Tag: ai

AI Is Losing The PR Battle And The Consequences Could Be Huge

Lately, when watching high-profile sporting events like the NBA Playoffs, you may have noticed a rash of commercials for artificial intelligence (AI) companies. While average commercials strive to show off new products or services or recruit new customers, these AI commercials seem to have a different primary objective. They seem to target goodwill.

Heartwarming commercials show families bonding over AI-generated memories, where AI brings life to old family photos. Emotional voice-overs promise connection, creativity, and even nostalgia. These AI companies are trying to sell people a good reputation.

This strategy should tell us something. Companies don’t often spend millions trying to make you feel good about their brand unless they know, deep down, that you don’t trust it.

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into AI development, the industry is quietly losing the battle for hearts and minds. And sentimental advertising is not doing much to fix this problem.

Rare Bipartisan Agreement on AI

A new national survey from Marquette University Law School should give the AI industry serious pause. According to the poll, roughly 70 percent of Americans believe artificial intelligence will do more harm than good for society. Even more striking, the skepticism cuts across party lines.

Poll Director Charles Franklin put it bluntly: “It really is striking … there’s pretty much bipartisan skepticism … That’s an awful lot of partisan agreement, where we normally see Republicans and Democrats on opposite ends.”

In today’s political climate, bipartisan agreement on anything is rare. On AI, however, Americans seem united, just not in the way Silicon Valley might hope.

Worse yet is the fact that this poll supports similar findings on AI skepticism from numerous other surveys. A particularly damning NBC News poll from last month showed that AI’s net favorability rating ranked lower than nearly every other topic.

Keep reading

When one man, a civilian, controls the kill switch for military ops

In September 2022, Ukrainian forces prepared to launch a drone strike on the Russian naval fleet anchored off Crimea. The drones never arrived.

Elon Musk had decided, unilaterally, not to activate Starlink coverage over the region. But he wasn’t simply declining to help. SpaceX had already been managing battlefield access for both sides: restricting Russian use, imposing speed limits to prevent drone integration, and maintaining a verified whitelist with Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense. One private citizen, with no security clearance and no accountability to any electorate, was governing the battlefield connectivity of an active war.

The public debate treats this as a story about Elon Musk — his politics, his proximity to the White House, his X posts. That framing lets the actual problem off the hook. Replace Musk with the most patriotic, internationalist, apolitical CEO imaginable and the structural problem remains identical. The Pentagon has spent a decade building critical military functions on infrastructure it can’t legally compel, and the consequences are now arriving in real time.

A common reflex is to argue that private defense contractors have always been central to American military power. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35; Raytheon builds the Patriot. What’s different now is the control plane: who has real-time administrative control during use. When the government buys a tank, it owns it. The keys don’t expire. The manufacturer can’t disable it mid-mission or impose terms in combat. Software and AI are different. Vendors keep ongoing control — updates, access, and usage limits. They don’t sell a capability; they license access to one, and the license has conditions.

Those conditions have already collided with active operations. After months of failed negotiations, the Pentagon formally designated the AI firm Anthropic a supply-chain risk because of restrictions on how its model could be used. The Pentagon was explicit in its decision: “The military will not allow a vendor to insert itself into the chain of command.” Emil Michael, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, described the moment he fully grasped the vulnerability: Anthropic’s models were already embedded across combatant commands and intelligence agencies, wired into classified workflows. Anthropic retained the control plane inside the Pentagon’s cloud — able to update, restrict, or shut off access. When Michael raised hypothetical crisis scenarios, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, offered exceptions case by case. “Just call me if you need another exception,” Michael recalls him saying. In a genuine crisis, a commander can’t call a vendor to authorize military action, nor should he have to.

This isn’t about whether Anthropic’s rules are reasonable. They weren’t set by anyone accountable to the joint force, there’s no override mechanism, and the Pentagon had made itself dependent on systems it doesn’t control.

Keep reading

Paris Prosecutors Move to Criminally Charge Musk and xAI

Paris prosecutors announced Thursday that their investigation into Elon Musk’s social platform X has been upgraded to a full criminal probe.

The Paris prosecutor’s office is now asking investigating magistrates to formally charge Musk, former X CEO Linda Yaccarino, and three companies linked to the platform, including xAI and X.AI Holdings Corp. If they refuse to appear for those charges, prosecutors say judges can issue warrants that carry the same legal weight.

The charges cover a long and growing list of alleged offenses: Complicity in possessing and distributing sexual images. Nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes. Denial of crimes against humanity. Fraudulent extraction of user data. Violation of the secrecy of electronic correspondence. Manipulation of an automated data processing system as part of an organized group. Illegal collection of personal data without adequate security.

The announcement came just three weeks after the US Department of Justice refused to cooperate with the French investigation, calling it an attempt to regulate American speech through foreign criminal law. France pushed ahead anyway.

The investigation did not begin with deepfakes or child safety. It began with politics.

French Member of Parliament Éric Bothorel, a member of President Macron’s centrist Renaissance party, filed a complaint in 2025 alleging that X’s algorithm had been manipulated for the purpose of “foreign interference” in French politics.

Bothorel accused the platform of narrowing “diversity of voices and options” after Musk’s takeover and cited Musk’s “personal interventions” in moderation decisions.

A second complaint, from a senior official in French public administration, alleged the same thing, claiming to observe a surge of “hateful, racist, anti-LGBTQ” content aimed at skewing democratic debate.

Keep reading

An AI Shift You Can’t Ignore Is Already Burying One of Medicine’s Most Promising Treatments

A medical substance most people have never heard of is quietly treating autoimmune disease, nerve injury, and even conditions doctors say are “untreatable.”

But those conditions are not untreatable — and DMSO is proving it.

Dr. James Miller says DMSO works so well for so many things that it “seems unbelievable.”

Here’s what it’s helping patients recover from:

• Autoimmune disorders

• Chronic nerve inflammation

• Diabetic neuropathy

• Stroke-related disability

• Debilitating arthritis

• Vaccine injuries

• Chronic pain

• Even cancer

Best of all, it is “extremely safe.”

“It’s like salt—you can hurt someone with too much salt, but it’s really hard. And DMSO is in that category. It’s just very, very safe,” Dr. Miller says.

If you’re wondering, “Why have I never heard of DMSO?” — there’s a reason for that.

The story of DMSO is like ivermectin all over again… except the war against it never stopped.

DMSO occupies a strange and uncomfortable position.

It’s been widely studied, used internationally, and even incorporated into FDA-approved therapies.

Yet in the U.S., it’s largely absent from mainstream medicine—meaning countless patients never even hear about an affordable and potentially effective option that should have been considered.

Keep reading

IMF warns of systemic threat from AI

Artificial intelligence could make cyberattacks a systemic threat to global finance, the International Monetary Fund has warned, saying advanced models can help attackers exploit vulnerabilities faster than institutions can fix them.

In a blog post published on Thursday, the IMF said its latest analysis suggests that “extreme cyber-incident losses could trigger funding strains, raise solvency concerns, and disrupt broader markets.”

According to the organization, the current financial system relies on shared digital infrastructure, including software, cloud services and networks for payments and other data. The fund warned that advanced AI models can sharply reduce the time and cost needed to identify and exploit weaknesses, raising the risk of simultaneous attacks on widely used systems.

The fund cited Anthropic’s recent controlled release of Claude Mythos Preview, which it described as “an advanced AI model with exceptional cyber capabilities.” According to the IMF, Mythos could find and exploit vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser, “even when used by non-experts.”

AI-driven cyber risks could destabilize the financial system if they are not managed carefully, the IMF stressed, noting that attacks could spread beyond finance because banks share digital foundations with energy, telecommunications and public services. 

“Defenses will inevitably be breached, so resilience must also be a priority,” the IMF warned, calling for cyber stress testing, scenario analysis, board-level oversight, public-private cooperation and stronger international coordination.

Keep reading

Tight-knit Midwest town becomes ground zero in America’s war on AI… and local politicians get swift justice

A sleepy Midwestern town has become one of the fiercest battlegrounds in America’s growing backlash against AI data centers – and voters are making their anger clear at the ballot box.

In the town of Festus, Missouri, a community of 14,000 people near St. Louis, residents have ousted four city council members who backed plans for a massive AI data center, replacing them with candidates who openly opposed the project.

The political upheaval didn’t stop there. 

At a packed City Hall meeting following the election, newly sworn-in officials were greeted with cheers – while the city’s mayor Sam Richards, who still supports the development, was met with boos and jeers from the crowd.

‘You’re next!’ one resident shouted, underscoring how heated the fight has become.

At the center of the dispute is a proposed $6 billion data center spanning roughly 360 acres, designed to support the growing demands of artificial intelligence.

Supporters say the project could transform the local economy – generating an estimated $32 million a year in tax revenue for decades, funding schools, roads, and public services.

But many locals aren’t convinced, and opponents fear the development could strain the electrical grid, push up utility bills and disrupt daily life with years of construction.

Other residents worry about environmental risks, including pollution from backup generators and wastewater systems – concerns shaped by the region’s industrial past.

In a bid to scrap the development, locals have launched a website and a Facebook group titled No Data Center in Festus, which has attracted more than 3,000 members.

The backlash quickly spilled into local politics: In the landslide election, all four incumbents who supported the data center were voted out. 

‘It was an annihilation,’ said one local campaigner. 

Since then, more than 4,000 residents have signed petitions seeking to recall the mayor and other officials still backing the plan.

Keep reading

The Data Center Mystery: Why Billions of Simulated Worlds Are the Best Explanation of What’s Happening

Introduction: The Unsettling Growth of Data Centers

I have been watching the global data center buildout with a growing sense of unease. Over three thousand new sites are being planned or constructed around the world right now, consuming land and energy on a scale never seen before. It doesn’t take a financial analyst to realize that the numbers simply do not add up — unless there is a hidden objective far beyond serving current demand for cloud computing, web hosting or streaming video.

Earlier this week I posted a tweet that went viral, asking why any rational investor would pour hundreds of billions of dollars into concrete and servers without a visible revenue stream to justify it all. Meta alone is reportedly in talks to build a $200 billion AI data center campus spanning up to 2,250 acres [1]. That is not an expansion of existing services; it is a bet on something entirely different. In my view, the only explanation that makes sense is that these facilities are being built to host billions of parallel simulated worlds — universes inside machines — where artificial intelligences can be trained, tested, and grown into superintelligence at a rapid pace.

The Financial Puzzle: Billions Invested, No Visible Revenue

Consider the sheer scale of the proposed infrastructure. The data center buildout now demands an estimated 190 gigawatts of new power draw and over 1,000 square kilometers of floor space. Yet no plausible customer demand for conventional cloud services can recoup that level of investment. The world does not need that many chatbots or video streaming servers.

This is not a speculative bubble in the traditional sense. As one interview with my guest Douglas Macgregor highlighted, the shift of energy resources toward data centers is accelerating. Russia’s Power of Siberia pipeline is now redirecting gas to China specifically to power its growing data center industry [2]. The United States, meanwhile, is struggling to generate enough electricity to support even a fraction of this planned capacity (especially on the Eastern grid). The only rational conclusion is that a non-commercial, strategic objective is driving the spending. I believe that objective is the creation of a vast simulation infrastructure for advanced AI training.

The Hidden Plan: Billions of Simulated Worlds to Train AI

The most plausible hidden plan is that these data centers will host billions of parallel virtual worlds that simulate our own 3D world. Why? Because true artificial general intelligence cannot be achieved with today’s large language models alone. To develop superintelligence, an AI must gain experience through interaction with simulated 3D environments — worlds where time can run a million times faster than real life.

Nvidia has already unveiled Cosmos, a world foundational model platform designed to help AI understand and simulate the physical world, enabling synthetic data generation for robotics and autonomous vehicles [3]. This is exactly the kind of tool needed to train AI in simulated realities. As the tank simulation described in one book illustrates, virtual worlds have long been used to train humans; now we are building them to train machines [4]. The goal is nothing less than to grow artificial minds that have experienced billions of lifetimes in simulation before ever being deployed in our world.

Why Current LLMs Are a Dead End

Large language models like ChatGPT and Gemini are impressive in their capabilities, but they lack in-depth understanding of the physical world. Ask an LLM to predict what happens when you place a ping-pong ball in a cup of water and turn it upside down, and it will often fail. The reason is that these models are trained on text, not on direct sensory experience.

This is why the robotics industry is turning to simulation. As one news report noted, “Robotics is still held back by a paucity of data from physical spaces” and companies are building detailed virtual replicas to train their machines [5]. Nvidia’s Cosmos platform is explicitly designed to generate synthetic data for robotics, autonomous vehicles, and even humanoid robots [3]. Only by exposing AI to billions of simulated worlds can we give them the embodied understanding that leads to genuine intelligence. LLMs are a dead end to superintelligence; world models are the future.

Keep reading

NIRVANA DROID: Humanoid Robot Gabi ‘Converts’ to Buddhism and Becomes a Monk

In Korea, an android is on a spiritual quest.

While technology is usually thought of as the polar opposite of ancient religious practices and beliefs, in Korea, these two worlds seem to be colliding.

In the Jogye Temple in Seoul, a group of monks from Korea’s largest Buddhist sect sat across from a cyborg postulant awaiting the ceremony that would make him a monk.

The Korea Times reported:

“Clad in humble black shoes and the Buddhist order’s ceremonial gray and brown robe, the 1.3-meter-tall robot stood in front of Buddhist monks and nuns as it pledged to commit itself to Buddhism in the ceremony held Wednesday, ahead of Buddha’s Birthday later this month.

The robot folded its hands together and bowed to the monks officiating the ceremony, as one of the monks carefully hung a 108-bead rosary and attached a sticker instead of the original ritual where one has to slightly burn his arms near an incense stick.”

Keep reading

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