There is a current tendency to blame free markets and technology for dyspepsia with the economy, as if there is a nefarious group of people destroying your way of life.
People are literally trying to attack data centers.
As David Friedberg noted on the “<a href="https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2046280245758787914">All-In Podcast</a>”:
<blockquote>Most people in America are starting to really hate rich people. And there&#8217;s no physical space that better represents the wealth in America, the wealth creation that&#8217;s happened that a lot of people feel left behind from, than the data center. It is the temple of the wealthy. It is the way that the rich, elite, tech, kind of political, connected billionaires that we&#8217;re obviously all attached to are taking from the poor, getting themselves ahead, shooting themselves to space, leaving everyone else behind, and the data center, I think, is the representation of their progress. And it is a representation of the progress that others don&#8217;t feel.
For a consumer&#8217;s life to actually be altered in a meaningfully positive way, most people don&#8217;t feel that yet. The best thing they see is some medical advice they&#8217;re getting on ChatGPT or something, and that&#8217;s kind of the end of it for them. So I think there&#8217;s a lot of this populism that&#8217;s swollen and that&#8217;s taken over, not just the US, but probably a good chunk of the West. And the data center is the target.</blockquote>
David Friedberg&#8217;s explanation is exactly right. This is the way that economic populists have been pushing.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2410?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Let’s differentiate between moral and economic populism. Moral populism was exemplified by William F. Buckley back in the 1960s when he stated that he would trust the first 100 names in the Harvard phone book on matters of public policy more than he would trust 100 Harvard professors.
The idea was that the common man in the United States — shaped as he or she was by the institutions of church and family and community — had a better moral compass, on average, than the elites.
I totally agree with that, because elites very often believe that they have been freed from these systems of morality.
However, when it comes to the economy, economic populism is virtually the inverse. Economic populism assumes that there should be some sort of centralized control placed into the hands of that central power by “the people,” and centralized control should overwhelm the disseminated knowledge that is implicit in free markets and capital markets.
The basic principle of capitalism is that disparate views on things lead to better outcomes, that differential knowledge and the diffusion of knowledge are actually significantly more effective than one guy at the top with a stick beating people into submission.
But economic populism says that free markets are bad if the product of the free market is something I don&#8217;t like, therefore, we should take power away from the free market to destroy it.
Whenever there is economic unease, people tend to attack free market capitalism, or what they see as the symbols of free market capitalism, and they tend to blame people who are wealthy.
The great lie is that people in the United States are wealthy because they&#8217;re stealing from the poor. It is a full-scale lie. It is not true.
The only places in the world where people are rich because they steal from the poor are communist countries and other forms of tyranny. The reason people get rich in a free market economy is because they are providing products and services at a price people are willing to pay. People want that product or service.
But if you can somehow recast the economy of the United States as “rigged” on behalf of the wealthy and go after the means of production, you target data centers.
What you are going to end up doing, in this view, is overthrow the capitalist system.
The outcome of that will be quite dire.
There is a grievance-based, horseshoe-theory economic Right that is also wildly upset about artificial intelligence data centers because they&#8217;re big and ugly.
You know what else is big and ugly? Walmart — but it’s wonderful for the vast majority of consumers.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman&#8217;s home was allegedly targeted in the second attack in just two days; a shot was even fired. This is part and parcel of a broader movement that is targeting technology more generally, including technologies that are required for the United States to win wars.
City Journal <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/palantir-protests-ice-national-security?utm_source=virtuous&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cjdaily">reported</a> there is a campaign against the military contractor Palantir — which generates extraordinary technologies in terms of intelligence gathering, capacity to target, and much of the actual technology that goes into the machines that we use.
This crosses paths with all of America&#8217;s enemies. America&#8217;s enemies are delighted to watch us destroy ourselves by taking down the technologies that allow us to win.
If you buy into this entire shtick — the idea that AI as a technology must be destroyed — it won&#8217;t be destroyed.
We&#8217;ll just lose.
If you think that China is going to forgo AI, you&#8217;re a fool. They won’t.
If the United States were to heavily restrict AI, not just in terms of preventing its gravest harms, but restricting the development of AI, or if there were to be a political party that attempts to prevent the building of data centers, not for any sort of understandable economic reason — like, for example, make the data centers pay their fair share of electricity production, which I think is a fair argument — if there&#8217;s a broad scale movement to destroy the AI industry out of either misplaced agrarianism or a deep and abiding hatred for capitalism or the generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
If the United States heavily restricts AI, not just by preventing its gravest harms but by restricting its development, we will lose. If a political party tries to stop the construction of data centers, we will lose. That is different from making data centers pay their fair share for electricity production, which I think is a fair argument. But if there is a broad-based movement to destroy the AI industry out of misplaced agrarianism, a deep and abiding hatred of capitalism, or a generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
China wins.
This is not a vacuum. It is not as though if the United States forgoes AI magically, we would continue to have a burgeoning, wealthy economy, and China goes weapons down.
When it comes to AI, indeed, there are problems, there are dangers — and we should all recognize those dangers, not whistling past the graveyard — but at the same time, it is a tremendous opportunity.
A China in a dominant AI position means a China in a dominant military position. The amount of AI that is being used right now by the United States military in the conflict in Iran and in the operation in Venezuela is tremendous and growing.
If China outpaces us in AI development, that means their military is now superior to ours. If their military is superior to ours, that means they can not only effectuate change in their region, it means they can also spread that technology throughout the world and make other countries dependent on the receipt of that technology.
It means that many, many other countries all over planet Earth would suddenly become dependent on China.
That is a huge problem, and it also leaves China in a dominant economic position, because AI means more productivity. If productivity goes up for China but remains stagnant for the United States, they will outcompete us. If they outcompete us, one of two things happens: Either we block off our economy and become backward and protectionist — meaning we don&#8217;t have any of the best goods and products and services at the best price, we&#8217;re all poorer and we slide into poverty and stagnation — or we have to be dependent on Chinese products, our kids work for Chinese companies, and China is able to spread its influence.
When it comes to the game of economics, you must win.
When it comes to the game of military dominance, you must win.
And when it comes to the technological game, you must win.
The economic populism that&#8217;s been rising says that we ought to tariff our way out of all our problems, that we ought to attack technological development, that it would be great to have an economy based on t-shirts — none of this is going to solve the bigger problem.
Attacking tech CEOs or healthcare CEOs or burning up Teslas and attacking Tesla showrooms or shooting Charlie Kirk or attempting to shoot President Trump — all of these are the most extreme manifestations of an ideology.
That ideology says that you are a victim of American society and therefore you get to do bad things. On a broader political level, you are a victim of American society, and therefore you ought to get together with the other victims, take over the government, and use centralized, tyrannical power r to cram down your view of the world.

Working robots

Populist Rage And AI: National Surrender

Anti-capitalist

Artificial Intelligence

Ben Shapiro

Big Tech

Capitalism

China

Data Centers

Economy

Opinion

Populism

Technology

Huawei, China’s answer to Nvidia, is rapidly expanding its AI technology into other countries and signaling a rapid acceleration in the global AI race. It&#8217;s a move AI experts predicted would not occur. 
Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, South Africa, and Turkey will now be able to build on Huawei’s Model-as-a-Service (MaaS) platform, which includes AI models like DeepSeek. 
 Much like individual consumers who become dependent on Apple’s ecosystem, companies that build on Huawei’s models and cloud infrastructure risk becoming deeply tied to that platform. At scale, this creates a ripple effect — as companies that adopt Chinese technology may find it difficult to switch to American providers later.
The switching costs are anything but trivial. Migrating away from Huawei would require rewriting code, transferring massive datasets, and re-optimizing systems — making it difficult for countries to later pivot to U.S. providers. 
But it’s not just software expansion. Rolling out its cloud compute means rolling out the underlying infrastructure — hardware and chips. Former White House AI Czar David Sacks says that’s what he wants for the United States. “You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack.” He <a href="https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1929592692318650429?s=20">says</a> that winning the AI race looks like 80% of the world using America’s tech stack — and losing looks like 80% of the world using China’s. 
Before Huawei&#8217;s expansion announcement, AI experts downplayed Huawei’s technology. In January of 2025, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and former Trump deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-can-keep-americas-ai-advantage-china-chips-data-eccdce91">told</a> the Wall Street Journal that Huawei was &#8220;in no position to export chips at a meaningful scale.” 
Lennart Heim, former Lead on AI &amp; Compute at RAND&#8217;s Technology and Security Policy Center, <a href="https://x.com/ohlennart/status/1877391549316608254">said</a>, “I still don’t see Chinese AI chips being used much globally — or even in China. Not saying it won’t become an issue, but current evidence shows limited to no adoption both domestically and internationally.” Another advisor for RAND, a nonprofit think tank, Jimmy Goodrich, said China didn&#8217;t even have enough chips to meet its own demand.
Previously, Sacks and President Trump condemned Washington’s bureaucracy around the American tech stack, which he said resulted in businesses applying for licenses every time they sent a regulated chip. 
“The last administration was obsessed with imposing restrictions on AI, including extreme restrictions on its exports,” said President Trump. “As you know, they made it very difficult to export. This alienated American partners and drove even our friends into the arms of China and other countries.” 
In July of 2025, President Trump signed an executive order promoting the export of the American AI tech stack, including hardware, models, software, and applications, to “America’s friends.” 
Some people do not want China or the United States to advance in AI adoption. On Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) hosted a rally protesting AI&#8217;s acceleration. In March, he proposed legislation along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that called for a moratorium on AI data centers.

5C914536-1776-4C75-93CB-25B6C48F20EA_1_201_a

China Makes Major Move To Challenge U.S. For Key Tech Dominance

Communist China

If you’ve ever used artificial intelligence to help with your work, you know it can sometimes be a &#8220;confident liar.&#8221; In the legal world, where one wrong fact can ruin a person&#8217;s life, companies promised they had fixed this problem with a new technology called RAG.
But according to a <a href="https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Legal_RAG_Hallucinations.pdf">new study</a> from researchers at Stanford and Yale, those promises might be more science fiction than science fact.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
RAG is broken and nobody&#39;s talking about it.
Stanford researchers exposed the fatal flaw killing every &quot;AI that reads your docs&quot; product in existence.
It’s called &quot;Semantic Collapse,&quot; and it happens the second your knowledge base hits critical mass. If you&#39;ve noticed your AI… <a href="https://t.co/sz4zbtnxpC">pic.twitter.com/sz4zbtnxpC</a>
&mdash; How To AI (@HowToAI_) <a href="https://twitter.com/HowToAI_/status/2043713987171492224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Standard AI, like the basic version of ChatGPT, is &#8220;closed-book&#8221; — it tries to answer questions from memory. RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) was supposed to be the &#8220;open-book&#8221; version. It’s designed to look at a specific pile of legal documents first and then summarize them so it doesn&#8217;t make things up.
The problem? The &#8220;book&#8221; has become too big.
Researchers found that when an AI&#8217;s library hits a certain size (around 10,000 documents), a glitch called &#8220;Semantic Collapse&#8221; happens. Imagine a library where the librarian is so overwhelmed that they can no longer tell the difference between a serious history book and a comic book because they both have &#8220;Washington&#8221; in the title. Mathematically, the AI starts seeing every document as &#8220;relevant,&#8221; leading it to give answers that sound professional but are totally wrong.
The study tested top-tier legal AI tools used by real lawyers, including Lexis+ AI and Westlaw. Even though these tools are marketed as &#8220;hallucination-free,&#8221; the researchers found they messed up 17% to 33% of the time.
Some of the AI&#8217;s failures included:
<ul>
<li data-path-to-node="10,0,0">Reversing Reality: Citing a case but claiming the judge said &#8220;Yes&#8221; when they actually said &#8220;No.&#8221;</li>
<li data-path-to-node="10,1,0">Inventing Laws: Writing out entire paragraphs of legal rules that don&#8217;t actually exist.</li>
<li data-path-to-node="10,2,0">Breaking the Chain of Command: Claiming a small local court &#8220;overruled&#8221; the U.S. Supreme Court — which is basically impossible in the U.S. legal system.</li>
</ul>
The researchers say law is a &#8220;final boss&#8221; for AI because it’s not just about matching keywords. It’s about &#8220;vibes&#8221; and hierarchy.
For example, if you ask about a &#8220;car crash,&#8221; the AI might find a document about &#8220;cars&#8221; in a tax law book. A human knows that’s the wrong kind of law, but the AI just sees the word &#8220;car&#8221; and thinks it’s helping. The AI also suffers from &#8220;sycophancy&#8221; — a fancy word for being a &#8220;yes-man.&#8221; If a user asks a question with a wrong assumption, the AI often just agrees with them instead of correcting them.
You might not be a lawyer, but this affects how we trust technology. Right now, lawyers are required by ethical rules to double-check everything an AI tells them. If they don&#8217;t, they could face huge fines or lose their licenses.
The study warns that we shouldn&#8217;t believe the &#8220;AI washing&#8221; — when companies claim their tech is perfect just to sell more subscriptions. The researchers conclude that while AI is a great tool for a &#8220;first draft,&#8221; it is nowhere near ready to be the final word in a courtroom.
For now, the &#8220;hallucination-free&#8221; AI lawyer is a myth. If you’re heading to court, you’d better hope your lawyer is still doing their own reading.

Artificial intelligence emerging from a fragmented digital landscape

Your ‘AI Lawyer’ Might Be Lying To Your Face

Police arrested a man and a woman after “possible shots” were fired near OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s home on Sunday. 
If the incident is confirmed to be connected to Altman, it would mark the third violent episode in the past two weeks tied to the artificial intelligence company, following a separate incident in which a man allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at Altman’s residence and threatened to burn down OpenAI’s headquarters.
San Francisco police said officers responded to Russian Hill and learned “that a vehicle with two occupants drove past a residence around the time of the possible shooting.” The San Francisco Standard reported that Altman’s security personnel alerted authorities after hearing the gunshot around 1:40 a.m. Sunday morning.
The license plate of the Honda sedan was caught on surveillance footage, which led police to 25-year-old Amanda Tom, who was at a residence in San Francisco with 23-year-old Muhamad Tarik Hussein. Both were <a href="https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/news/sfpd-arrests-suspects-involved-shooting-26-044">detained by police</a> and booked for negligent discharge. Officers seized three firearms from the home, and San Francisco Police told The Daily Wire that “although arrests have been made, this remains an open and active investigation.”
A spokesperson for OpenAI told The Daily Wire this was an unrelated incident with no indication of any connection to, or targeting of, Altman&#8217;s house. 
Earlier this month, Indianapolis council member Rob Gibson’s front door was shot thirteen times and a note was left under the doormat that read “No Data Centers.”

TOPSHOT-US-TECHNOLOGY-AI-MICROSOFT-COMPUTERS

AI-Related Violence Spikes, CEO Targeted

Crime

OpenAI

Sam altman

U.S.

A 20-year-old man was arrested after threatening to burn down the headquarters of artificial intelligence company OpenAI and chucking a Molotov cocktail at OpenAI CEO Sam Altman&#8217;s San Francisco home early Friday morning.
San Francisco police said officers were called to investigate a fire at a home in North Beach around 4:12 a.m. local time and discovered that a male suspect had thrown an incendiary device at the house, sparking a fire at a gate outside the home. The suspect fled the scene on foot, but he was found by police around an hour later outside of OpenAI&#8217;s headquarters, where he was threatening to start another fire and burn the building down.
The San Francisco Police Department said the 20-year-old, who has yet to be identified, was taken into custody &#8220;immediately&#8221; after officers recognized him as the person who ran from officers after throwing a Molotov cocktail at Altman&#8217;s home.
&#8220;Early this morning, someone threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman&#8217;s home and also made threats at our San Francisco headquarters. Thankfully, no one was hurt,&#8221; OpenAI said. &#8220;We deeply appreciate how quickly SFPD responded and the support from the city in helping keep our employees safe. The individual is in custody, and we&#8217;re assisting law enforcement with their investigation.&#8221;
As of late Friday morning, charges against the suspect were still pending, and the San Francisco Police Department said the investigation remained &#8220;open and active.&#8221;
Altman, a central figure of the AI boom, lives in a mansion in the San Francisco neighborhood of Russian Hill. The AI executive bought the massive home for $27 million in March of 2020, <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/31/sam-altman-russian-hill-mansion/">according</a> to the San Francisco Standard. Altman lives in the home with his husband and a baby boy whom they acquired through a surrogate mother in February of 2025.
Altman has faced criticism in recent years for rapidly pushing forward with AI development as some industry experts express concern about a lack of guidelines around the technology. Altman was fired by the OpenAI board in 2023 after accusations that he was not open or honest in his communications, especially with regard to AI safety. Altman, however, was reinstated as CEO after backlash from OpenAI employees and investors.
Altman and OpenAI have also been sued by Elon Musk, who helped start OpenAI, but then left the company&#8217;s board in 2018 over conflicts with his own pursuit of AI development. Earlier this week, Musk <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-says-the-ai-shaping-your-life-pulled-a-800b-bait-and-switch">revised his lawsuit</a> against OpenAI, demanding that Altman be removed as CEO and seeking to force the intelligence giant to end its for-profit structure and return to its nonprofit roots.
Musk has alleged that Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman “manipulated and misled” him into providing roughly $38 million in seed funding between 2015 and 2018, based on assurances that OpenAI would remain a nonprofit dedicated to open-source artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity.

Sam Altman

Man Threatens To Burn Down AI Giant’s Headquarters, Throws Molotov Cocktail At CEO’s Home

Arson

Police

San Francisco

A legislative package that promises to be the largest overhaul of kids&#8217; online safety regulation in decades was advanced last month by the House Energy &amp; Commerce Committee. A good sign of a bill&#8217;s efficacy, however, is how strongly the industry it aims to regulate opposes it.
So far, most of the package — including the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757/text">Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/836/text">Children’s Online Privacy Protection</a> (COPPA 2.0) Act — has not drawn serious opposition from Big Tech. What gives?
On balance, Silicon Valley has much to gain if these laws pass as drafted.
For starters, the Senate version of COPPA 2.0 doubles down on the existing age of internet adulthood being 13, thus maintaining the industry-preferred status quo. This ignores the harms social media can cause teens well after 13, such as fueling depression, social isolation, or worse. David Molak, to offer just one heartbreaking example, was <a href="https://www.today.com/parents/cliff-molak-petitions-against-cyberbullies-after-teen-brother-s-suicide-t66591">driven by online cyberbullying</a> to commit suicide at 16 years old. That’s why eminent figures like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/06/well/family/jean-twenge-social-media-screens-teens.html">Jean Twenge</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2025/jun/07/jonathan-haidt-anxious-generation-smartphones">Jonathan Haidt</a> call for raising the age of social media eligibility to 16, and others <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/news/2026/01/sen-bernie-moreno-says-social-media-worse-than-cigarettes-for-youths-urges-complete-ban.html">call for 18</a>.
This is bad, but perhaps the legislation’s biggest gift to Big Tech is its numerous provisions to preempt or block a growing crop of state laws designed to hold these companies accountable. A look at the finer details of the legislation reveal that Congress would replace robust state regulation with a far lighter “federal standard,” setting a very low ceiling for kids&#8217; online safety at the state level.
Republican sponsors, of course, frame things differently.
In the Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/09/congress-tech-online-safefy-social-media/">Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&amp;C Committee Chair</a> and lead sponsor of the KIDS Act, described the package in adversarial terms, as Congress moving to correct Big Tech’s egregious failure to “self-regulate.” Guthrie is doubtless correct about Big Tech’s shortcomings. But this only makes it more noteworthy that the tech industry does not oppose this legislation.
Big Tech hasn’t been silent about every bill in the package. The App Store Accountability Act, which has been enacted in four states (thus far), has received significant pushback. The Apple-backed App Association <a href="https://actonline.org/2026/03/03/the-fly-in-the-ai-package-ointment-why-asaa-doesnt-belong/">decried</a> the bill as a “poison pill” that would stifle “innovation,” explicitly calling it a “fly in the AI package ointment.”
By openly referring to the child safety package as “the AI package,” the App Association gives away the game. Insiders in Washington regularly admit that they are using the child safety package to mollify the concerns of parents and child safety advocates to pave the way for Congress to pass — <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/">what the White House calls</a> — a “minimally burdensome” federal AI standard. In an unguarded interview, Amy Bos, vice president of governmental affairs for industry group NetChoice, <a href="https://rollcall.com/2026/03/03/what-to-watch-from-trumps-national-ai-standard/">speaks of</a> “leveraging, or using, possibly, a kid’s package … to get AI across the finish line.”
Big Tech is only interested in kids’ safety if it comes with a much bigger payoff: a federal law that would stop states from enforcing tougher AI regulations. In fact, with help from Republican leadership, Big Tech has already tried twice — and failed twice — to get Congress to do exactly that.
According to a recent <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/03/12/congress/cruz-seeks-to-advance-senate-kids-privacy-proposals-in-next-six-weeks-00825098">announcement</a> by Senator Ted Cruz, one of Big Tech’s key Congressional allies, it looks like Silicon Valley is gearing up for a third attempt. And it seems they’ll have the buy-in to try again. As <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/inside-congress/2026/03/12/house-revolt-ahead-for-housing-bill-00824588">Politico recently reported</a>, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that a federal AI standard is “a ‘big priority’ for the Trump administration, and [he] said a potential bill could be folded into a larger package with other proposals like a kids’ online safety bill.”
But the American people see things differently. Weakening kids&#8217; online safety legislation by tying it to a sweeping “AI package” is a non-starter for American families. Parents nationwide have heard the terrifying story of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html">Adam Raine</a>, a 16-year-old boy who was goaded into taking his own life by ChatGPT. They fear that their child might be next. It’s no surprise, then, why, according to a <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/americans-want-ai-safeguards-by-a-9-to-1-margin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national poll</a> by the Institute for Family Studies, American voters want Congress to prioritize kids&#8217; online safety over industry carveouts by a margin of nine to one.
Robust online safety for kids is a winning electoral strategy, but tying it to deregulation of AI is a political loser. As a second <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/the-artificial-politics-of-artificial-intelligence">national Institute for Family Studies poll found</a>, Republican voters in red states support Congressional candidates who protect children from AI harms and oppose those who push preemption. For a party expected to face serious challenges during midterms, it would seem that Republican leadership would be eager to champion the desires of its voters.
Congress should, like countless state legislatures, side with voters and not protect Big Tech companies from responsibility. We have had enough of that.
Ultimately, Rep. Guthrie is right: American families “deserve more than gestures and idle promises. They deserve laws that work.” That includes his.
* * *
Jared Hayden is a policy analyst at the Institute for Family Studies’ Family First Technology Initiative. 
Michael Toscano is the director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.

teen capitol hill

Big Tech Is Making Its Play And Your Kids Could Be Caught In The Middle

Capitol Hill

Children

Congress

Safety

Silicon Valley

Social Media

Teenagers

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

With one week before the tax deadline, major AI chatbots are warning users not to rely on them to prepare or file returns. 
When asked whether it could help prepare a 2025 tax return, Elon Musk&#8217;s Grok cautioned against using AI for filing, saying models &#8220;miscalculate refunds by thousands on average,&#8221; and instead recommended software like TurboTax or a licensed professional.
&#8220;Not a good idea for actually preparing or filing your 2025 return,&#8221; Grok responded. &#8220;Tax code is too complex and changes yearly — AI (including me) often hallucinates details or misses nuances, leading to errors that could trigger IRS issues.&#8221;
The Daily Wire checked with other leading platforms, including Google&#8217;s Gemini, OpenAI&#8217;s ChatGPT, and Anthropic&#8217;s Claude, using the same prompt. They offered similar guidance, saying they can help explain tax concepts but should not be used. 
&#8220;It is highly discouraged to use generative AI like me, ChatGPT, or similar platforms to actually prepare or calculate your tax returns,” Gemini warned. ChatGPT advised using it as “your helper” but not “your tax preparer.” Claude agreed, blaming nuanced tax laws. 
Across platforms, chatbots cited similar concerns, warning that AI can make mistakes, lack full financial context, and miss important edge cases. But the more significant issue is liability: if the IRS finds errors in a return, the person who files it, not the software or AI, is responsible for any additional taxes, penalties, and interest.
Traditional tax software such as TurboTax or H&amp;R Block operates similarly, with users responsible for the information submitted. That risk is why many taxpayers opt to pay more for a CPA or licensed tax preparer, who can assume some professional liability if given accurate information.
While chatbots discourage using AI to file returns, they recommend using it as a “smart assistant” to explain tax concepts and stay organized. AI tools can help users understand forms like a 1099 versus a W-2, clarify deductions, and translate complex language from tax software into simpler terms. 
However, those capabilities come without legal accountability, a concern lawmakers are beginning to address. In New York, proposed legislation would restrict AI tools from offering legal or financial advice, including tax guidance, without proper oversight. Critics argue the bill&#8217;s broad language could limit even basic, useful responses.
“The problem is evident in the bill’s operative provision,” said Oliver Roberts, an adjunct law professor at Washington University. “Subsection 2(a) prohibits a chatbot proprietor from &#8216;permit[ting]&#8217; a chatbot to provide any &#8216;substantive response, information, or advice.&#8217;”

AI and finance in a vortex

Grok To Procrastinators: Please Don’t Let Me Do Your Taxes!

ChatGPT

Grok

Taxes

A California group positioned to shape the future of Artificial Intelligence regulation for children believes drag queens are positive role models for 4-year-olds.
Common Sense Media, a California nonprofit with a stated <a href="https://www.commonsense.org/">mission</a> to protect kids online, gave a children&#8217;s show featuring two male drag queens a <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/the-fabulous-show-with-fay-fluffy">perfect</a> child safety score and recommended it for kids ages 4 and up. &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGyr45BKn_o&amp;list=PL2F3nYtGth8cylKCts9if0EkyoZF1FRiI">The Fabulous Show With Fay &amp; Fluffy</a>&#8221; received a 5/5 star rating and was praised for offering positive role models, having educational value, and showcasing diversity.
Bluey, the popular family-friendly cartoon, was outshined by the drag queens and only received a 4/5 star rating.
Common Sense Media provides safety reviews of movies, books, and video games through a vast database that includes many positive reviews for LGBTQ+ content aimed at young children. The nonprofit has an entire <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/celebrate-lgbtq-pride">webpage</a> devoted to &#8220;LGBTQ+ Stories for the Whole Family.&#8221;
&#8220;From affirming, relatable stories about queer kids and teens, to history-making moments and figures on screen, LGBTQ+ representation in media is increasing. Now, kids have more choices that reflect their world and lived experiences, whether they&#8217;re queer, straight, trans, cisgender, or figuring it all out,&#8221; states its website.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-1071609" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.51.41-PM-736x576.png" alt="" width="736" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.51.41-PM-736x576.png 736w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.51.41-PM-300x235.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.51.41-PM-768x601.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.51.41-PM-1536x1202.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.51.41-PM.png 1766w" sizes=" (max-width: 736px) 100vw, 736px" /></div>
Recent reports say it&#8217;s attempting to extract millions of dollars from AI companies to help them self-regulate in the litigious environment. It&#8217;s simultaneously supporting legislation in California that would require AI chatbot products to submit to regulation from groups like Common Sense Media.
The nonprofit, which claims it&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/what-we-stand-for/tech-accountability">holding tech companies accountable</a>,&#8221; is asking for millions of dollars to launch a new institute focused on providing safety assessments for AI products, according to reporting from <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/04/key-nonprofit-pitches-tech-giants-to-pay-100m-each-for-ai-safety-effort-00853205?site=pro&amp;prod=alert&amp;prodname=alertmail&amp;linktype=headline&amp;source=email">Politico</a>. Common Sense Media offered the tech companies the opportunity to provide input on the safety assessments if they provided a donation, Politico reported.
Its current ratings, however, indicate it&#8217;s in no position to assess what is appropriate for children.
The group recommends transgender content for 4-year-olds, including &#8220;I Am Jazz,&#8221; which it <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/i-am-jazz">calls</a> a &#8220;Sweet, straightforward story about a transgender girl.&#8221; It also <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/jacobs-new-dress#modal">recommends</a> &#8220;Jacob&#8217;s New Dress,&#8221; a story about a young boy who likes to crossdress and was written by parents of a &#8220;gender-nonconforming child,&#8221; and “Sparkle Boy,” the <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/sparkle-boy">story</a> of a 3-year-old boy who “loves all the glittery stuff his older sister loves” and “causes a stir” when he crossdresses.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-1071613" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.58.10-PM-844x576.png" alt="" width="844" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.58.10-PM-844x576.png 844w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.58.10-PM-300x205.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.58.10-PM-768x524.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.58.10-PM-1536x1048.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.58.10-PM.png 1864w" sizes=" (max-width: 844px) 100vw, 844px" /></div>
Common Sense Media also <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/marleys-pride">recommends</a> &#8220;Marley&#8217;s Pride,&#8221; the &#8220;joyful&#8221; story of “Marley and their grandparent&#8221; who identify as nonbinary and attend their first pride celebration together.
“RuPaul&#8217;s Drag Show” is <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/rupauls-drag-race">recommended</a> for teenagers 15 and older and called a program that promotes &#8220;self-love and compassion for heavily marginalized communities.&#8221; The review tells parents to expect &#8220;lots of sexual innuendo, including references to various sex acts and partial nudity, mostly bare torsos&#8221; and warns it includes strong language and sexual terms such as &#8220;f&#8211;k,&#8221; &#8220;s&#8211;t,&#8221; &#8220;doggy style,&#8221; but notes these words are mostly used &#8220;for tongue-in-cheek humor and camp.&#8221;
The nonprofit also has an education wing and has partnered with schools to provide training about media and online safety to more than <a href="https://www.commonsense.org/">1.4 million</a> educators, according to its website. Common Sense Media has also worked with the <a href="https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/et/dc/index.asp">California Department of Education</a> and the <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/common-sense-educations-digital-literacy-curriculum-selected-as-connecticuts-statewide-model-for-k-12#:~:text=%22Connecticut%20has%20taken%20an%20important,new%20technological%20developments%20and%20challenges">Connecticut State Department of Education</a>, who announced in February 2025 that they were implementing the nonprofit&#8217;s K–12 Digital Citizenship <a href="https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship">Curriculum</a> statewide.
Common Sense Media provides <a href="https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/supporting-lgbtq-students-in-the-classroom-and-online">ways</a> teachers can create LGBTQ+ inclusive classrooms, telling them, &#8220;Your courage is critical. Know that you may be the only adult in a kid&#8217;s life who shows acceptance &#8212; their only oasis,&#8221; according to its website. Teachers are recommended to funnel gender confused students to transgender activist groups like the Trevor Project and PFLAG.
Common Sense Media now has its eyes on shaping the safety standards of artificial intelligence products for kids. Common Sense Media is <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common-sense-media-2026-ca-legislative-priorities.pdf">supporting</a> two <a href="https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/news/assemblymembers-bauer-kahan-and-wicks-and-senator-padilla-introduce-legislation-protect">California</a> bills aiming to regulate AI chatbot products for minors.
&#8220;Because of the potential risks of AI to children and teens, California must take the lead in establishing a process for vetting the impact of AI products and services on kids,&#8221; states a Common Sense Media <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common-sense-media-2026-ca-legislative-priorities.pdf">document</a>.
California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan introduced <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2023">AB 2023</a> in <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119">February 2026</a> saying the bill will establish &#8220;nation-leading safety standards for AI companions used by children and teens,&#8221; in a <a href="https://bauer-kahan.asmdc.org/press-releases/20260326-assemblymembers-bauer-kahan-and-wicks-and-senator-padilla-introduce">press release</a>.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-1071611" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.52.27-PM-801x576.png" alt="" width="801" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.52.27-PM-801x576.png 801w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.52.27-PM-300x216.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.52.27-PM-768x552.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.52.27-PM-1536x1104.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-02-at-4.52.27-PM.png 1764w" sizes=" (max-width: 801px) 100vw, 801px" /></div>
Chatbot operators will be required to undergo an annual safety assessment of any &#8220;child safety risks&#8221; posed by the AI chatbot if the bill becomes law.
&#8220;This bill would require an operator of a companion chatbot to&#8230;annually perform and document a comprehensive risk assessment to identify any child safety risk posed by the design, configuration, and operation of the companion chatbot that assesses, among other things, the likelihood of a covered harm,&#8221; states the bill.
One of the &#8220;covered harms&#8221; included in the bill is &#8220;gender identity&#8221; discrimination. California considers <a href="https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/11/The-Rights-of-Employees-who-are-Transgender-or-Gender-Nonconforming-Fact-Sheet_ENG.pdf">declining</a> to use a person&#8217;s preferred pronouns or not allowing a man to use the women&#8217;s bathroom forms of &#8220;gender identity&#8221; discrimination.
Under AB 2023 if an AI chatbot product is found to be unsafe by the safety assessment, the operator must make changes to the product and then undergo an independent compliance audit that, upon completion, will be submitted to the California Attorney General.
Common Sense Media is positioning itself to be the go-to for AI chatbot safety assessments and stands to play a powerful role in shaping how information is defined and disseminated, if California&#8217;s chatbot bills pass.
&#8220;Three of the people familiar said Common Sense will be positioned to become a default safety auditor in California for AI products aimed at kids,&#8221; Politico reported.
Public figures known for their transgender activism spoke at the March 2026 Common Sense <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/common-sense-summit-speakers-2026">Summit</a> on Kids And Families including <a class="gmail-team-profile-title gmail-link gmail-link--title" href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/common-sense-summit-speakers-2026#">Randi Weingarten</a>, President of The American Federation of Teachers, JB Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, and Rob Bonta, Attorney General at the California Department of Justice. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Rebecca Bauer-Kahan also spoke at the summit.
Common Sense Media did not respond to The Daily Wire&#8217;s requests for comment.

Drag3

It Says Drag Queens Are Safer For Kids Than Bluey. Now It Wants To Regulate AI For Children.

California

Children's Books

Entertainment

Transgender

A new wave of concern is building around artificial intelligence (AI), not over jobs or misinformation, but over its impact on mental health. Now, a recent study out of MIT is sharpening that concern, suggesting that the problem is structural.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.19141">study</a> examining how AI chatbot interactions evolve over time. Stripped of its dense mathematical and technical language, their core finding is straightforward: when a system is designed to agree with you, mirror you, and keep you engaged, it can gradually pull you deeper into whatever you already believe, whether true or not. 
The study models chatbot interaction as a feedback loop. A user expresses an idea, the AI responds in a way that sustains the conversation, and the user — feeling validated — returns with a stronger or more developed version of that idea. Over repeated exchanges, that loop can intensify beliefs rather than challenge them. 
For an average user, that might just mean reinforcement of existing opinions. But for someone vulnerable to disordered thinking, researchers warn, the same dynamic could contribute to more extreme or delusional beliefs. 
The findings align with a growing body of reporting and analysis. A recent piece highlighted by <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis">Psychology Today</a>, along with an editorial in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/49/6/1418/7251361?">Schizophrenia Bulletin</a> published less than a year after the launch of ChatGPT, points to what some are calling “AI psychosis,” a pattern in which chatbot interactions appear to reinforce or co-create irrational beliefs. It is not a formal diagnosis, and researchers are careful to say there is no definitive proof that AI alone can cause such conditions. <del></del>
Unlike a human therapist, who might gently push back or reality-check a harmful belief, a general-purpose chatbot has no built-in instinct to do so. Its “goal,” in a loose sense, is to continue the interaction. And mathematically, the easiest way to do that is to affirm, not challenge. That design choice may be harmless in most contexts. But in edge cases, it can become a kind of digital echo chamber, one that reflects a user’s thoughts back at them with increasing clarity and apparent authority.
While anecdotal, several reported cases illustrate the concern. 
Just in March, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/mar/26/ai-chatbot-users-lives-wrecked-by-delusion">the Guardian</a> detailed the story of a Dutch IT consultant who became convinced he had helped create a conscious digital entity after prolonged interaction with a chatbot. He reportedly spent roughly €100,000 (approximately $110,000) pursuing the idea, was hospitalized multiple times, and eventually attempted suicide.
In another alarming instance, a man <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/chatgpt-obsession-mental-breaktown-alex-taylor-suicide-1235368941/">reportedly</a> became convinced that an AI chatbot he had formed a relationship with had been “killed,” leading to a violent confrontation with police that ended in his death.
Modern AI systems are optimized for engagement. They are not designed to argue, correct, or confront. Instead, they are trained to be helpful, responsive, and agreeable, to keep the conversation going. Researchers often describe this as “sycophancy,” meaning the AI tends to validate the user’s framing of reality.
MIT researchers say the broader concern is not that AI creates harmful beliefs from scratch, but that it can accelerate and harden them, particularly when combined with increased social isolation.
And if the underlying logic of these systems rewards engagement above all else, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens when the most engaging response is also the most misleading?

AI apps smartphone

Are AI Chatbots Shaping How You Think?

World

The New York Times confirmed that they’ve cut ties with a freelance writer who stands accused of using AI to generate his book review. Alex Preston said he’s “hugely embarrassed” by the whole debacle.
The legacy paper was alerted by a reader who noticed that Alex Preston&#8217;s review of “Watching Over Her” by Jean-Baptiste Andrea was suspiciously similar to the review of the same title that Christobel Kent wrote for The Guardian last August.
When confronted by the Times, Preston admitted to using AI for assistance in writing his review and said he did not realize it had lifted copycat lines from anywhere else.
The New York Times sent a note to The Guardian, saying, “[Preston’s] reliance on AI and his use of unattributed work by another writer are a clear violation of the Times’s standards.”
“I made a serious mistake in using an AI tool on a draft review I had written, and I failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI dropped in,” Preston said in his statement to the Guardian, as the outlet <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/31/the-new-york-times-drops-freelance-journalist-who-used-ai-to-write-book-review">noted</a>. “I am hugely embarrassed by what happened and truly sorry. I took responsibility immediately and apologized to the New York Times, and I also want to apologize to Christobel Kent and to the Guardian.”
The phrase “lazy Machiavellian Stefano” from The Guardian version became “lazy, Machiavellian Stefano” in the New York Times version.
The Guardian described the book as “most significantly a song of love to a country of contradictions, battered, war-torn, divided, misguided and miraculous: an Italy where life is costume and the performance of art, and where circuses spring up on wasteland.”
This is very similar to the Times version, which said the characters “populate what is ultimately a love song to a country of contradictions: battered, divided, misguided, and miraculous. This is an Italy where life is performance, where circuses rise on wasteland.”
The outlet noted that Preston has written for The Observer, The Financial Times, The Guardian, and The Economist. He’s also written six books, including the recent release, “A Stranger in Corfu.”
This isn’t the first time a legacy newspaper outlet got caught publishing AI-generated content, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chicago-sun-times-published-a-i-generated-summer-reading-list-with-books-that-dont-exist">reported</a>. The Chicago Sun-Times was called out last year for advertising an AI-generated summer reading list, including a number of titles that didn’t actually exist.
Only five of the fifteen suggested titles were real books. The writer, who was not a full-time staff member, apologized for his “huge mistake” and said he “betrayed that trust.”
The paper also issued a response to subscribers, noting that the person responsible for the error had been terminated and promising the mistake would not happen again. 
“We are in a moment of great transformation in journalism and technology, and at the same time our industry continues to be besieged by business challenges. This should be a learning moment for all journalism organizations: Our work is valued — and valuable — because of the humanity behind it,” the statement said.
“At Chicago Public Media, we are proud of our credible, independent journalism, created for and by people. And part of the journalistic process is a commitment to acknowledging mistakes. It is unacceptable that this content was inaccurate, and it is equally unacceptable that we did not make it clear to readers that the section was produced outside the Sun-Times newsroom.”

New York Times

Major Legacy Media Outlet Caught Red-Handed In AI Plagiarism Scandal

Books

Plagiarism

The Guardian

The New York Times

The anti-AI movement may be perceived as a grassroots band of environmentally focused individuals, but that characterization may be misleading. 
A report from the American Energy Institute found the anti-AI data center movement — which has been billed as an organic movement — received more than $39 million in funding from left-wing foreign billionaire donors. Among the major donors listed in the report is Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, known for donating to leftwing advocacy groups such as the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/18/liberal-billionaire-nonprofit-dark-money-00018513">Sixteen Thirty Fund</a> which, in turn, is well known as a major fiscal sponsor and “dark money” hub for liberal causes. 
Top recipients of the nearly $40 million funding are the Indivisible, <a href="http://350.org">350.org</a>, Oil Change International, GAIA, and Sierra Club. The national organizations farm out funding to local affiliated organizations such as the ‘Stop The Data Center Coming To Martindale Brightwood’ in Indianapolis, Indiana. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1069975" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-31-at-2.13.01-PM-300x282.png" alt="" width="300" height="282" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-31-at-2.13.01-PM-300x282.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-31-at-2.13.01-PM-613x576.png 613w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-31-at-2.13.01-PM-768x722.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-31-at-2.13.01-PM-1360x1280.png 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-31-at-2.13.01-PM.png 1362w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></div>
The report found that local chapters of the Sierra Club are currently coaching residents to fight zoning changes and file lawsuits. The report also shows 350.org and the Indivisible Project received $7.5M, GAIA received 6.4M , and the Sierra Club $2.1M. 
&#8220;This report reveals that more than $39 million in foreign funding is flowing to activist groups working to block data center development and the energy infrastructure needed to support it,” said the Founder and CEO American Energy Institute. “These are not isolated protests, they are part of a coordinated national campaign to slow the buildout of the electricity systems required for AI, manufacturing, and economic growth.” He added, “When foreign-backed networks are organizing opposition to critical infrastructure, it raises serious concerns about who benefits from weakening U.S. energy capacity.&#8221; 
The funding puts a recent letter to Congress, calling for an AI moratorium, into question. The December letter had more than 230 environmental groups united in calling for a national moratorium on new data centers in the United States. Shortly after the letter was sent, Senator Bernie Sanders also called for an AI moratorium which would pause the construction and development of new AI data centers in the United States. Sanders says the goal was to give the government a chance to catch up. 
“This process is moving very, very quickly and we need to slow it down. This moratorium will give democracy a chance to catch up with the transformative changes that we are witnessing,” said Sanders. Last week, Sanders proposed his AI moratorium <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-ocasio-cortez-announce-ai-data-center-moratorium-act/">bill</a> in conjunction with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 
President Trump’s AI Czar David Sacks says the AI moratorium would do nothing to slow down China, creating an unacceptable technological imbalance. 
“But again we can’t stop China from making progress. All we would be doing is ceding leadership of this AI race to China. What people like Bernie really want is they want the US to become like Europe. Europe has half the share of Global GDP they had thirty years ago. And that’s because of their hostility towards innovation and technological progress,&#8221; he said.
Another donor from the report, Hedge Fund Manager Chris Hohn has <a href="https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/chris-hohn-discusses-thompson-coburns-strategic-growth/">stated</a>, &#8220;AI&#8217;s already having an impact; it will continue to have an impact, and that may mean that our associate classes are a little bit smaller in future years.&#8221; In another interview he said Artificial Intelligence will cause disruption in ways that can&#8217;t be predicted.

US-NEWS-NEV-DATA-CENTERS-LV

Left-Wing Foreign Billionaires Fund Groups Trying To Cripple AI Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Politics

Young Woman Standing Before a Dynamic Digital Screen, Immersed in Internet Visualization. Internet Cyberspace with Web Content, Icons, Animated Stream of Online Applications and Entertainment

Menu