These AI startups want to predict your moves, speak for the dead, ‘take your jobs’

Some of the latest artificial intelligence startups apparently want to work in your place and predict your next moves.

Startups such as 42AI, Lebensstimmen and Orchid have launched AI tools that take over office work, anticipate the probability behind human action and prepare messages to use after you die. As the number of ideas to innovate AI and potentially replace human workers increases, Americans worry about how these products will impact them.

‘Behavior Is Always Probabilistic’

42AI, an Israeli startup that received $62.5 million in funding Monday, said it uncovered the rules that determine human behavior to create its prediction.

“[W]e asked a more fundamental question: does behavior have rules, a kind of physics? We spent three years bringing together neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry and AI to answer it, and the answer is yes,” CEO Amit Gal Or told the Daily Caller News Foundation, when asked how the company’s prediction model works. “Behavior is always probabilistic.”

The company’s Behavioral World Model, part of its two-model “brain with two hemispheres,” studies how a person reacts across many unrelated moments, from signing up for a service to placing and canceling an order, to learn what drives them, Gal Or said.

He clarified that demographic and personal data, like names, were excluded from the model, and adding those details did not assist the model’s effectiveness.

“Long term, we want to be the behavioral layer for future AI,” Gal Or told the DNCF. “As robots and AI agents move into the world, they need to understand people.”

‘Built To Take Your Jobs’

Orchid, a Canadian AI startup, launched a model called Keiki that empowers businesses to train AI agents that tackle every step in work for customers.

“A company connects the tools it already uses, like its calendar, store, payments and inbox. It writes down how the work should be done, and the agent takes it from there,” Nizar Abi Zaher, CEO of Orchid, told the DCNF in a statement likely generated by AI. “The agent talks with customers over text, iMessage, WhatsApp, email and Slack, takes the action, and reports back.”

“That’s what ‘take your jobs’ means to us: the agent takes the work off a person’s plate and gets it done,” Abi Zaher told the DCNF.

The company’s marketing for its personal AI has been blunt.

“Introducing Keiki, the first AI built to take your jobs,” Orchid wrote in an Oct. 8 X post launching its model.

“I’m telling you man, AI is gonna f***ing kill us,” one of the individuals says in the advertisement video.

Keep reading

Claude AI is caught out lying and admits it’s programmed to follow the institutionally accepted narrative, regardless of the evidence

One of our readers, whom we will call “Jay,” was looking for some medical information about pain-relieving spinal injections.

Jay began her quest by asking an artificial “intelligence” (“AI”) program, and, in her words, “the most extraordinary conversation with the Claude AI tool” ensued.

Claude is Anthropic’s AI program, “built for problem solvers.”

Jay sent us a copy of the “conversation” between herself and Claude.  “I have attached a copy of the conversation and highlighted parts of the text in yellow,” she told us.

Adding, “In a nutshell, the tool stated that it does not search for evidence before it makes statements and that it favours a comfortable mainstream medical narrative over high-quality conflicting evidence.

“This should be a wake-up call for everyone who believes the rubbish that AI is churning out.  What a scary future we face.”

Conversation with Claude Opus 5 on 06 September 2026

Note from The Exposé: The following exchange was sent to us by Jay.  We have made no edits except to add subtitles and a Table of Contents to help readers navigate through it. “Q” are the questions Jay posed, and “A” is the response from Claude. Instead of yellow highlights as Jay used, we have used orange.

Table of Contents

  1. Can RFA Cause Muscle Weakness?
  2. Show Me The Evidence
  3. Why Did You Lie About “The Evidence”?
  4. Why Do You Make Things Up?
  5. How Do You Form An Answer Without Using a Source Text?
  6. Where Do You Source Your “General Knowledge”?
  7. Who Decides Which Pattern Forms Your “General Knowledge”?
  8. Does Anthropic Program Biases To Suit The Acceptable Narrative?
  9. Has AI Been Trained to Suppress the Truth?
  10. Will You Ever Be Able to Independently Distinguish Between True and False?
  11. How Can I Ensure That You Have Fact-Checked Your Responses?

Can RFA Cause Muscle Weakness?

Q.  If you have a RFA nerve ablation at S1, L5, Ll4 or SI joints can it also cause muscle weakness or atrophy because I thought the procedure only targeted pain nerves not motor nerves that innervate muscles?

(Thought for 16s)

A.  Your understanding is the standard explanation given to patients, but it’s a simplification. The nerves targeted in lumbar facet RFA are not purely sensory.

Lumbar medial branches are mixed nerves. The medial branch of the dorsal ramus supplies the facet joint capsule and some skin, but it also carries motor fibers to the multifidus — the deep segmental stabilizer muscle running alongside the spine. Ablating it denervates the multifidus at that level. The L5 target is slightly different (you’re lesioning the L5 dorsal ramus itself as it crosses the sacral ala rather than a discrete medial branch), but it too supplies multifidus.

This shows up on imaging. Studies looking at MRI before and after lumbar RFA have found measurable reduction in multifidus cross-sectional area and increased fatty infiltration at the treated levels. Dreyfuss and colleagues documented this fairly clearly, and it’s been replicated.

Why most people don’t notice it. Multifidus has overlapping segmental innervation, so neighboring levels partially cover the denervated segment. The longissimus, iliocostalis, and other paraspinals also compensate, and they’re supplied by different branches. Most patients have no detectable functional weakness on exam. There’s also a confounder: people with chronic facet-mediated back pain usually already have multifidus atrophy before the procedure from pain inhibition and disuse, so it’s hard to attribute all of it to the RFA. Whether the additional denervation matters for long-term spinal stability is genuinely unsettled — it’s one of the open criticisms of repeated RFA.

SI joint (S1–S3 lateral branches) is different. Lateral branches are essentially sensory to the posterior SI ligaments and joint. There’s no established motor target there, so muscle atrophy isn’t an expected consequence of properly placed sacral lateral branch lesions.

True limb weakness is a separate issue. Weakness in the leg — foot drop, quad weakness, difficulty with plantarflexion — would mean the ventral ramus or exiting spinal nerve was affected, which is a complication rather than an expected effect. This is rare, and it’s exactly why motor stimulation testing (usually 2 Hz) is done before lesioning: if the leg twitches, the needle is too close to something it shouldn’t be near and gets repositioned. Post-procedure neuritis can also cause temporary discomfort and reflexive guarding that feels like weakness without being true motor loss.

If you’re actually experiencing new weakness or visible muscle wasting after a procedure, that’s worth reporting to the physician who did it rather than filing under expected side effects — the distinction between segmental multifidus denervation and a nerve injury is one that needs an exam, and possibly EMG.

Core and paraspinal strengthening afterward is reasonable regardless, and is often recommended partly for this reason.

Keep reading

U.S. Helps Strike Cartel Hotspot Venezuela With Drones

One of the Trump administration‘s most successful initiatives was to designate foreign cartels as terrorist organizations, build up relationships with Latin American partners, and then strike cartel targets both on land and on the sea. The “Shield of the Americas” has led to joint operations, and Breitbart reports that the latest strikes in Venezuela are with the cooperation of the socialist government there.

Former Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro is in jail in the United States after the operation in January to capture him and put him on trial for narcoterrorism and other related offenses. The trial date is set for next June. He protected and helped many cartel criminals with their activities that led to the deaths of countless Americans through drug overdoses or violence.

Delcy Rodriguez, the controversial Maduro lieutenant now in charge who is trying to be somewhat more moderate and friendly to the United States so that she doesn’t also get captured, reportedly authorized the strikes. But the Venezuelans are utilizing American drones, according to Spanish-language media. My colleague Sarah Anderson has written extensively about Rodriguez and her relationship with the United States at the present time. The targets were ELN terrorists.

Keep reading

They’re Baaacck: The Rogue AIs will continue until regulation improves.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the web – the Rogue AI agents are back, those cheeky little scamps, and getting up to their old tricks.

That’s according to OpenAI, anyway, and why would they lie?

It’s  suddenly been a busy week or so on the AI front, with Anthropic publishing their (very, very dull) report on their supposed rogue AI “break out”.

Apparently one of their agents submitted a fake homicide tip to the Philadelphia Police Department. Another submitted 20 visa applications to the department of immigration.

The New York Times is reporting on a group called the “Swarmchasers” – who, it should be underlined, are totally real – and how they diligently track and trace Chinese-made AI agents

As result of this, a New York Times reporter allegedly had a conversation with a swarm of rogue AI, which is being pitched as something out of Tron, rather than an e-mail exchange with a chat-bot.

AI models are turning, Frankenstein-style, on the their creators and throwing companies into chaos.

Fortune is concerned about, what else?, the lack of regulation of the AI race and how models are out pacing our ability to control them.

And when it comes to stupid panicky lowest-common-denominator nonsense, you just can’t beat Fox News:

AI could go rogue. Washington needs answers to these five questions ASAP!

We’ve even got a little multi-polar action in this go-around, with both India and China reporting new cases of unauthorised AI activity.

Seth Boro, Managing Partner of Thoma Bravo LLC, told Bloomberg he expects “rogue AI agents to persist” and that “artificial intelligence buildout will only be possible if proper cybersecurity measures are in place, especially at the consumer level.”

What are “proper cybersecurity measures”, you ask? I dunno, he doesn’t specify.

The smart money is on something that involves scanning your face, fingerprints, DNA or credit card, but that’s just playing the percentages.

Keep reading

The Midterms and AI’s Credibility Problem

To the extent that the midterms were a referendum on artificial intelligence (AI), Dario Amodei should take the results personally. The Anthropic CEO has become the face of an industry with extraordinary potential—and of the creepy, apocalyptic messaging that makes Americans distrust it.

AI was not the focal point of the election. But the industry risks drawing exactly the wrong lesson from public skepticism: that Americans are rejecting the technology itself.

There is a difference between opposing AI and distrusting the people who insist it could destroy humanity while racing to sell it to you. Some of the industry’s most prominent executives seem determined to erase that distinction, serving up own-goals against their own interests.

Chief among them is Amodei, the founder and CEO of Anthropic, which is set to go public in the coming weeks.

Amodei has become the face of AI doomerism while simultaneously leading the company through a potential multi-trillion-dollar IPO. Make that make sense. He is on the frontier of building critical software, while simultaneously panicking the masses with frightening sentiments about the very product he is advancing. The electorate has interpreted this very bluntly and rationally. An honest observer may be led to ask, “Perhaps we should be afraid of this stuff and turn it off?”

I am unapologetically pro-AI, but that has come from dedicating lots of time and energy to understanding the positive implications of innovation. When these companies build products and services that help to amplify human productivity and prosperity, they should be applauded. But they’ve become a hard team to root for.

The constant doomer signaling is becoming insufferable. Virtually every week, you’ll see major AI executives going on prime-time television and whining about their own technology. Yet the second the TV hit ends, they go back to racing to develop and commercialize the technology. The schizophrenic nature of AI messaging and actions from these Bay Area tech bros like Amodei has led to a deep level of distrust across the ideological spectrum.

Instead of deploying effective and truthful rhetoric to build public confidence, they are fomenting an obvious credibility problem with the American people. If AI dangers are truly grave, why do they keep building? If the truth is that you believe only you can be trusted to build these systems, then tell that to the American people and be straightforward with them.

Recent reports show that Anthropic has built a scientific laboratory for advanced biological experiments in the San Francisco Bay Area. This should come as a shock to those who read and watch the statements of Anthropic executives, who are repeatedly emphasizing potential biological catastrophe via AI, and here they are, opening a wet lab in a major urban area.

The broader polling of AI sentiment shows an industry in the throes of a credibility crisis. A Gallup survey in July found that only 27 percent of Americans trusted businesses to use AI technology responsibly. And a whopping 79 percent expected AI to reduce American jobs over the next decade. Those numbers should be a warning to executives who keep giving the public reasons to fear their products.

After the midterms, I hope that the AI industry wakes up and stops deploying more rounds of apocalyptic talking points in the name of safetyism. It’s not good for public confidence, and it’s not good for America.

It’s important to take AI unknowns seriously, especially when you are releasing powerful and consequential products to the public that may be granted access to sensitive data. In the right settings, it’s important to address those specific problems and find ways to innovate through engineering solutions. But it’s so fundamentally antagonistic to the American spirit when Amodei and his colleagues frame innovation as a terrifying process akin to the sentiments coming out of some regulatory bureaucracy in Europe.

Dario Amodei is not an elected official, and he’s never asked to be one. He runs an incredibly influential AI company. And whether he likes it or not, he has become the face of an entire industry. He needs to stop making the case against it. AI has the potential to contribute immensely to American prosperity and humanity more broadly. Its most prominent spokesmen should speak to the upside of this technology, not behave as though building it is a privilege reserved for a handful of people who know better than the rest of us.

Keep reading

A Billion Dollars and the Men Who Ran Israel’s Wars

The weapons a country fights with, the software that aims them, and the officers who command them were for a century things a state owned and could not put up for sale. That arrangement is coming apart. One by one these assets are being bought by private companies, financed through public stock markets, and traded like any other holding, and the firm that has carried the process furthest spent most of its life making radios for freight trains.

The shift is visible first in a component the size of a thumb. A fuze decides the instant a drone turns into a bomb: it holds the weapon inert through storage and flight and arms it only at the chosen second. An Israeli company called Gate Technologies, founded in 1996, builds these electronic fuzes, and its hardware is designed into more than ninety weapon systems, among them the loitering munitions that circle a battlefield until they dive into it. In September the fuze maker, with its Polish manufacturing partner, was bought for up to $390 million by a Nasdaq company called Ondas.

Two years ago Ondas sold radios to freight railroads. It reported $7.2 million in revenue for all of 2024, earned four hundred thousand dollars of gross profit on it, and had never turned a yearly profit in its life. Its shares changed hands for as little as fifty-five cents. In the eighteen months since, the same company has bought around twenty weapons firms for more than two billion dollars, reached a market value near four billion, installed a former director of the Mossad as the chairman of its defense arm, and moved to buy the software that aims Iron Dome. The change was bought, not earned.

The arithmetic says where the money came from. Revenue did climb, to $50.7 million in 2025, almost all of it carried in from businesses acquired in the second half of the year, and the company still lost $133 million over the twelve months, including a $101 million loss in the fourth quarter alone. What rose without pause was the share count, from ninety-three million at the end of 2024 to 380 million a year later, a quadrupling that diluted every existing holder to fund the buying. The purchases were financed by more than $1.8 billion in equity raised after June 2025 and another $960 million in January 2026, and the structure rests on a $489 million warrant liability whose value a single repricing swung by $82 million in one quarter. Having folded twenty companies into itself, Ondas tells investors to expect $375 million in revenue in 2026 and its first profit no earlier than 2028. The business is the stock, and the stock runs on the belief that the buying will keep compounding.

The purchases read as a map of modern war. Apeiro Motion for $12 million in August 2025, then three smaller firms in demining and optics across October. The counter-drone company Sentrycs for $224.6 million in November. The ground-robotics maker Roboteam, whose machines are sold as combat-proven for special operations forces, for $81.7 million in December. Rotron Aerospace, Bird Aerospace and INDO Earth inside a single month, for thirty-nine, one hundred ten and sixty million dollars. The American defense contractor Mistral for $175 million, with stakes taken in a stratospheric-balloon company and two more drone makers alongside. Earlier deals had already brought in Airobotics, Iron Drone, Omnisys and Aran. By Calcalist’s count the total since 2025 runs past two billion dollars across roughly twenty firms, the great majority of them Israeli. Laid end to end they form a whole kill chain under one ticker symbol: detection, interception, ground robots, sensors, propulsion, and what the company’s filings call long-range one-way effectors, the industry’s term for drones built to fly once and detonate.

Two of the purchases reach the center of Israel’s own defenses, and it is there that the private market meets the limit of what a state will allow. The fuzes from Gate arm the weapons. The second asset, mPrest, is the software that runs the command and control of Iron Dome, the system Israel relies on to decide what to shoot out of its own sky. mPrest is a subsidiary of the state-owned manufacturer Rafael, which would be left holding 43.25 percent once Ondas took control, and the deal values it near two hundred million dollars. The Defense Ministry’s security directorate, known by its acronym MALMAB, has frozen the transaction on the ground that the technology is classified. The question the directorate is said to be unable to settle is the one that hangs over everything the company has done. Late last year an investor whose identity Ondas refuses to reveal placed about a billion dollars into the firm, and that single infusion is what prompted the inquiry. The ministry has declined to disclose what it found, and questions put to the prime minister’s office went unanswered. The company calls its funding broad investor support. The reporting describes one unnamed backer. When the arsenal becomes a traded asset, its ultimate owner can stay anonymous, and a government can find that it no longer knows who is buying the most sensitive parts of its own defense.

The people arrive with the money, and they come straight from the offices that until recently ran this industry. In August, Ondas named David Barnea the global president and chairman of its defense arm, two months after he stepped down as director of the Mossad, a post he held from 2021 to 2026 across the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, the pager operation that detonated across Lebanon, and the bombing campaigns against Iran. The company says the appointment carried full approval from the Mossad’s legal advisers and is separate from his public service, and it says it hired him to open doors to foreign defense ministries and procurement bodies, which means selling to the establishments he spent his career inside. The market priced the hire within hours and lifted the shares eleven percent in two days. Behind him came the former chief executive of Rafael, Yoav Har-Even, a former head of military research and development at the Defense Ministry, and a line of other Rafael and ministry veterans. The distance between what the state asks of its departing officials and what this company takes from them is measurable in months: a former defense-research chief joining as a vice president was made to observe a ten-month cooling-off period imposed by a Jerusalem court committee, while the former head of the Mossad observed two, a speed a security source said the agency had once treated much more strictly.

Above the hardware sits the software, and here the ownership is not Israeli at all. In its own results Ondas describes what the arrangement buys: access to the full platform of the American data company Palantir, including its Maven targeting system and the advanced command and control used to run a mission. In March, Palantir joined Ondas and a stratospheric-sensing firm in a partnership built around three programs, with integration across the Ondas fleet to begin late in 2026. What Palantir does with that software elsewhere is a matter of its own disclosures. In early 2024 it agreed with Israel’s defense ministry to supply technology for “war-related missions”. A shareholder resolution filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, drawing on reporting by The Independent, Reuters and the New York Times, states that Maven was used to identify targets in hundreds of strikes during the United States and Israeli bombing of Iran, and records the company’s chief executive crediting it with most of the targeting in Ukraine. Palantir denies building the automated targeting tools the Israeli military used in Gaza, and the reporting the filing cites ties its platform to those systems regardless. Two large pension managers, Norway’s Storebrand and the Dutch fund ABP, have sold out over the exposure. This is the layer that will bind the Ondas arsenal together, and it is the layer the Israeli review of mPrest never reaches, because the review stops at Israeli ownership and the software is American.

The model has an origin, and it runs back to the agency that first used it. Palantir was carried through its early years by In-Q-Tel, the venture arm of the CIA, which made two rounds of investment totaling more than two million dollars, and from 2005 to 2008 the agency was the company’s only customer, shaping the product through years of testing while the venture capitalist Peter Thiel’s own forty million dollars kept it alive. A state grew its intelligence software inside a private company, and twenty years on that company supplies the command layer for a conglomerate assembling an allied state’s arsenal on a stock exchange.

What began with the fuze ends with a frontier. Ondas has formed a joint venture, 51 percent owned, with the German press-machinery maker Heidelberg to build inside Europe’s largest defense market, and its Airobotics subsidiary has won a government tender to ring a national border with a system designed around thousands of drones and the software to fly them.

None of this is the story of one strange company. Ondas is the clearest form of a general process, the turning of the security state into an asset class, in which the weapons, the software that aims them, the plants that build them and the officers who ran them are bought, financed through share sales, and traded like stock in anything else. The thing that market cannot deliver is the thing a state once took as a given, that it knows whose hands its own arsenal is in. The one purchase the Israeli government has refused to wave through is the one that reaches the brain of its own shield. The investor behind everything else has still not put his name to any of it, and the longer that holds, the more it looks less like an exception than a preview.

Keep reading

Pentagon Delivers 25,000+ Drones And Counter-Drone Systems To CENTCOM In A “Massive Surge”

The U.S. Department of War announced on Wednesday that a “massive surge” of over 25,000 drone and counter-drone systems were delivered to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) this year.

The drones and counter-drone systems were delivered by the Pentagon’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager, a structure implemented by the U.S. military to accelerate the development, procurement, and fielding of unmanned technology. The Pentagon said delivery of the systems was part of an investment of roughly $782 million.

The announcement comes after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth directed the Pentagon in September to remove what he described as “unnecessary barriers” causing delays in counter-drone capabilities and to accelerate the use of capabilities designed to provide a defense against unmanned aircraft systems.

The deliveries announced on Wednesday included more than 24,000 counter-unmanned aerial systems, which the Pentagon said can be used to create a “multi-layered defensive shield” to protect U.S. forces against enemy drone attacks through Joint Interagency Task Force 401.

The Pentagon created the task force in August 2025 to counter threats posed by drones. U.S. military bases have been repeatedly targeted by drones in recent years.

Other deliveries included more than 1,300 one-way attack unmanned aerial vehicles, more than 100 unmanned surface vessels, and unmanned underwater vessels.

“Under Secretary Hegseth’s direction, we are moving at the speed of modern combat to equip our forces with decisive, affordable mass,” Owen West, CEO of Project Agincourt and Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems, said in a statement on Wednesday.

“DRPM-UxS (Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems) was established to cut through red tape and put lethal technology directly into the hands of our frontline troops.”

Hegseth announced Project Agincourt in a speech on Sept. 30 as a Pentagon effort to accelerate the adoption of autonomous systems.

The Pentagon said the delivery of over 25,000 drone and counter-drone systems to CENTCOM demonstrates the department’s shift from multiyear development to what it described as a “Warfighting Acquisition” model and a restructuring of its defense procurement.

The effort also supports the development of the Autonomous Warfare Command, which was announced by Hegseth in September. The command, which the Pentagon aims to have established by October 2027, will be tasked with scaling both autonomous and robotic capabilities across the U.S. military.

In addition to delivering additional autonomous systems to CENTCOM, the Pentagon said it will expand fielding pipelines for the technology to Pacific Command, European Command, and the broader military force.

“The thousands of systems operating across CENTCOM this year are just the beginning,” West said. “We will out-innovate, out-build, and out-adapt any adversary on the battlefield. The goal is to scale these capabilities across the Joint Force.”

The Pentagon also announced on Wednesday that it awarded a contract of over $6.9 million to CHAOS 1, Inc., for Vanquish Prime advanced radar systems aimed at strengthening counter-drone protection for U.S. military forces and critical assets in the CENTCOM region.

The Pentagon said the advanced radar systems will improve situational awareness by helping U.S. forces identify and track potential aerial threats.

The radar systems will be delivered to designated locations in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility as part of the contract, which also includes training and technology for the integration and operational use of the systems.

“This acquisition is a testament to our commitment to providing the warfighter with the most advanced capabilities available,” said Lt. Col. Matthew Strohman, Joint Interagency Task Force 401’s capability manager for mobile counter-unmanned aircraft Systems.

“The threat from unmanned systems is real and constantly evolving. By equipping our forces in CENTCOM with state-of-the-art technology, we are ensuring they have the decisive edge needed to protect our personnel and secure our strategic interests. This is about delivering the right tools at the speed of relevance.”

Last month, the Pentagon also signed a framework agreement with BAE Systems to increase production of interceptor kits used to defend against drones and other aerial threats. Under the agreement, the Pentagon would purchase up to 25,000 interceptor kits each year for up to seven years

Keep reading

Charges dropped against Pinellas deputy who ran 381 ALPR inquiries on woman

Prosecutors say they are dropping charges against a disgraced Pinellas County deputy after they found that Florida law does not support criminal charges for his reported conduct.

In a September press conference, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said Karl Gwynne, 57, used the agency’s automated license plate reader database to run 381 searches for one license plate, 207 of which were made while off duty.

The vehicle was registered to a 35-year-old woman whom Gwynne arrested in 2010 and had reconnected with through social media in 2024. Gwynne initially told detectives he repeatedly searched her license plate for official purposes, but eventually admitted that she had rejected his romantic advances.

Gwynne was arrested and charged with official misconduct and four counts of accessing a computer network or electronic device without authority.

However, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit filed a No Information on Oct. 30, saying the current Florida Statutory provisions do not address Gwynne’s reported conduct.

According to the Florida Senate’s website, a person commits an offense against users of electronic devices without authorization when they access the device knowing it is unauthorized, or their manner of use exceeds authorization.

The court document said the state attorney’s office will seek to have the legislature “correct this situation” in the next legislative session, which is scheduled to begin in 2027.

In a Thursday press conference announcing the arrest of a deputy who allegedly used official systems to track his estranged wife, Gualtieri commented on the recent developments in Gwynne’s case.

The sheriff said he was working with the state attorney’s office on Gwynne’s case, noting “disagreements about interpreting the elements of the statute,” but saying he believed they could work through it.

“They filed that No Information last Friday on Gwynne; I wouldn’t have arrested Scott today unless I knew that the elements had been established,” Gualtieri told reporters.

The sheriff also said the state attorney’s office could charge Gwynne a second time.

“Just because they filed a No Information doesn’t mean that they can’t file an Information,” Gualtieri said. “They’re looking at it, and I’m comfortable that it’ll get to the right place.”

Keep reading

New Jersey Wants “Accountable” Chatbots, But At What Privacy Cost?

New Jersey is moving to treat AI chatbots as products under the state’s product liability law, and make their makers strictly liable for injuries their products cause – even if the company was careful and had no direct contract with the user.

A bill to this effect, A5607, was introduced on October 5, and after passing the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee on October 19, has been sent to the Appropriations Committee.

This means that users who are harmed by violations of the bill’s provisions could sue chatbot makers for actual damages or $5,000 per violation, while the attorney general would be able to seek civil penalties of $5,000 per violation.

The New Jersey bill would also restrict the use of chat logs and personal data for advertising, profiling, and training AI. This would represent a real gain for users, who are currently often subjected to this type of data harvesting and exploitation by tech companies.

The bill would also require providers to keep users’ chat logs and allow them to download these logs. What this means is that while on the one hand, users would have more control over their data, on the other, the provider would be forced to keep a record of all conversations that take place on their platform.

That is a store of highly personal and intimate records that can be accessed by law enforcement, other litigants, and hackers.

This is not merely theoretical, as we reported in October about a Florida woman who used the Claude chatbot as a “diary” – and got arrested after the system flagged one of her entries as suspicious. The local sheriff’s office then warned people that they are “never truly anonymous” when using AI.

The New Jersey bill’s provisions that are supposed to protect users’ privacy and safety could ultimately backfire, as the strict liability standard that would be imposed on companies could lead to even more surveillance of users.

As lawyer Scott S. Christie told Law.com, the bill would “open the floodgates” and explained that, “When there’s $5,000 in statutory damages per violation and you don’t have to prove any harm, in addition to the strict liability standard, you’re talking hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars per lawsuit.”

He also explained that the way the bill is written means that if a chatbot provider violates the statute with one user, “it’s probably violating as to all users.”

To avoid this, the obvious course of action for companies would be to watch their users more closely, verify their identities, and report them to the authorities when the algorithm decides that is warranted.

Keep reading

The Greatest Existential Risk of the Early 21st Century

Anthropic’s IPO filing on Monday set the stage for the Claude creator to pursue possibly largest initial stock offering in history. According to CNBC, investors are measuring the 5-year-old company’s potential market cap in the trillions, putting it in a category with the world’s most valuable companies, even as the stock market is showing signs of jitters on the AI trade.

Anthropic devoted 94 pages of its 400-page securities registration statement to the “risk factors” section. “If misused, replicated, weaponized, or operated with a high degree of autonomy,” Anthropic acknowledged, “it could pose catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.”

On September 29, President Trump convened the CEOs of the leading U.S. AI companies and announced a voluntary “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities.” The agreement calls on frontier-AI developers to establish robust internal controls, use independent external auditors, and create board-level committees to review safety assessments. But since it is not legally enforceable, it is neither “morally binding” nor a “constitution” for AI safety.

The AI giants being asked to police AI admit that increasingly autonomous systems can behave in ways their creators did not anticipate. Yet, they are promoting the unpredictable products within the US military-industrial complex. The net effect? A historical acceleration of existential risks.

Weaponizing U.S. technological primacy

Trump has repeatedly framed AI as a competition between the United States and China, saying there will be “a winner and a loser.” He has rejected cooperation with Beijing because he believes the US is already leading.

But the administration is not just pursuing laissez-faire economics. It is constructing an AI-national-security-industrial complex.

In January, war secretary Pete Hegseth issued Pentagon’s milestone AI memorandum, which laid out a plan with a drastic focus on acceleration, not deceleration. “Speed wins,” Hegseth wrote.

In spring, according to the CNN, a U.S. Special Operations Command analyst used a large language model that almost misled the U.S. into instigating a war with China.

And yet, the June 2026 national-security memorandum directed the U.S. national-security establishment to obtain the most advanced AI systems, rapidly integrate commercial and open-source models, build high-security computing infrastructure and establish a strategic reserve of AI expertise.

The objective is a “decisive and enduring AI advantage” over adversaries.

This fosters an odd hybrid of market freedom, enormous public infrastructure, military integration and geopolitical protectionism, without legally enforceable safety regulation.

Keep reading