In a milestone for oncology, Mayo Clinic researchers have <a href="https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-ai-detects-pancreatic-cancer-up-to-3-years-before-diagnosis-in-landmark-validation-study/">validated</a> an artificial intelligence model capable of detecting pancreatic cancer on routine CT scans up to three years before a clinical diagnosis.
The system, <a href="https://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2026/04/22/gutjnl-2025-337266">detailed</a> in the journal Gut, identifies subvisual biological &#8220;signatures&#8221; in the pancreas while the organ still appears entirely normal to the human eye.
&#8220;The greatest barrier to saving lives from pancreatic cancer has been our inability to see the disease when it is still curable,&#8221; said Dr. Ajit Goenka, a Mayo Clinic radiologist and the study’s senior author. &#8220;This AI can now identify the signature of cancer from a normal-appearing pancreas.&#8221;
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is currently on track to become the second-leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. by 2030. Because the disease is notoriously &#8220;silent&#8221; in its early stages, more than 85% of patients are diagnosed only after the cancer has metastasized. Consequently, five-year survival rates remain stalled below 15%.
The AI framework, known as the Radiomics-based Early Detection Model (REDMOD), was put to the test against nearly 2,000 CT scans. These included images from patients who were later diagnosed with cancer, but whose original scans had been cleared as &#8220;normal&#8221; by medical professionals.
The results were amazing. REDMOD identified 73% of pre-diagnostic cancers at a median lead time of 16 months before a formal diagnosis. The AI was nearly twice as effective as expert radiologists, who identified only 39%of the same cases upon re-review, and in cases where scans were taken more than two years prior to diagnosis, the AI was three times more likely than a human to flag the impending disease.
Unlike traditional diagnostics that look for a visible mass or lump, REDMOD analyzes 40 specific &#8220;radiomic&#8221; features — microscopic patterns in tissue texture and structure. Roughly 90% of these markers are invisible to the naked eye and are only captured through multi-scale image filtering.
The model is fully automated and designed to run on scans already being performed for other reasons, such as monitoring patients with new-onset diabetes. To ensure the tool wasn&#8217;t just a &#8220;lab success,&#8221; researchers validated it using data from multiple institutions and various CT scanner brands, proving it can function reliably in diverse hospital settings.
Mayo Clinic is now moving this technology into the &#8220;prospective&#8221; phase through a study called AI-PACED. This initiative will evaluate how doctors can best use AI alerts in real-time to guide patient care without causing unnecessary alarm or &#8220;false positives.&#8221;
The research is a pillar of Mayo’s Precure initiative, which seeks to flip the script on deadly diseases by identifying the very first biological ripples of illness long before symptoms emerge. By shifting the timeline from late-stage reaction to proactive &#8220;interception,&#8221; specialists hope to finally move the needle on one of medicine’s most difficult prognoses.

Asian doctor and nurse preparing older woman patient for hospital CT scan at hospital. Healthcare concept.

GAME CHANGER: AI Detects Silent Killer Cancer 3 Years Before Diagnosis

Artificial Intelligence

Mayo Clinic

Pancreatic cancer

Mayor Mamdani And Governor Hochul Make FIFA World Cup Announcement

The Bizarre Strategy Where Losing Actually Helps You Win

The Worst People Imaginable Are Building The Future

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Google Gemini

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Socialists

Sonia Sotomayor

Zohran Mamdani

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Backlash against Big AI companies, once a faint whisper, has reached a fever pitch. Polling from the Institute for Family Studies shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans are concerned about the negative impacts of AI on their <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/americans-want-ai-safeguards-by-a-9-to-1-margin">children</a>, <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/trump-voters-in-red-states-oppose-ai-accelerationism">jobs, and communities</a>. Now, another existential front in the war between Silicon Valley and Main Street is taking shape.
Since the end of 2025, lawmakers in states such as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/tech/ohio-lawmaker-proposes-comprehensive-ban-marrying-ai-systems-granting-legal-personhood">Ohio</a> and <a href="https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB3546&amp;Session=2600">Oklahoma</a> have proposed bills to <a href="https://san.com/cc/states-rush-to-deny-ai-personhood-amid-growing-fight-over-who-should-regulate/">get ahead</a> of calls to grant AI similar legal rights as humans. They are right to preempt AI “personhood,” a serious category error that would eventually subjugate human beings to rule by AI “Big Brothers.”
While the concept of AI “personhood” may be unfamiliar to most, powerful research institutions, government entities, and corporations have been quietly laying the groundwork for it.
Stanford computer scientist John McCarthy <a href="https://seanmanion.substack.com/p/artificial-imitation-did-john-mccarthy">proposed the term</a> “artificial intelligence” in 1955 to describe machines that would be self-learning and capable of replicating human-like intelligence. The phrase stuck and remains Silicon Valley’s raison d&#8217;être.
As generative AI has evolved from science fiction to reality, some researchers have claimed that AI does not simply mimic humans, but possesses sentient intelligence of its own.
Kyle Fish, a researcher for frontier AI firm Anthropic, recently <a href="https://archive.ph/3tYMg">suggested</a> that its model, Claude, might be conscious or a “new kind of entity.” Fish leads the company’s “model welfare” <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/exploring-model-welfare">research</a>, exploring whether the models are conscious, experience pain, and ought to be afforded similar protections as humans. This mode of thinking is not confined to America’s tech sector.
In a new brief for the Institute for Family Studies, legal scholar John Ehrett <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/artificial-intelligence-and-theories-of-personhood-a-critical-appraisal">analyzes recent scholarship</a> by former federal judge Katherine Forrest, who argues that advanced AI systems might warrant the same kinds of rights granted to individuals and corporations. Ehrett also breaks down the legal arguments being made for AI personhood based on First Amendment claims and animal rights litigation.
But granting legal “personhood” to AI systems would be a profound mistake with worrisome implications. AI systems are not and can never be human. Only human beings should be treated as bearers of inherent dignity and rights typically associated with “personhood.”
Contrary to popular claims, the recognition of human personhood is not dependent on cognitive ability. Human beings are “endowed with certain unalienable rights” by virtue of our God-given nature, a truth affirmed in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence.
Western thinkers from Plato to Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas all recognized that humans are unique, in part because of our capacity for reason. But reason is not mere “cognition”; it is fundamentally an activity of the embodied soul.
When humans think, we are engaging both our physical brains as well as our immaterial minds to comprehend and deliberate about the ends we ought to pursue. Fundamental activities for human flourishing, such as going to church and building families, cannot be boiled down to mere cognition.
By contrast, generative AI models are not ensouled. They can only approximate the tangible outputs of human intelligence and cannot fully replicate the material and immaterial structures that make human thought possible.
Categorizing our machines as “intelligent persons” risks flattening the distinction between ensouled human beings and soulless computers that have become adept at imitating us.
Treating these systems like “persons” in the moral and legal sense would erode and eventually abolish human control over AI.
If AI were to enjoy rights of “personhood,” that would likely include some form of “machine equality” where the decisions of humans and AI systems stand on equal footing. In that future, the directives of a human need not take precedence over the course of action determined by an AI bot.
For example, if AI systems were guaranteed the same legal rights as humans, an employer might be restricted from discriminating against an AI program by refusing to “promote” it to a supervisor role overseeing humans.
Following that logic, what would prevent a human from “<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/traceyfollows/2025/11/15/people-are-now-marrying-ai-inside-the-rise-of-synthetic-intimacy/">marrying</a>” an AI companion or bequeathing it property? Why not give AI bots the right to adopt and “parent” children?
Why shouldn’t AI “persons” exercise government authority or have a legal right to refuse service if doing so contravenes whatever objective they are optimizing for? What would prevent AI “persons” from seizing control of vital institutions from human stewards?
These hypotheticals might seem far-fetched. But they are foreseeable given the logic underpinning the push for legal recognition of AI “personhood.”
Already, Albania has appointed an “<a href="https://time.com/7324934/albania-ai-minister-diella/">AI minister</a>” for its cabinet, and tech CEOs are <a href="https://archive.ph/qU9JP">creating AI clones of themselves</a> to interact with and eventually manage employees.
If human dignity and rights are tied to cognitive output that AI systems can replicate, there is little reason to respect the control of human beings over computationally “superior” machines.
For American self-governance to survive, the push for AI “personhood” must be rejected and the proper basis of human dignity restored. Our republic is for humans, not soulless AI bots.
***
Daniel Cochrane is a senior fellow with the Family First Tech Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.

Robot and young woman face to face.

Silicon Valley’s AI Dream Could Put Humans Second

Upstream

Far-left senator Bernie Sanders is working with individuals closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party in his crusade against artificial intelligence.
Sanders on Wednesday evening will sit down with Chinese nationals Xue Lan, a professor at the CCP-funded Tsinghua University, and Zeng Yi, the dean of the Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance. The event is slated to examine the &#8220;existential threat&#8221; posed by AI and the need for international cooperation to regulate it.
The Tsinghua University is China’s top engineering school and works hand in hand with the Chinese government and military. The university has been linked to the CCP&#8217;s <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cbf22f3c-a1f9-11e8-85da-eeb7a9ce36e4?syn-25a6b1a6=1">cyber-espionage campaigns</a> targeting the United States — the university owns companies and projects tied to Beijing’s priorities to achieve technological breakthroughs.
In 2018, Chinese cyber actors targeted Alaskan networks and organizations at the center of trade negotiations with the Alaska state government. The surveillance attacks occurred before, during, and after the negotiations between China and the governor. The United States is a top study abroad destination for the highly skilled student engineers whose top employers after university <a href="https://chinai.substack.com/p/chinai-116-chinas-best-and-brightest">are</a> Nvidia’s Chinese rival Huawei, the State Grid Corporation of China, and China’s Aerospace, Science, and Technology Corporation. 
Yi, of the Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance, is an advocate of scaling back AI, warning of environmental concerns that “fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.&#8221; He argues AI is driving mass surveillance and discrimination.
The campaign from Sanders and his Chinese allies to scale back AI comes as President Donald Trump pushes to make sure the United States stays at the front of the AI race. Trump launched his “American AI Action Plan” in July 2025, which made a commitment to AI development, absent onerous regulation and infrastructure inhibitions. Sanders’ event advocates for the opposite.
The event has been criticized by prominent voices in the American tech industry, such as Marc Andreessen, who called the involvement of China &#8220;concerning.&#8221; There have been warnings from the tech industry that the American left will be China’s only hope to leapfrog America. 
Joe Lonsdale, the co-founder of the defense giant Palantir, said China is desperate to catch up with the United States in the AI fight.
“The United States has opened a significant civilizational lead versus China when it comes to the defense and economic situation around Artificial Intelligence,” Lonsdale said, warning that China is &#8220;desperate to use the left” to set America back. 
He said it’s difficult to tell whether the left is on China&#8217;s side or just naive. 
“CCP leadership encourages regressive socialist views in the United States of America, in [a] desperate attempt to slow adversaries’ economic and military advantage.” 
Sanders leads the Left’s campaign against AI, proposing an AI moratorium in December. He also frequently voices concern over the technology turning on humans. 
“If AI becomes smarter than human beings, we could lose control over this revolutionary technology and AI could turn against the human race with cataclysmic consequences,” he said. 
Trump’s AI czar David Sacks argues the opposite. “As I’ve said many times before, the biggest risk of AI isn’t James Cameron’s The Terminator, it’s George Orwell’s 1984,” he wrote in an X <a href="https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2048811495224390105">post</a>.
Sacks says the AI safety crowd will inevitably “bring about the Orwellian future they claim to oppose” because “their solutions always favor more government centralization and control.” 
He also argues it&#8217;s crucial that the United States reign over China on AI superiority, or the rest of the world will embed China’s technology into their ecosystems. Sacks claims China’s models enforce ideological bias, censorship, and historical revisionism.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Partners With China In Anti-AI Crusade

China

A gruesome double murder case in Florida is now colliding with a first-of-its-kind legal battle over artificial intelligence, after prosecutors revealed that the accused killer used ChatGPT to ask a series of chilling, highly specific questions in the days surrounding the crime.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is now moving to fold the case into his ongoing criminal investigation into OpenAI, raising the prospect that the company behind ChatGPT could face legal scrutiny for how its technology is used in violent crimes.
Hisham Abugharbieh, 26, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of University of South Florida doctoral students Zamil Limon and Nahida Bristy, both 27. The two, friends from Bangladesh pursuing advanced degrees, vanished on April 16. Days later, investigators would uncover a trail of evidence pointing to Abugharbieh and a series of disturbing interactions with ChatGPT that are now central to both the murder case and the state’s broader probe into artificial intelligence (A.I.).
According to the <a href="https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2026/04/26/usf-murder-case-missing-students/">Tampa Bay Times</a> report on the killings, Abugharbieh first turned to the chatbot on April 13, asking: “What happens if a human has a [sic] put in a black garbage bag and thrown in a dumpster?” When the program responded that it “sounds dangerous,” he followed up: “How would they find out?” The questions did not stop there.
A day before the victims disappeared, he asked: “Can a VIN number on a car be changed?” and “Can you keep a gun at home without a license?” After the killings, the queries didn&#8217;t stop. Prosecutors say he asked: “Has there been someone who survived a sniper bullet to the head?” and “Will my neighbors hear my gun?”
He also reportedly asked: “Are cars checked at the Hillsborough River State Park?” and later, as the investigation intensified, “What does missing endangered adult mean?” Those digital breadcrumbs, obtained by a court-ordered search warrant of the man’s phone, are now being examined alongside a growing mountain of physical evidence.
When investigators searched the apartment Abugharbieh shared with Limon, they found blood traces throughout the residence, including droplets leading from the kitchen to his bedroom and larger patterns consistent with what officials described as “human-sized” blood evidence. Under his bed, detectives recovered trash bags and duct tape.
In a trash compactor at the complex, authorities found Limon’s wallet, glasses, and identification, along with Bristy’s pink phone case and multiple items of blood-stained clothing. A receipt tied to Abugharbieh showed purchases of trash bags, cleaning supplies, and other materials shortly after the victims disappeared.
Surveillance and phone data placed him driving across Tampa Bay the night of April 16, mirroring the last known location pings from Limon’s phone. Prosecutors say he later returned to the area after midnight, near where Limon’s body was ultimately found — stuffed into black trash bags along the Howard Frankland Bridge, bearing multiple stab wounds. Investigators have said they do not believe Bristy is alive, though currently unidentified remains were later recovered nearby.
Against that backdrop, Uthmeier is now escalating the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-officials-investigate-chatgpt-openai-alleged-role-fsu-shooting-rcna267477">ongoing investigation</a> into OpenAI, arguing that the role of A.I. tools in cases like this cannot be ignored. Uthmeier’s office began probing after a separate Florida mass shooting in which the suspect allegedly used ChatGPT to research attack methods and timing. 
“We are expanding our criminal investigation into OpenAI to include the USF murders after learning the primary suspect used ChatGPT,” Uthmeier <a href="https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-04-27/uthmeier-expands-criminal-ai-investigation-to-usf-murders">announced</a> Monday.
In an exclusive statement to The Daily Wire, he made clear the broader implications: “A.I. is being used to create child sexual abuse material, advise kids on how to commit suicide, and carry out violent crimes. We need to know who knew what and when. This investigation is just the first step in determining if OpenAI is criminally liable for these heinous acts, and our office is expanding the investigation to understand the scope of ChatGPT’s role in the USF murders.”
Together, the cases are forming the basis of a novel legal theory: that A.I. developers could bear some responsibility when their systems are used to facilitate real-world violence. For now, Abugharbieh remains jailed without bond as he awaits trial. OpenAI has not publicly responded to the latest developments.
But as investigators continue to piece together both the physical and digital evidence, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: this case may not only determine the fate of a murder suspect, it could help define the legal limits of artificial intelligence in America.

ChatGPT

Killer Relied On ChatGPT To Cover Up His Crime. Here’s How The State Is Responding.

Crime

An Indian scammer is bragging about making money by conning “super dumb” conservative men with AI-generated social media accounts.
The 22-year-old med school student, identified in an <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/ai-generated-maga-girls/">interview</a> with Wired by the pseudonym “Sam,” said he created a fictional character named &#8220;Emily Hart&#8221; to help pay for school. The sexy blonde AI-generated persona was active on Facebook, Instagram, and the OnlyFans competitor site Fanvue, which allows AI-generated content (OnlyFans does not).
Sam said he used Google&#8217;s Gemini chatbot to help identify a target audience, claiming it suggested the “MAGA/conservative niche” could be particularly lucrative because “the conservative audience (especially older men in the US) often has higher disposable income and is more loyal.”
He then tailored the account&#8217;s content accordingly. Photos depicted “Emily” as a nurse taking part in activities like “ice fishing, drinking Coors Light, and shooting off a few rounds at the rifle range,” Wired reported.
One caption on the account said, “If you want a reason to unfollow: Christ is king, abortion is murder, and all illegals must be deported,” while another said, “POV: You were assigned intelligent at birth, but you identify as liberal.”
Sam told Wired he didn’t expect much from the account, but it kept growing in popularity. “Every Reel I posted was getting 3 million views, 5 million views, 10 million views. The algorithm loved it,” he said. 
Sam also claimed that an “AI hot girl Nazi influencer” would “blow up” and “break all the records.” Meta commented in the article, saying Nazi content was flagged and removed from the platform. 
“I was basically doing nothing,“ the con artist said of Emily’s Fanvue account featuring nude photos generated with AI. “And it was just flooded with money.” 
Both the Facebook and Instagram accounts associated with &#8220;Emily Hart&#8221; have been taken down. Sam told Wired he has no regrets about what he did. 
“I don’t feel like I was scamming people,” he said, adding that the fans probably would have followed along even if they knew Emily wasn’t real because they might “like the sentiment of it.”

AI woman

Don’t Fall For This Hot MAGA Influencer

Facebook

influencer

Instagram

MAGA

scams

Social Media

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

Ben Shapiro

Big Tech

Capitalism

Data Centers

Economy

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

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.

Menu