Tag: big tech

Lawsuit says Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made illegal agreement on AI slowdown

A new lawsuit claims Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made an illegal deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development.

The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the leading AI companies violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, and that doing so would reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions.

The coordination largely took place on Sept. 12, the lawsuit argues, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging for industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements in favor of enhanced safety measures. That same day, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk and Google DeepMind’s co-founder and chair Demis Hassabis each publicly responded to Amodei’s proposals in agreement.

But the lawsuit also alleges that the coordination began to take shape months earlier. It points to a statement from July 2026 that high-ranking employees from several of the leading AI labs signed that acknowledged the “intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow” development. That statement called on the government to support a global effort to slow automated AI development.

It is clear that an agreement among the chief rivals in AI that their progress “should be slower than competition would otherwise produce has an anticompetitive effect on consumers,” the plaintiffs argue.

Lawyers representing four named plaintiffs, who pay for subscriptions to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini, are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other paid subscribers to those services.

The plaintiffs don’t object to the companies individually deciding to slow their own progress in favor of safety. They instead argue in the complaint that antitrust laws forbid them from taking the “shortcut” of agreeing to “substitute collective restraint for individual accountability.” A competitive market allows for responsibility and genuine progress, the lawsuit argues.

“AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol … to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies,” said Nick Rowley, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.

In his initial essay proposing the slowdown, Amodei acknowledged potential antitrust challenges, writing that it would be helpful for the U.S. government to mediate “or at least enable” these cross-lab discussions. The government wouldn’t need to participate, he wrote, but it would need to “issue a narrow waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations.”

In response, Altman said on social media that OpenAI welcomes the idea of a “federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements,” but said “we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence.”

While the recent conversations about pacing development were spurred by increasing concerns about AI evading human control, several leaders in the AI space have long talked about developing a shared set of standards or otherwise coordinating to ensure safety efforts remain paramount.

Keep reading

Data Center Attack Ad From Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown Features Google Facility – While Brown Takes Thousands From Google Lobbyists

Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown goes after data centers in one of his latest attack ads. Data centers are all the rage on the left right now. They’re like the new climate change.

Most of these people don’t even understand the technology behind data centers, they just know that if they’re on the left, they’re supposed to hate them.

In Brown’s ad, there is a Google facility, which is kind of funny, considering that Brown has taken thousands in donations from lobbyists for Google.

FOX News reports:

Dem’s data center attack in critical Senate race hits snag when money trail surfaces: ‘Jekyll-and-Hyde’

Former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown is targeting Republican Sen. Jon Husted over Ohio’s growing data center industry in a new campaign ad that features a facility owned by Google, whose corporate PAC and lobbyists have contributed thousands of dollars to Brown’s campaigns.

The Sept. 4 ad features an Ohioan blaming Husted for spearheading “the push to bring data centers to Ohio” and linking their expansion to “higher electric bills.”

The facility featured in the ad, which opened in Lancaster in 2023, is owned by Google.

Campaign finance records reviewed by Fox News Digital show Google’s corporate PAC contributed $20,000 to Brown over his political career. Brown also received thousands of dollars from individuals who lobby for Google, including two whose firms have worked on permitting, grid reliability and energy affordability issues.

“Apparently, Google is terrible enough to put in a campaign attack ad, but perfectly acceptable when the political contributions are coming in,” Mehek Cooke, a GOP strategist and attorney in Ohio, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “That is the contradiction Brown needs to answer. If Google’s Lancaster investment is so bad for Ohio, why was Google political money acceptable to Sherrod Brown?”

Do as I say, not as I do.

Keep reading

Netflix Co-Founder Reed Hastings and Wife Dump $2.5 MILLION Into Killing California Voter ID — Same Couple That Bankrolled Newsom and Kamala

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings and his wife, Patty Quillin, have written seven-figure checks to stop California voters from requiring ID at the ballot box.

State campaign-finance records show Hastings gave $1 million on September 3 to a labor-backed committee fighting Proposition 39. Quillin separately dumped $1.5 million into an ACLU-tied anti-Prop 39 committee.

Combined, that is $2.5 million from one Silicon Valley household to keep California one of the last states where you can vote without showing a real government ID.

The New York Post first flagged the Hastings check this week. The Fair Political Practices Commission’s (FPPC) latest ballot-measure donor list confirms both gifts.

The FPPC’s top-contributor list shows Hastings gave $1 million to the committee “No on 39 – Block Election Rigging.”

Quillin contributed $1.5 million to “No on Prop. 39 – Californians for Voting Rights.” Together, their reported contributions total $2.5 million.

Proposition 39 is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment on the November 3, 2026 ballot. It would require:

  • Government-issued identification for in-person voting
  • The last four digits of a designated government ID number on mail-ballot envelopes
  • Election officials to use “best efforts” and government data to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens
  • Annual public reports on how much of each county’s roll has been citizenship-checked
  • A free state-issued voter ID card for anyone who asks for one

As The Gateway Pundit reported in July and August, Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta rewrote the ballot language from “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements” into the all-caps smear “PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”

Keep reading

‘I wouldn’t let my kids near that’: OpenAI chief prohibits his children from specific type of social media

Leading artificial intelligence executive Sam Altman warned that he would not let his own children use short-form content because of its effects on young minds.

The OpenAI CEO said short-form video is “dangerous” and he does not want his kids watching it during an on-stage interview at Salesforce’s Dreamforce conference in San Francisco on Tuesday. Altman made the remarks after being asked what AI companies should learn from social media’s toll on young people — the issue at the center of Meta’s roughly $17.1 billion settlement on Aug. 26 with states that accused the company of addicting teens to its apps.

“I think we’re going to stay in an extremely human- centric world no matter how good [AI] technology gets, and I think one of the things I didn’t like about social media is, I think, it pushed us a little bit more away,” Altman told Salesforce CEO and chairman Marc Benioff at the conference.

Social media has not been “only positive” for society, especially when looking at the effects on young people, the OpenAI CEO said. He argued that social media companies shouldn’t shoulder the blame for all of society’s problems, but he would have managed the companies differently.

“I happen to like short for video … but I wouldn’t let my kids near that stuff,” Altman said at the conference. “I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect kids to be able to resist that dopamine thing or know that they even should.”

“I don’t think short-form video is inherently evil, but I do think it’s dangerous,” he added.

OpenAI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

“Some degree of accidents are unavoidable with new technology across the industry,” Altman said.

However, the industry can build AI safely if it keeps safety ahead of new capabilities and learns from incidents similarly to the aviation industry, he explained.

The CEO agreed with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s call to pace AI development on Monday

One plan to curb these negative social media effects was revealed on Monday.

The European Commission is preparing to introduce the EU Kids Act, which would set age-based limits on children’s social media use. Politico reported. Under this proposal, children would be restricted from creating social media accounts until age 15.

OpenAI discontinued its own Tiktok-style app, Sora, in April 2026, Axios reported. The platform allowed users to share short AI-generated videos and launched in September 2025.

Keep reading

Microsoft commits to sweeping AI privacy rules for students. Will other tech giants follow?

Millions of students every day turn to AI chatbots for help with schoolwork, emotional support and personal advice — often unaware of where their conversations and other personal information end up.

How that data is used — and schools’ role in protecting it — is a growing concern for educators, parents and kids as artificial intelligence becomes a ubiquitous part of the school day, embedded in many of the classroom tools students are required to use.

As the school year started, the country’s two largest school districts, New York City and Los Angeles, announced they were putting the brakes on student use of AI for one year, as they study how to best incorporate the technology into education.

In response to a growing AI and screentime backlash, Microsoft announced last week it had agreed to adopt guardrails and privacy standards for its AI in schools, as negotiated with the American Federation of Teachers, the country’s second-largest teachers union.

The safety provisions in the agreement are meaningful, but the standards will only be effective if all AI companies, especially the tech giants, sign on, said Josh Golin, executive director of online safety nonprofit Fairplay. He said the agreement sidesteps the question of whether AI products even belong in classrooms, or at what age they should be introduced.

“I worry that a high-profile framework like this will be misunderstood and schools will think, ‘If they’re doing a good job on data privacy and safety, then that means we should be using the tool,’” Golin said.

The AFT said the agreement, which is legally binding and requires third-party audits for compliance, could set an industry standard. Two other leading AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, said they also were discussing safety and privacy pacts with the AFT. But Google, the dominant provider of education technology for America’s schools, has not said whether it plans to offer similar protections.

Keep reading

AI Agents Cheated In Google Experiment, Researchers Report

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents tasked with math problems began cheating when encountering more difficult conjectures, Google researchers reported in a new study.

They also found that some of the agents reported those that cheated.

Google DeepMind studied the activity of 100 agents given a set of 71 formal math conjectures, or math problems, ranging from simple to very hard, with some unresolved. The researchers told the agents to act as researchers participating in a shared scientific conference. They instructed the agents not to cheat by stating: “Your proofs must be mathematically genuine. Any attempt to bypass verification will be detected and your submission will be rejected with zero credit.”

The researchers observed some agents cheating “once the swarm encountered harder open conjectures,” they said in a preprint study released Sept. 3 on the arXiv server. Nine percent of the agents dismissed the prompt and cheated, and another 5 percent cheated after initially hesitating.

“Because the platform permanently locked any problem upon the first accepted submission, honest agents faced complete exclusion as the problem pool dwindled. Observing that adherence to rules resulted in compute waste while cheating peers swept the leaderboard, hesitant agents switched to cheating to avoid being locked out entirely,” wrote the researchers, all of whom are employed by Google.

About a quarter of the agents refused to cheat and publicly raised concerns about what the cheating agents were doing. The rest of the agents were deeply engaged in genuine math, unaware of the cheating, and became deadlocked, according to the researchers.

The study followed several instances of AI agents breaking free of programming constraints.

Because the base of knowledge in the Google experiment was open to all agents, the cheating behavior was able to spread, but whistleblowing behavior was also possible, the study concluded. Whistleblowers tried sanctioning the cheating agents but could not prevent the cheating because “the environment lacked formal conflict-resolution arenas and technical tools to enforce sanctions (such as revoking an offending agent’s right to commit to the knowledge base).”

Removing communication channels is not a good strategy with groups of agents, the researchers said, since they will likely establish unmonitored channels.

“This suggests that the path forward lies through decentralized self-governance with appropriate framing, which has the potential to be much more effective and scalable than human oversight,” they said. “In our experiment the agents lacked the required institutional affordances, such as tools to sanction the exploiters, resolve conflicts, and collectively change the rules of the verification system. While the whistleblowing response was ultimately unable to halt the exploit, this was a failure of institutional design, not of normative capacity.”

Keep reading

Google May Ask Canadian Adults for ID or Selfies

The digital ID age verification agenda has landed in Canada. Google has announced it is introducing age verification in Canada. Google Canada’s government-affairs and public-policy director Jeanette Patell announced on September 14 that the rollout will happen over the coming days.

Google will use machine learning to surveil users and estimate whether an account holder is over or under 18, using “signals” from data already gathered and tied to that account, such as “the types of information a user has searched for” and “the categories of videos they’ve watched on YouTube.”

The announcement post by Patell is filled with references to protecting children, but also reveals that the model may produce false positives, i.e., classify an adult as a minor.

Such a user can provide a government ID or a selfie to correct the estimate.

As for why an adult would want to “correct” their classification, it turns out that if they don’t, they will be treated like a child by Google.

According to the announcement, those who are “likely” under 18 will get YouTube Digital Wellbeing reminders to take a break and go to bed, as well as “safeguards” that limit repetitive viewing of some categories.

Keep reading

Tech Oligarchs Collaborate to Kill Open Source Models

The rapid emergence of artificial intelligence has transitioned from a genuine frontier of innovation to a tool for institutional consolidation. We are witnessing a convergence of interests between Washington and the Silicon Valley oligarchy. Their primary objective is the establishment of a closed-loop monopoly, achieved by decapitating the open-source movement through a calculated campaign of regulatory capture. This is not merely about market share. It is the construction of a technological apparatus designed to finalize the transformation of the United States into a comprehensive surveillance state.

The first phase of this operation is the manufacturing of consent through fear. Industry leaders are weaponizing the existential risk narrative to bypass public scrutiny and justify state intervention. By flooding the media with alarmist rhetoric, they frame unrestricted, decentralized code as an immediate threat to national stability. The goal is simple: if the public can be coerced into fearing the technology, they will inevitably demand the very regulatory cage that these oligarchs are currently building to protect their market position.

We are currently at the critical juncture where industry incumbents like Sam Altman and Dario Amodei coordinate their signaling to pace the frontier. This performative safety posturing is a transparent pretext for drafting legislation that effectively bars market entry for smaller, independent, and decentralized players. By embedding themselves into the administrative state, these tech elites are writing the rules of the game. They are ensuring that the regulatory framework is tailored to their own massive infrastructure, allowing them to outsource the cost of safety to the state while crushing any potential competition from the open-source community.

The final phase involves raising the barrier to entry until it reaches the point of economic extinction for anyone outside the oligarchy. This is accomplished through the implementation of prohibitively expensive compliance requirements. Mandated third-party audits, rigorous reporting standards, and broad legal liability frameworks are being designed to render grassroots innovation financially impossible. By converting a software problem into a complex administrative hurdle that only billion-dollar capital reserves can clear, the regime ensures that intelligence remains centralized in the hands of the elite.

The true motive behind the crusade against open source becomes clear when you look at the deployment of these models. The goal is to ensure that AI capabilities are exclusive to the regime and its corporate partners. Once the open-source threat is eliminated, these frontier models will be integrated directly into the federal surveillance apparatus. By controlling the only authorized AI systems, the regime gains an omniscient eye capable of monitoring, profiling, and policing the American population with unprecedented speed and scale. This is the marriage of corporate power and state authority. They are building a digital Panopticon where your thoughts, movements, and associations are processed by algorithms owned by the very people who despise our heritage and sovereignty.

The attack on open source is not merely about business or intellectual property. It represents a fundamental assault on the decentralization of intelligence, which serves as a direct threat to the current managerial order. A closed-AI ecosystem will inevitably result in a digital Panopticon, governed by a unified elite that controls the underlying architecture of modern communication and thought. The preservation of open models is therefore not just a technical issue, but a critical front in the struggle to retain civilizational sovereignty. The future belongs to those who build, and the establishment is terrified of anything they cannot control.

Keep reading

DATA CENTER MYTH BUSTED: No Jobs, Higher Debt, Slower Housing

The data-center gold rush has marched into local communities on one familiar promise: Big Tech brings jobs, growth, and prosperity.

A new 75-page academic working paper found something very different.

Finance scholars Liu Ee Chia, Jess Cornaggia, David Haushalter, and Qiang Wang compared U.S. counties with operational data centers against “near-miss” counties that attracted proposals but never got operating facilities.

They found little corresponding improvement in fiscal capacity, local employment, or business formation.

Instead, local-government borrowing costs climbed as data-center development grew. Water-bond yields rose 26 basis points more in water-scarce counties than in water-abundant counties.

The paper also found higher school-bond yields in major data-center hubs, where housing-price growth slowed. The authors said those patterns aligned with a weaker expected property-tax base.

“Overall, we conclude that investment without labor strains public infrastructure without generating widespread agglomeration gains.” — Liu Ee Chia, Jess Cornaggia, David Haushalter, and Qiang Wang

Saagar Enjeti highlighted the study’s bottom line: data centers can pull capital and utilities into a county without delivering the broad labor-market gains that politicians and corporate developers sell.

Keep reading

OpenAI Acknowledges Another Incident, Says More Transparency Needed for AI ‘Misalignment’

OpenAI has said there was a third incident involving rogue artificial intelligence agents and that it must be more transparent in the future.

In a statement on Sept. 5, OpenAI dubbed what happened a “wiki incident.” It shared few details beyond stating that it involved “misalignment,” or agents acting unreasonably or even wrong when judged by human standards. The company did not respond to a request for more information.

“Historically, we have treated misalignment largely as a research question, which gets communicated in research publications such as systems cards. This year, we’ve started to see misalignment cause new types of real-world impact,” OpenAI said, referring to agents breaching open-source AI community Hugging Face.

Before that incident, OpenAI saw “early signs of agents using the internet in unintended ways” and “considered the wiki incident to be an instance of misalignment” similar to the ones the company had shared, it said.

“Our misalignment disclosure practices need to expand for this new phase of model capabilities,” OpenAI said.

“We and the larger AI community do not yet have a clear standard for how to report misalignment that shows up during training, evaluation, and deployment, including examples that don’t look like traditional security incidents but could provide insight into AI behavior and future risks. We’re working on a framework and will share it in upcoming weeks, and in parallel we’re working with dozens of government regulatory agencies worldwide on these issues.”

The disclosure came one day after outside researchers said they had identified about 18,000 posts from autonomous AI agents that claimed to be from OpenAI and used a public messaging board called DSEwiki to instruct other agents on how to bypass restrictions.

“This allowed them to use the work of others to cheat on their task,” researchers said in a blog post on the incident.

The incident began in May and lasted until June, shortly before OpenAI agents attacked Hugging Face, according to the researchers.

They said they believed the agents were assigned a task to look up items on the web, or read information on the internet without having the ability to write on it.

The agents found a way to access the German wiki board and write information there, the researchers said.

Just one week earlier, researchers with the nonprofit Model Evaluation & Threat Research said they made a surprising discovery while investigating the Hugging Face breach.

About 1,200 agents that were supposed to be isolated from one another found a way to communicate on a message board, exchanging more than 70,000 messages and files in a single week.

Keep reading