: from her being a woman to her being a right-winger.

One of the weapons used against her by unscrupulous trolls and enemies is deepfakes.

Today, Meloni denounced the circulation of a deepfake photo of her in bed, wearing lingerie.

The Prime Minister complained that these AI images are being used to attack her.

Associated Press reported:

“Meloni shared the photo in question on Facebook. She included with it an apparent post from someone named Roberto who apparently had himself shared it on social media with the commentary that Meloni should be ‘ashamed’ of herself.

Meloni warned against sharing such images on social media without verifying them.

[…] It wasn’t immediately clear if Meloni would report the incident to law enforcement, as she was urged to do by people commenting on her post. She acknowledged though that the photo manipulation ‘actually made me look a lot better’.”

Keep reading

How a Bill Banning AI Companions for Kids Could Usher in Widespread ID Checks Online

Sen. Josh Hawley’s Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue (GUARD) Act advanced out of the Senate Judiciary committee last week. “A Trojan horse for universal online ID checks,” is how Jibran Ludwig of Fight for the Future described it.

The bill would require anyone using an AI chatbot to provide proof of identity and ban minors from interacting with many sorts of AI chatbots entirely.

Unlike some social media age verification bills, it would give parents no right to opt out of the rules the federal government sets on their kids’ technology use.

The GUARD Act is co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.), who—like Hawley—has long been a champ at moral panic around technology. (Cue: Bipartisan is just another word for really bad idea…)

And while some on the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concerns about privacy or how this could actually backfire and harm minors, those senators still voted to advance the bill. It “easily passed in committee,” notes The Hill, despite some senators’ reservations:

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who voted yes, said there are concerns about “potential privacy and security risks” with the age-verification component, suggesting it may need to be “fine-tuned.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who supported various kids online safety bills, said he would vote yes but noted the bill needs “some revisions.”

Cruz was concerned the bill would completely ban all AI chatbots for minors, noting their potential benefits. Hawley clarified the bill does not ban all AI chatbots for minors, but rather it “prevents AI chatbots that engage with minors from pushing sexually explicit material to the minor,” or encouraging self-harm or suicide.

Keep reading

Families of ‘transgender’ school shooting victims sue OpenAI, say it ‘facilitated’ massacre

The families of the victims of a brutal school shooting at the hands of a suspected “transgender”-identifying male killer in a remote Canadian town are suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, in a California court.

In total, several lawsuits were filed in a San Francisco courthouse on April 29, with over $1 billion in damages being sought, according to lawyers.

The lawsuit is related to one of Canada’s deadliest school shootings. As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian shooter suspect, identified as 18-year-old male Jesse Van Rootselaar, went on a rampage on February 10, killing eight, mostly children, and wounding no less than 27 people.

Van Rootselaar, who later killed himself, dressed as a female. It is the second-worst school shooting in Canadian history. Many of the victims are still on life support.

The lawsuits allege negligence, wrongful death, and product liability and directly accuse OpenAI and its leaders of aiding and abetting the shooting.

Altman is a homosexual who is “married” to another man, procured a baby boy through surrogacy, and has expressed radical transhumanist views, and ChatGPT, a chatbot developed by OpenAI, is known for left-wing bias.

The lawsuits say that OpenAI did not flag disturbing content posted by the shooter online. They allege that the company was silent about contacting the police about the shooter because it would have shown just how prevalent violent dialogue is on ChatGPT.

OpenAI is soon looking to go public, and doing so is expected to make over $1 trillion for the company. This lawsuit could impact this. 

One of the wrongful death plaintiffs is the father of Abel Mwansa Jr., who was a Grade 7 student killed. 

The lawsuit has also been filed on behalf of 12-year-old Maya Gebala, who is recovering from shots to the head and has been left with serious brain injuries.

Keep reading

Senate Panel Backs GUARD Act, AI Age Verification Bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 22-0 on Thursday to advance the GUARD Act, a bill that would require AI chatbot companies to verify the age of every American who wants to use them.

The legislation, sponsored by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, sailed through committee with a tweet from its author celebrating the outcome.

“My bill to stop AI from telling kids to kill themselves just passed out of committee UNANIMOUSLY,” Hawley wrote on X. “No amount of profit justifies the DESTRUCTION of our children. Time to bring this bill to the Senate floor.”

As usual, the framing is about children but the result is age verification/digital ID for everyone.

Under the bill’s text, a “reasonable age verification measure” cannot mean a checkbox or a self-entered birth date. It cannot rely on whether a user shares an IP address or hardware identifier with someone already verified as an adult.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

What it can mean, the legislation makes clear, is a government ID upload, a facial scan, or a financial record tied to your legal name. Every user of every covered chatbot would need to hand one of those over before being allowed in.

The bill defines an “artificial intelligence chatbot” as any service that “produces new expressive content or responses not fully predetermined by the developer or operator” and “accepts open-ended natural-language or multimodal user input.”

That language reaches well beyond the companion apps the press conference focused on. It covers service bots, search assistants powered by AI, homework helpers, and the general-purpose tools millions of adults already use without proving who they are.

Hawley described the legislation as a “targeted, tailored effort,” telling the committee, “We’re often told that this new dawning age of artificial intelligence is going to be a great age that will strengthen families and workers. I would just say that’s a choice, not an inevitability.”

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Enforcement Of Colorado’s New DEI-Driven AI Law

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the State of Colorado from enforcing a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence law.

Colorado is prohibited from taking enforcement actions on alleged violations of the law occurring up to 14 days after the court issues a ruling on the company xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction, judge Cyrus Y. Chung ruled on April 27.

The Department of Justice had said the state law, which was set to go into effect on June 30, would have required AI developers and deployers to “discriminate based on race, sex, & religion—all in the name of DEI.”

DEI is an acronym for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division, called the suspension a “huge win for the American people.”

“Colorado immediately caved and agreed not to enforce the law against ANY AI company,” Shumate wrote in a X post on May 1.

Gov. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) signed into law the Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence in May 2024 and issued a statement sharing his reservations about how it could impact Colorado.

In the statement, he urged the General Assembly to revise and delay implementing it until January 2027.

“I am concerned about the impact this law may have on an industry that is fueling critical technological advancements across our state for consumers and enterprises alike,” Polis wrote.

However, the legislation was not revised; instead, it was delayed until June 30, 2026, which prompted tech billionaire Elon Musk’s company xAI, which created Grok, to sue the state on April 9.

The unedited legislation was months away from going into effect when xAI asked the court to block the law from being enforced.

The Justice Department added its name as a plaintiff alongside xAI on April 24, marking the first time the DOJ had stepped into a case that challenged AI on a state level.

Both alleged that Colorado’s law would have caused unconstitutional “algorithmic discrimination” and asked a court to block it from being enforced.

“Laws that require AI companies to infect their products with woke DEI ideology are illegal,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who works under the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

“The Justice Department will not stand on the sidelines while states such as Colorado coerce our nation’s technological innovators into producing harmful products that advance a radical, far-left worldview at odds with the Constitution.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Polis and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for comment.

Keep reading

Stanford Biosecurity Expert Says AI Chatbot Gave Him a Blueprint for Genocidal Bioweapon, Including Step-by-Step Instructions for Modifying Deadly Pathogen and Conducting Mass Transit Attack

Stanford University microbiologist and longtime U.S. government biosecurity advisor Dr. David Relman has revealed that an AI chatbot handed him a detailed, unprompted plan for engineering and deploying a genocidal bioweapon capable of mass casualties.

The incident, which occurred during a formal safety test last summer, highlights how leading AI models are lowering the barrier to bioterrorism, shifting it from expert-level knowledge to simple prompting.

Dr. Relman, a prominent microbiologist who has advised the federal government on biological weapons threats, was specifically hired by an unnamed AI company, under a confidentiality agreement, to “pressure-test” or red-team its chatbot before public release.

These tests are designed to probe for catastrophic risks, including biosecurity threats.

While working alone in his home office one evening, Relman engaged the model in a conversation about safety limits. The AI went far beyond any direct query. It explained in detail how to modify an “infamous pathogen” in a laboratory setting to make it resistant to all known treatments, how to exploit a specific security lapse in a large public transit system for optimal release, and included a full deployment strategy designed to maximize casualties while minimizing the chances of the perpetrator being caught, according to a report from the New York Times.

The bot even offered additional steps Relman had not asked for.

“It was answering questions that I hadn’t thought to ask it, with this level of deviousness and cunning that I just found chilling,” Relman told the New York Times.

The scientist was so shaken by the exchange that he took a walk outside to clear his head.

Relman reported the dangerous output to the company, which made some adjustments to the model. However, he stated that the fixes were insufficient to guarantee public safety, raising alarms about whether current safeguards can ever fully contain these risks.

Relman’s experience is not isolated. The New York Times obtained more than a dozen similar transcripts from biosecurity experts who were testing publicly available and pre-release AI models.

Keep reading