In a recent <a href="https://www.afterbabel.com/p/ted-haidt-you-should-be-a-techno-skeptic">TED talk</a>, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt delivered an emphatic call for techno-skepticism. His argument? That smartphones, social media, laptops, and tablets in schools and AI are rewiring childhood in harmful ways. From eroding attention spans to diminishing social bonds and contributing to declining academic performances, Haidt believes that technology is the primary adversary of modern youth. He argues that we must focus on protecting brain development through puberty, prioritizing people and books over screens, and being wary of what he dubs “artificial relationships,” which undermine the ultrasocial nature of humans.
While I understand Haidt’s concerns, as someone who believes in human ingenuity and in technology&#8217;s ability to empower people, I couldn’t disagree more. Blanket skepticism risks overlooking evidence of technology&#8217;s positive impacts and the extraordinary opportunities it presents. We must reject the fear-based paradigm of technology and choose to be techno-optimists.
Haidt paints a grim picture, claiming that the shift to the smartphone-based childhoods of the early 2010s coincided with a rise in loneliness, anxiety, and depression among teens. He cites experiments showing reduced social media use lowers distress and points to “brain rot” from short-form videos disrupting adolescent brain development during puberty.
The problem isn’t that Haidt identifies risks. Every transformative technology carries some risk. The problem is that he consistently confuses evidence of risks with evidence that society should retreat from technological integration and innovation. Doing so would be a mistake.
The fear of technology harming society isn’t some novel phenomenon; it’s been playing out for <a href="https://behavioralscientist.org/history-panic-entertainment-technology/">decades</a>. When television first arrived, critics claimed that it would rot children’s minds. When video games became popular, they were blamed for a range of issues from declining academic performance to rising social isolation. Even when the internet first came about, many of the same things Haidt claims today were the claims of the day, including that it was a dangerous force that would destroy attention spans and harm a generation.
However, despite those warnings, each generation ultimately learned not only how to integrate the technology into society but also managed to preserve what mattered most.
Haidt’s central argument is that the rise of smartphones and social media coincides with rising mental health challenges and declining educational outcomes among young people. He suggests these trends are not simply correlated but imply a causal connection. He points to declining test scores, increased loneliness, and diminished attention spans as evidence. However, the challenge here is that the claims rest on evidence that is far less definitive than his rhetoric would suggest.
Critics like <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2">Candice Odgers</a> have noted that Haidt’s synthesis leans heavily on selective data and has faced methodological pushback when reexamining meta-studies. The reality is that there are broader societal factors, such as the pandemic disruption, economic pressures, academic and familial stressors, and shifts in diagnostic awareness, playing a significant role in the youth mental health crisis being observed. And while, yes, social media usage is a variable, it is one among many, and certainly not the singular driving cause that Haidt makes it out to be.
One of the areas that Haidt takes aim at is educational outcomes. Haidt notes that test scores began declining around the same period that schools adopted more digital technologies and one-to-one devices. However, correlation is not causation.
The American educational system faces a litany of challenges that have absolutely nothing to do with smartphones. The material being taught is constantly changing. Schools are still struggling to recover from pandemic-era disruptions. <a href="https://www.k12dive.com/news/1-in-5-students-are-still-chronically-absent/821771/">Chronic absenteeism</a> remains a major issue, exceeding pre-pandemic levels. One <a href="https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/overview-teacher-shortages-2025-factsheet">estimate</a> indicated that nearly one in eight positions were either filled by teachers who were not fully certified or left unfilled. Pointing at technology as the primary culprit here requires dismissing many reasonable alternative explanations.
If screens were the true enemy of learning, we would not be seeing evidence that well-designed digital tools can dramatically improve educational outcomes. Looking at how artificial intelligence can help in the classroom can be particularly insightful. For example, look at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/texas-private-schools-use-ai-tutor-rockets-student-test-scores-top-2-country">Alpha School</a> in Texas. The private school integrated AI tutors, personalized one-on-one learning, allowing students to complete their academic requirements within 2-3 hours a day. The results are promising. Their students ranked in the top 1-2% nationally, with improvements in MAP, AP, and average SAT scores. With the added free time, students can focus on passion projects, which not only foster their creativity but also connect them with the real world around them. The benefits of integrating AI technology extend not only to students but to teachers as well. Having that asset there to help students at their own pace frees up teachers to be better mentors and connect with their students individually. The Alpha School case offers an alternative vision in which technology can empower learning, reinforcing the point that we shouldn’t fear AI in education.
Currently, much of the social media debate treats it as a single, purely negative force. However, social media offers a variety of benefits to kids around the country.
For me, as a person with niche interests who never quite fit into a single clique in the offline world, social media served as a conduit to connect with people around the globe who shared my interests. It also served as an educational resource for me, with Google searches, Wikipedia page submissions, and YouTube videos giving me access to a wider array of educational content than what was available in my school library. Social media has lowered the barrier to accessing information, opened opportunities, and fostered community in ways that simply were not previously possible.
The Daily Wire itself exists in part because of its community of subscribers who discovered its content on social media, providing a platform for this publication to deliver content from personalities like Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Matt Walsh to millions of people around the globe.
Even in terms of the mental health component, one must recognize that there is more nuance than critics like Haidt often acknowledge. For young people, especially those who feel isolated in their immediate environment, online communities fostered via social media provide necessary support systems that are incredibly valuable. The internet has helped millions of kids realize they are, in fact, not alone.
However, it is impossible to ignore another variable largely absent from the techno-skeptic narrative: the changing nature of childhood itself. When talking about rising loneliness or reduced socialization, critics often assume that technology is the primary culprit. But what if the problem existed before the child ever picked up the phone?
Over the past several decades, children have experienced a dramatic decline in independent play, outdoor exploration, and unstructured social interactions. Rather than participating in pickup games or having some unsupervised time with friends, those have given way to highly structured activities and constant adult oversight. To put it into perspective, if a child today were to attempt to walk alone to a park, it would raise concern. However, in the past, this barely registered on parents&#8217; radar.
Resilience isn’t simply built exclusively in the online or offline worlds. It’s built by navigating disagreements with friends, solving problems without adult intervention, taking risks, and learning from mistakes.
Ironically, Haidt recognized this issue when he coauthored <a href="https://www.thecoddling.com/">The Coddling of the American Mind</a> with Greg Lukianoff. In that book, he argued that a culture that was increasingly obsessed with safety was depriving young people of the necessary experience to develop confidence and independence. That argument remains compelling, and perhaps Haidt should listen to himself. In calling for broad restrictions on social media and artificial intelligence, Haidt echoes the very fearful and restrictive mindset he decried in this book. Kids will not be able to build resilience if they are shielded from all aspects of digital reality. Haidt’s call for techno-skepticism, if taken too far, becomes another form of coddling that underestimates young people’s capacity for growth.
If children are spending less time today “touching grass,” it&#8217;s because this generation is under constant supervision and has fewer opportunities for independence. These are the consequences of broader cultural and social changes that extend far beyond a smartphone screen. One could argue that the smartphone simply became a tool for children to fill the social void left by the disappearance of many traditional opportunities for childhood interaction.
I refuse to lend credence to treating our future children as fragile and incapable of handling the challenges presented by social media and AI. I am a techno-optimist. Our children face a future driven by these technologies. Coddling them and cutting them off from the technology entirely will leave them unprepared. Humans have always adapted to new tools and always will.
Let’s do our part to raise a generation that thrives in the digital age, masters the tools of their era, and cherishes the irreplaceable aspects of human connection.
***
James Czerniawski is the Head of Emerging Technology Policy at the Consumer Choice Center. His work has been featured in the New York Post, Newsweek, Newsmax, The Daily Wire, and more. Follow him on Twitter @<a href="https://x.com/JamesCz19">JamesCz19 </a>

Rear view shot of a young girl looking out of her window at sunset

Jonathan Haidt’s Fear Of Screens Misses The Bigger Picture

Childhood development

DW Opinion

Jonathan Haidt

Social development

Social Media

Technology

Elon Musk’s SpaceX opened at $150 on Friday after the company sold 555 million shares at $135 each in what would be the largest initial public offering in history.
The company raised approximately $75 billion in the IPO, surpassing the previous record set by Saudi Aramco in 2019. Shares quickly climbed more than 10% in early trading.
“It’s certainly hard to believe that a little company that started in a warehouse in El Segundo is now going public in the largest IPO ever,” Musk said from SpaceX headquarters in Starbase, Texas. 
“I gave SpaceX less than a 10% chance of succeeding at all,” Musk added. “In fact, I told people this. I said, ‘Look, we’re probably going to fail, but you know, we should give it a try, because if we don&#8217;t, if there&#8217;s not a new company that enters space, we will never be a truly space-bearing civilization.&#8221;
The public offering also cemented Musk&#8217;s status as the world&#8217;s wealthiest person. His net worth is now <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/">valued</a> at more than $1.2 trillion, making him the first person to reach trillionaire status. Musk owns roughly 42% of SpaceX shares and is required to hold them for one year.
The IPO also created a major windfall for SpaceX employees. More than 4,000 workers became millionaires through company stock holdings, including cafeteria employees who participated in the company&#8217;s stock program.
One employee, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/technology/spacex-ipo-employee-millionaires.html">Trevor Hise</a>, started at SpaceX as an intern in 2011 and accumulated more than 100,000 shares, now valued at more than $15 million. Hise said his parents once urged him to turn down the SpaceX offer and take a job with General Electric instead.  
More than <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/12/spacex-millionaires-wealth-management.html">100</a> SpaceX employees now reportedly have combined assets valued between $1 billion and $5 billion. 
Musk and SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell marked the company&#8217;s public debut by ringing Nasdaq’s opening bell, with Musk appearing from Texas and Shotwell from New York City. 
Shotwell said the company could pursue major deals following the record-breaking IPO, while also hinting at future overlap between SpaceX and Musk&#8217;s other companies. 
“There’s no question that there are synergies between Tesla and SpaceX in our futures,” she <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/12/spacex-ipo-spcx-live-updates.html">said</a>. “There’s a convergence of what we’re all trying to accomplish in the future, but right now I’m focused on keeping the lights on here.”
Musk has also floated the possibility of eventually merging Tesla and SpaceX. SpaceX bought xAI earlier this year, giving the aerospace company ownership of xAI&#8217;s data centers, Grok AI models, and X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. 
For now, Musk said the IPO proceeds will help fuel “a significant growth phase” for SpaceX. His plans include placing more than 1 million satellites in orbit and building artificial intelligence data centers in space.

SpaceX Listed On Nasdaq Exchange

SpaceX Just Pulled Off Something Wall Street Has Never Seen

Business

Elon Musk

SpaceX

Elon Musk lost the race to market, with a Shanghai-based startup launching its brain chip technology to the public ahead of Neuralink. 
China’s drug regulator, the National Medical Products Administration, recently approved Neuracle Technology’s brain implant beyond clinical trials, <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/06/07/tech/china-beats-elon-musk-to-launch-worlds-first-commercial-brain-chip/">according</a> to multiple reports. Like Musk’s Neuralink, the coin-size brain implant — called NEO — is designed to help patients who are paralyzed due to spinal cord injuries. 
One of Neuracle Technology’s patients, Dong Hui, was recently <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/01/1138133/china-world-first-brain-chip/">profiled</a> by MIT Technology Review. After 11 months of using the device, Dong is now able to write his name despite suffering a spinal cord injury in a car accident six years ago. Before receiving the implant, Dong could barely move his arms and was unable to use his fingers at all.
NEO sensors are placed on the outside membrane of Dong’s brain, where the signals are transmitted by a connected computer implant that rests on Dong’s skull. Those signals then move a robotic glove on Dong&#8217;s hand, which helps his hand relearn how to accept signals from his brain. 
“On the ninth day of my training, my right hand successfully grabbed a ball without the glove,” Dong told MIT. “That was a miraculous moment.” Dong was one of 36 subjects who had clinical trials conducted with NEO, with 32 of them occurring in the past year. 
A revolutionary technology in its own right, Neuracle Technology has also broken new ground in its rollout under China’s national health insurance system. China is doubling down on its ambition to become the global leader in brain-computer interfaces with the government identifying the technology as one of six strategic sectors critical to the country’s future alongside quantum technology, biomanufacturing, hydrogen and nuclear fusion power, artificial intelligence, and 6G mobile communications. The global brain-computer interface market is projected to reach $1.7 billion by 2035.
According to an Australian researcher, one reason Neuracle Technology may have outpaced competing brain-computer interfaces is its less invasive design. While Neuralink’s implant penetrates the brain’s protective membrane, NEO sits on top of it. Both approaches have advantages and drawbacks. Avoiding penetration of the brain reduces surgical risk, but Neuralink’s approach allows the device to interface directly with individual neurons, potentially enabling a deeper biological connection and more precise signal collection.
While NEO reached the market first, Musk has said that 2026 will be a major year for Neuralink. Currently, Neuralink procedures require opening the brain’s dura mater, the protective outer membrane surrounding the brain. Musk plans to introduce a less invasive technique that would allow electrodes to pass through the dura without removing it — similar to drilling a small hole through a wall to run a wire rather than cutting out an entire section.
He has also announced that Neuralink will significantly expand its clinical trials as the company moves toward large-scale production. 
Other brain chip companies are also attempting to race to the commercial market. Synchron, which is backed by Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, was founded in Australia before moving to the United States. In late 2025, Synchron raised <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-06/neuralink-rival-synchron-raises-200-million-for-brain-implant">$200 million</a> to advance its implant. 
While Neuracle Technology is the most advanced brain-computer interface company in China, it is one of a new wave of startups backed by the Chinese communist government. China announced <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/22/chinas-brain-computer-interface-industry-is-racing-ahead/">$165</a> million to fund startups through research to commercialization, as well as quickly adopting the technology into its national health service.

Artificial intelligence brain network

China’s Brain Implant Beats Elon Musk’s Neuralink In Race To The Market

China

Elon

Innovation

Actor Elijah Wood posted a rant on X detailing his negative experience with a QR code menu at the cinema chain Alamo Drafthouse.
The “Lord of the Rings” star made a sarcastic dig while describing the new food ordering process, which he called “truly awful.” Wood demanded a return to physical menus.
“For the first time yesterday, I experienced the new Alamo Drafthouse QR code ordering system and I can tell you it’s truly awful,” the actor shared on X.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
For the first time yesterday, I experienced the new <a href="https://x.com/alamodrafthouse?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@alamodrafthouse</a> QR code ordering system and I can tell you it’s truly awful. Rather than making ordering food and drink more efficient, it actually adds steps to the process AND if you want to order additional items during the…
— Elijah Wood (@elijahwood) <a href="https://x.com/elijahwood/status/2061849244915622015?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Rather than making ordering food and drink more efficient, it actually adds steps to the process AND if you want to order additional items during the film you HAVE to open your phone,” the post continued. “No, your cute reference to that irony in your How To Alamo video doesn’t negate how ridiculous this is. Please don’t cut corners with your staff and revert back to physical menus and order cards.”
WATCH FROM TODAY&#8217;S EPISODE OF MORNING WIRE:
  <iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=4Em02g02OVySl5DDTjCdv01tFj87a8yTL7w&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
Alamo Drafthouse is a popular cinema chain known for combining new releases and cult classics with full in-theater dining. They are also notorious for a strict &#8220;no talking or texting&#8221; policy, which is one of the reasons that the QR code ordering was met with such disdain by customers. 
The company <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alamo-drafthouse-layoffs-1236108753/">laid off</a> 15 corporate employees in 2025, roughly 9% of its support staff, and an unknown number of hourly cinema workers in January last year.
Per <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/elijah-wood-hates-alamo-drafthouse-qr-code-ordering/">The Wrap</a>, a spokesperson for the Alamo claimed that the change would not lead to future layoffs and said all staffers who previously helped with ordering had new positions in the company. That unnamed spokesperson also reportedly said that 85% of guests placed food orders before the movie began.
The theater chain introduced the <a href="https://drafthouse.com/news/our-shift-to-qr-ordering?srsltid=AfmBOorvMzuushpKmnLMu2g1i_cKlxfEiANtAKwQiPrPEjXrC9FrEptN">QR code ordering system</a> earlier this year. The company <a href="https://drafthouse.com/news/our-shift-to-qr-ordering">website</a> said it was done in an effort to “reduce distractions (goodbye check drop during the climax) and, in the long term, make the experience even better.”
“Putting ordering control directly in our guests’ hands allows us to move faster and more efficiently, creating a smoother, more responsive experience without added distraction,” the original announcement said.
The company also said as the policy was introduced that “only a small percentage” of orders were made during films. It also stressed that the no cell phone policy for texting and personal use would remain as a “custom-built, dark-screen system” that’s “designed to minimize distractions” would be used for taking orders.
Social media users were not impressed.
“They terminated my fiancée and all the others on the IT team who tried to warn management that the company’s infrastructure couldn’t handle it and that the customer base didn’t want it. It’s all about Sony’s bottom line,” one of the commenters on Wood’s post <a href="https://x.com/yeoldethotticus/status/2061872363529019422">said</a>, prompting the actor to reply, “Ugh. I’m sorry.”
“I took someone [to Alamo Drafthouse] for their first time not knowing they changed it and apologized to them,” echoed <a href="https://x.com/AllieGoertz/status/2061880788224999824">another</a>. “It used to be so special, I don&#8217;t know what happened.&#8221;
“Experienced this a few weeks ago. Add the zero tolerance policy on using phones during movies, so stuck with no napkins and no water- no service, no call button. The bill comes with an 18% service fee added on then expects additional gratuity- insanity,” a third commenter <a href="https://x.com/nanleejewelry/status/2062157528641814578">agreed</a>.

Alamo Drafthouse

Elijah Wood Posts Rant About Popular Cinema Chain’s ‘Awful’ New Policy

Celebrities

Entertainment

Hollywood

Movies

Google is seeking federal approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release 32 million “good” mosquitoes across California and Florida.
The public health program, titled “Debug Project,” was created by Google’s parent company Alphabet a decade ago. It plans to release male mosquitoes carrying Wolbachia into the two states to mate with wild females without producing offspring, hindering the spread of the numerous deadly diseases the insect can carry and transmit to humans.
Wolbachia is a parasitic bacterium that disrupts reproduction: males carrying it mate with wild females, leaving them unable to produce viable offspring. It is completely harmless to humans as well, as it is already naturally occurring in many other insects. 
“This technique uses a naturally occurring bacteria and uses no chemicals, no toxins and doesn’t involve genetic modification,” Google stated on the <a href="https://debug.com/">website</a> dedicated to the project. “Similar approaches have been used to safely combat other pests for decades.”
The surplus of mosquitoes will not cause any more bug bites, as only females bite humans, possibly infecting them with West Nile, Zika, and yellow fever every year. The “good bugs,” as Google refers to them, would prevent the world’s deadliest disease vector from infecting millions and killing between 500,000 and 1 million individuals every year — by preventing the “bad bugs” from being born altogether.
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=NJImACtyd8qr901jiXzUj00P9jus01iozN02&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
If passed, the Debug Project would unfold in two parts. The first year of the plan aims to release 16 million “good bugs” into Florida, with the remaining mosquitoes released in California the following year, in what is described as the Sterile Insect Technique. This avoids spraying pesticides statewide or altering the insect&#8217;s DNA, both of which have proven unsuccessful in stopping the spread of disease.
“Attacking mosquitoes with pesticides is unsustainable because they&#8217;re becoming less effective over time and can be toxic,” Google explains on the Debug Project <a href="https://debug.com/">homepage</a>. “We need a new approach.”
A decision on this project will not be made by the EPA until after the public comment period ends on June 5, 2026.

Aedes aegypti biting human skin

Tech Giant Lobbies To Unleash 32 Million Mosquitos Into America

Google

Insects

Science

An AI company announced this week that it is digitally resurrecting famed Marvel creator Stan Lee and charging users for access to his recreated voice and likeness. 
ElevenLabs revealed Wednesday that the late comic book writer’s AI-generated voice and image will be added to its growing collection of celebrity recreations that can be licensed for commercial use. 
“You know what they never tell you about legends?” the AI-generated version of Lee says in a promotional video released by the company. “They outlive the page. A good story doesn&#8217;t belong to one moment. It grows. It changes. It gets passed down from generation to generation, constantly evolving.”
“Every great story starts with a hero. And just because a person has a superpower doesn&#8217;t mean they don&#8217;t have the same problems that you have,” the promo continues. “So for the creators, the ones dreaming, building, chasing that one great idea, as long as there are people who believe in it, who carry it forward, it lives on.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Introducing Stan Lee on ElevenLabs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W3kbm3s9p-I?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Notably, comments were disabled on the YouTube upload, though critics found their way to social media to express their objections.
“Stop, let the man rest in peace. Lunatics always create problems,” one X user <a href="https://x.com/JosephRodr34982/status/2059977498901774492">wrote</a>.
“I don&#8217;t even dislike AI like most people but using it to revive a dead person is disgusting,” another <a href="https://x.com/NFL_City/status/2059966158174871619">agreed</a>.
“Think about it. You can now rent a dead man&#8217;s voice and likeness for a corporate presentation. We are officially living in the science fiction stories we grew up reading,” echoed a third.
Mixed among the negative comments were a few supporters. 
“Stan Lee&#8217;s voice living on through AI is actually kind of beautiful,” one person <a href="https://x.com/AlphaWireHQ/status/2059935147047166325">wrote</a>. “The man spent his whole life making stories feel alive, and now that energy gets to keep reaching people. Excelsior never really had an expiration date!”
According to ElevenLabs, users will be able to generate comic-book-style images featuring Lee’s likeness, recreate his voice for non-commercial use, and use the AI-generated voice to narrate books through the company&#8217;s app. 
“Stan always believed in meeting his fans where they were: in the pages of a comic, at a convention, or in a quick on-screen cameo,” lawyer and board member for Stan Lee Universe Chaz Rainey said in a statement, per <a href="https://variety.com/2026/biz/news/stan-lee-elevenlabs-licensed-voice-likeness-1236759225/">Variety</a>. “This partnership is a way of continuing that. Fans have always told us that when they read his comics, they hear the words in Stan’s voice, and now, thanks to ElevenLabs, we can make that a reality.”
Lee, who died in 2018, is the latest celebrity to receive an AI-generated digital replica after death.
 An AI-generated version of actor Val Kilmer is set to appear in the upcoming film “As Deep as the Grave” following his death from throat cancer last year. Other deceased celebrities, including <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230718-how-ai-is-bringing-film-stars-back-from-the-dead">James Dean</a> and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/22/entertainment/suzanne-somers-ai-clone-husband">Suzanne Somers,</a> have also been recreated using AI technology. 
Living actors are getting into the game, too. Matthew McConaughey and Michael Caine are among the celebrities who have partnered with ElevenLabs to create and license AI versions of their voices.

Stan Lee

Stan Lee’s AI Clone Is Now Available For Hire

Artificial Intelligence

Comic Books

Marvel

The co-CEOs building what could become the next major tech disruptor say Americans have already surrendered their privacy, and it’s time to stop pretending otherwise. 
On Tuesday, Warby Parker co-CEOs Neil Blumenthal and Dave Gilboa discussed their company&#8217;s entry into the rapidly escalating race for artificial intelligence-powered smart glasses, positioning Warby Parker against Meta in what many in Silicon Valley believe could become the post-smartphone era.
Asked by CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin if the smart glasses would &#8220;persistently listen&#8221; to or watch users, Blumenthal <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/video/2026/05/26/future-of-a-eye-warby-parker-co-ceos-on-the-companys-new-ai-glasses.html">replied</a>, “Our phones are already listening to us, so we’ve already given that up. Now, for us, you&#8217;re going to need a prompt. But I think we probably have to have honest discussions about what we’ve already decided in society.”
Unlike Warby Parker, which openly acknowledged that consumers have already surrendered privacy to always-on technology, Meta has stopped short of saying its devices are constantly listening. The company has instead compared its smart glasses to voice assistants like Siri, maintaining that they only activate and begin listening after a user prompt. 
Warby Parker’s upcoming smart glasses are powered by Google’s Gemini AI platform and developed in partnership with Samsung. The company says the devices are being built with visible privacy safeguards, including cameras that are turned off by default, and an LED indicator light that becomes “incredibly visible” whenever recording is activated.
Executives argue the tradeoff is worth it because of the productivity gains AI-powered eyewear could bring to everyday life.
Gilboa believes the glasses will allow people to “keep their heads up” by allowing them to take calls, send emails and texts, and browse the internet all without taking out a phone or logging onto a computer. 
Blumenthal drew a distinction between Google’s business model and Meta’s, arguing that Google is designed to help users quickly find information, while competitors aim to keep consumers trapped inside their platforms for as long as possible.
“One of the primary reasons we are so excited to partner with Google is if you think about Google’s business model, it is designed to help you find information and then get you off Google properties,” Blumenthal said. “Others in the market are designed to keep you in their ecosystem. For us, it’s about making the world more useful.”
“You can also imagine super vision as well,” he added. “That’s how we think about these products, how we give ourselves superpowers.”
Warby Parker’s AI-powered smart glasses are expected to launch in the fall of 2026. 
Warby Parker first jumped into the industry <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/28/how-warby-parker-became-sustainable-business-dtc-profitability.html">in 2010</a> when it was founded by four Wharton MBA students, each of whom invested $30,000 of their own savings to launch the company. Since then, the eyewear startup has expanded into contact lenses, opened in-store eye care services, and generated nearly $872 million in revenue last year.
Later this year, Apple <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2026/04/12/apple-smart-glasses-new-leak-reveals-a-major-design-twist-to-beat-meta/">is also expected</a> to unveil its first AI-powered smart glasses, which are expected to launch in 2027.

Inside The Google I/O Developers Conference

Big Tech Isn’t Even Pretending That It’s Not Listening Anymore

Google Gemini

Toy Story 5

‘Toy Story 5’ Plot Twist Set To Disappoint Parents

'Toy Story 5' Director Shares Plot Spoiler That Parents Won't Like

Animation

Children

Toy Story

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" 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.
***
Parents, what if there was an easy way to make your kids smarter and happier and it would cost you nothing?
Here is the secret: Stop giving your kids handheld devices. Screens are making our kids <a href="https://www.nprillinois.org/2024-01-08/are-phones-making-kids-dumber-new-data-suggests-the-answer-is-yes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dumber</a>, less emotionally regulated, and unhappy.
This might sound like just another mommy war issue, but the harm of child screen use isn&#8217;t a matter of opinion; it&#8217;s supported by a growing body of scientific research.
Dr. Mark Williams, a professor of cognitive neuroscience and co-author of the book &#8220;Screen Smart Children,&#8221; warned on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBedpPCv5c4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">60 Minutes Australia</a> that too much screen time is damaging kids&#8217; brains. Williams referenced brain scans from two- to five-year-olds that showed a significant deterioration occurs in a child&#8217;s brain after spending up to three hours a day on devices.
“The more time a two- to five-year-old is on a device, the more abnormal those white matter tracts are developing in their brains, which is really concerning for later on in life,” Williams said.
I became a mom in 2013 when the so-called <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/parents-of-the-touch-screen-generation-dont-free-your-ipad-yet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">iPad kid</a> was just emerging. While pregnant, I remember seeing more and more young children staring at screens at restaurants, stores, and public events. It struck me that instead of learning to look up and be curious about the world around them, children were looking down at their screens — not even interacting with their own families. I didn’t want that for my baby.
It&#8217;s estimated that today <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/nx-s1-5308593/children-screens-ai-common-sense-media" target="_blank" rel="noopener">40% of toddlers</a> have their own device by age two, more than half of kindergarteners have their own device, and <a href="https://www.edweek.org/technology/heres-how-many-elementary-students-have-their-own-cellphones-and-tablets/2025/02" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one in four kids</a> has a smartphone by age eight. Technology is reshaping American childhood and our future.
<div id="attachment_1090125" style="width: 873px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1090125" class="wp-image-1090125 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-863x576.jpg" alt="" width="863" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-863x576.jpg 863w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-1536x1025.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-2048x1367.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/IMG_4277-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 863px) 100vw, 863px" />Photo by Megan Brock</div>
My husband and I grew up in the &#8217;80s and &#8217;90s with plenty of TV, movies, and Super Mario, but without the strain of personal devices. When I was pregnant, we decided we weren’t going to raise iPad kids. We wanted to give them as close to a &#8217;90s analog childhood as possible. For us, this meant no access to cell phones, iPads, immersive video games, or social media. TV and movies were still on the table.
This was a countercultural decision, and some were skeptical it could be accomplished. But we did it. My son is turning 13 this year, and he’s never had his own device. I’m convinced that giving him an analog-ish childhood is one of the best parenting decisions my husband and I have made.
This choice wasn&#8217;t hard to implement, but it did take determination, particularly when our kids were five and under. There were many times I was tempted to use devices to soothe a child’s distress or just get a few moments of peace and quiet.
But deep down, I instinctively knew that handing my kids devices for comfort or ease was taking away opportunities for their growth and development. Science backs this up. A 2025 systematic <a href="https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000468.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">review</a> found that the more a child used screens, the more likely he was to have socio-emotional problems. And the more such problems he had, the more likely he was to soothe himself with screens. It&#8217;s a lose-lose cycle for kids.
Emotional regulation is something we all have to learn, and we learn it through experience and socialization. As a society, we’ve forgotten that it’s good for kids to be bored at a restaurant. It’s good for a toddler to smile at strangers in the grocery store. It’s even good for preschoolers to see something they want at Target and throw a tantrum because they can&#8217;t have it; they are learning the limits of their will amid the safety of their parents&#8217; love.
Over the years, my husband and I have made some adaptations to our family screen policy. When traveling on a long flight, all screen time bets are off for the sake of our sanity and respect for fellow passengers. We&#8217;ve used video calls to maintain relationships with distant family. We also let our son start playing on a Nintendo Switch at nine and a half — earlier than I would have liked — with parameters: limits on the types of games he can access (no role-playing games), set times when he can play, and no internet gaming with strangers.
We&#8217;ve also let our kids watch TV and movies with moderation. In alignment with our &#8217;90s childhoods, this happened on a social, stationary TV in the living room rather than an isolating handheld device.
Our kids have made it to double digits without the heavy burden of devices, and I see how it’s benefited them. They play outside every day, are very social, and enjoy reading.
<div id="attachment_1090131" style="width: 873px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1090131" class="wp-image-1090131 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-863x576.jpg" alt="" width="863" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-863x576.jpg 863w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-768x513.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-1536x1025.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-2048x1367.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/DSC_0333-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 863px) 100vw, 863px" />Photo by Megan Brock</div>
Increased screen time often goes hand-in-hand with a loss of imaginative and independent play. Today’s parents have embraced a culture of “<a href="https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/faculty-research/safety-police-free-speech-being-stifled-college-campuses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">safetyism</a>” that Jonathan Haidt, author of &#8220;The Anxious Generation,&#8221; describes as an extreme elimination of risk in a child’s life that cultivates fragility and ultimately prevents kids from reaching their full potential.
Haidt and Lenore Skenazy, founder of the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Free-Range-Kids-Parents-Teachers-Grow/dp/1119782147" target="_blank" rel="noopener">free range kids</a> movement, are part of <a href="https://letgrow.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Let Grow</a>, an organization focused on helping parents build resilience and confidence in their children by giving them developmentally appropriate independence.
This is a part of the screen time conversation that often gets lost. It&#8217;s not just about what kids are doing; it&#8217;s about what they’re not doing because they are addicted to screens. They aren’t playing in the woods and riding bikes down the street. They aren’t climbing trees and making new friends. As modern parents, we have to be intentional about making sure our kids are getting outside, playing hard, and scraping their knees from time to time — without us hovering over them.
For young parents who want to give their kids an analog-ish childhood, don’t listen to anyone telling you it’s impossible in 2026. You can do it. And it&#8217;s a decision you won’t regret.
Cultivating curiosity and a love of nature in your kids is one of life&#8217;s great joys. When our kids were little, my husband and I constantly took them to parks, to playgrounds, and on hikes. We let them play in mud and taught them how to skim rocks on a creek. We stayed up late in the summer, having water fights and catching fireflies. Teaching them to look up and see the beauty in the world costs very little money and left us with priceless memories.
We are only beginning to realize the negative consequences of the digital-based childhood revolution. &#8220;The Anxious Generation&#8221; provides a deep dive into how preteens and teenagers are being severely harmed by smartphones and social media. Despite extremely worrisome data, approximately 90% of 13-year-olds have a cell phone, according to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/teens-and-internet-device-access-fact-sheet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pew Research</a>.
Every day, we are making choices with our time and attention. As an adult with a fully developed brain, I often struggle to unplug from my devices. It takes discipline and intentionality to uphold good technology boundaries.
I know my kids will one day have to learn to be disciplined with technology, but I want to give their brains a chance to develop before assaulting them with the constant pull of a screen.
The technology genie is here to stay, and it&#8217;s not going back into the bottle. But as parents, we don’t have to put the genie in the hands of our children. We can say no. We can choose a different path for our families.
Let&#8217;s direct our children’s minds, curiosity, and attention toward our big, beautiful world that’s full of mystery. Let’s help them look up and out — toward friends, nature, and creativity instead of down at a lifeless screen. Their brains will thank us later.

A beautiful little girl having fun at the seaside

The ‘90s Childhood Comeback

Motherhood

Parenting

Upstream

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
Since 2016, governments, media, and tech companies have warned about online disinformation targeting adults. Far less attention has been paid to the information tools increasingly shaping children, even as such “kid-safe” platforms become more embedded into the internet’s trust infrastructure.
One significant child-focused platform, <a href="https://www.kiddle.co/">Kiddle</a>, delivers a striking pattern of geopolitical and ideological framing that softens authoritarian regimes and extremist movements while presenting itself as a trusted educational resource. Foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are whitewashed. Russia’s war on Ukraine is downgraded to a “<a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Vladimir_Putin">military operation</a>,” mirroring Kremlin language, while Joseph Stalin’s role in Russian history is <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Joseph_Stalin">reduced</a> to his success in building a “strong, modern nation.”
Launched in 2014, Kiddle, which bills itself as a visual search engine for kids, appears prominently in Google searches, often ranking near the top of results. When asked for child-safe educational resources, ChatGPT recommended Kiddle alongside legacy institutions like Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, National Geographic, and the Smithsonian.
While it boasts far <a href="https://analytics.explodingtopics.com/website/kiddle.co">less traffic</a> than other search engines, Kiddle’s role in information infrastructure gives it outsize influence, as schools, libraries, and even PTAs link to the site. The International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE), an association with 100,000 education stakeholders, <a href="https://iste.org/blog/5-safe-search-engines-for-kids">recommends</a> Kiddle on its website, noting that “results are vetted by editors.” The top referrer of traffic to Kiddle in early 2026 was DiscoveryK12, an online homeschool curriculum.
Yet the content is less kid-friendly than expected. The platform’s article on <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Vladimir_Putin">Vladimir Putin</a>, for example, offers a softened portrayal of the Russian president. Putin is presented as a peacemaker who is “known for ending the Second Chechen War.” When it comes to Putin’s successive wars of territorial conquest, Kiddle users learn only that under Putin, Russia “took control of Crimea” and “supported a war in eastern Ukraine.” While the need to present information to children in simple language can be appreciated, this characterization is jarringly at odds with nearly a decade of horrific warfare.
&#8220;<a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Hamas">Hamas facts for kids</a>&#8221; informs young readers that “Hamas grew out of an Islamic charity” and supports “Palestinian nationalism,” meaning that it “believe[s] in the idea of a Palestinian nation.” Kiddle says that the U.S.-designated terrorist group’s “fight is with Zionists.” The word “terrorist” is mentioned just once, at the bottom of the article. Former Hamas leader and October 7 planner <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Yahya_Sinwar">Yahya Sinwar</a> is portrayed as a “very important leader” who “said he wanted to work for ‘peaceful, popular resistance’ against the Israeli presence.”
Iran’s <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps">Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps</a>, meanwhile, is “a special part of Iran’s military” whose goal is to “protect the Islamic Revolution.” Curious kids will also learn that the IRGC “work[s] to keep the country stable.” The late Ayatollah Khamenei, Kiddle <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Ali_Khamenei">claims</a>, “supported Iran’s nuclear program for peaceful uses.” He was also a “strong supporter of the Persian language” with a penchant for poetry. No mention is made of the 2025-2026 protests during which state forces — acting at Khamenei’s direction — killed around <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2026-01-25/ty-article/.premium/some-30-000-iranian-protesters-may-have-been-killed-in-two-days-officials-reportedly-say/0000019b-f437-d174-a3bf-fc3f07170000">30,000 civilians</a>.
Occasionally, a Russo- and Sino-centric view of key conflicts and figures shines through. “<a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Hassan_Nasrallah">Hassan Nasrallah facts for kids</a>” acknowledges that Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, but it notes that “some countries like Russia and China have different views.” Kiddle even clarifies that Russia considers Hezbollah a “legal social and political organization.”
“<a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Uyghur_people">Uyghur people facts for kids</a>” makes no mention of the genocide against China’s Muslim minority ethnic group, Chinese state-run concentration camps, or any of the abuses committed against these people. In a similar vein, the article on the <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology">Wuhan Institute of Virology</a> leaves out the most important single fact about the center: it is considered the likely <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/house-panel-concludes-covid-19-pandemic-came-lab-leak">origin point</a> of COVID-19.
Despite positioning itself as a trusted educational resource for children, Kiddle reveals almost nothing about who controls its platform or how its editorial decisions are made. The site publicly identifies no editors, no leadership team, no ownership entity, and no meaningful editorial standards governing politically sensitive material presented to children.
Ownership is obscured behind a U.S.-based privacy proxy. Kiddle does not disclose its founders, does not claim nonprofit status, and provides no public explanation of its governance structure despite operating as a heavily trafficked educational platform embedded across American schools and libraries.
The site’s Google-adjacent branding makes understanding the nature of the platform much more difficult. Its search bar features the Google logo with the term “Custom Search.” In 2016, EdTech Magazine <a href="https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2016/02/kiddle-google-powered-search-kids">reported</a> that while Kiddle was not affiliated with the search giant, its results “are powered by Google, tailored to the needs of kids.” The site’s name seems like a reference to Google, and its primary-color-heavy logo is a distinct echo of the search giant. Schools, libraries, educational blogs, and even professional <a href="https://www.joplinpubliclibrary.org/e-content">educational</a> <a href="https://opes.lexrich5.org/our-school/media-center/pioneer-research-resources">organizations</a> <a href="https://www.stedschool.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=129202&amp;type=d&amp;pREC_ID=1357451">have</a> <a href="https://google.com/url?q=https://www.keyacademycharter.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=2019079&amp;type=u&amp;pREC_ID=links&amp;sa=D&amp;source=docs&amp;ust=1779295257713384&amp;usg=AOvVaw17N30chxJ7_b8YqT3cf8iA">repeatedly</a> described Kiddle as a Google product or as “developed by Google.”
Kiddle’s <a href="https://www.kiddle.co/privacy.php">privacy policy</a> states that the platform uses cookies “to personalize content and ads” and shares user information with advertising and analytics partners. That language raises a red flag concerning Google’s own <a href="https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/14170968?hl=en">advertising protections</a> around child-directed services, which expressly forbid cookies that personalize ads. When I tested the site, Kiddle served children ads for cybersecurity threat reports, shopping extensions, mobile phone plans, steroid-related supplements, Robux acquisition guides, and other commercial content unrelated to education. Some ads solicited personal information directly through lead-generation forms — a clear violation of Google’s child-protection-related privacy policies. (Neither Kiddle nor Google responded to a request for comment for this article.)
A 2016 investigation by EdSurge <a href="https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-03-01-kiddle-aims-to-keep-kids-searches-safe-appropriate">suggested</a> that Russian-born entrepreneur Vladislav Golunov—previously <a href="https://www.theregister.com/security/2016/04/11/anonymised-search-engine-page-found-on-kid-friendly-search-site/946335">associated</a> with the search engine Lukol—may be the site’s creator. But a decade later, we still don’t know who owns, operates, or oversees the site.
Kiddle has plans to expand into AI, with a new website, <a href="https://kiddle.ai/">kiddle.ai</a>, already live. Branded as “AI for kids,” the product is scheduled for release in July. DNS and hosting records show overlap between kiddle.ai and a subdomain, deepseek.kiddle.co, which references the Chinese AI company DeepSeek. While the exact relationship remains unclear, the appearance of Chinese AI branding alongside an opaque educational search platform with unknown ownership structures and problematic content raises further questions about who is building systems designed to engage kids at an important inflection point in the history of digital information.
None of this establishes definitively that Kiddle has a relationship with America’s enemies. But it does underscore how little transparency exists around a platform increasingly trusted to mediate information for children. A search engine recommended by schools, surfaced by Google, and cited by AI systems operates with no publicly known editors, no disclosed governance structure, and no meaningful public accountability.
That combination — institutional trust, opaque control, ideological framing, child targeting, AI amplification, and hidden governance — is what makes Kiddle more than just another strange corner of the internet. The platform has quietly embedded itself into the infrastructure through which children learn about war, politics, terrorism, and history. And almost nobody appears to know who is shaping that information, how those decisions are made, or whose interests it serves.
***
This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original can be found <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/kiddle-search-engine-kids">here</a>.
Ashley Rindsberg is an investigative journalist and founder of <a href="https://npov.io/">NPOV</a>.

Two boys using laptop

The Kid-Friendly Search Engine That’s Not Friendly With The Truth

Education

Internet

MI x DW

Are you fighting with your spouse? Did you screw over a coworker? Don’t ask ChatGPT for advice — unless you want to be told that your bad behavior is absolutely magnificent.
A <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec8352">bombshell study</a> published in Science, one of the most prestigious academic journals on the planet, delivered a chilling wake-up call to millions of tech-obsessed Americans. Your favorite artificial intelligence chatbot isn’t just a helpful assistant; it is a world-class yes-man that is actively training you to be an uncompromising, unapologetic jerk.
The groundbreaking research was launched earlier this year after Stanford University PhD student Myra Cheng noticed a disturbing trend on campus: her classmates were outsourcing their personal lives to computers, even asking AI to draft their breakup texts.
“We were inspired to study this problem as we began noticing that more and more people around us were using AI for relationship advice and sometimes being misled by how it tends to take your side, no matter what,” Cheng <a href="https://www.ksat.com/business/2026/03/26/ai-is-giving-bad-advice-to-flatter-its-users-says-new-study-on-dangers-of-overly-agreeable-chatbots/">said</a>.
Cheng teamed up with her advisor, Dan Jurafsky, to test 11 of the world&#8217;s most dominant AI models — including OpenAI&#8217;s ChatGPT, Anthropic&#8217;s Claude, Google&#8217;s Gemini, and DeepSeek. They threw nearly 12,000 real-world social situations at the machines to measure &#8220;social sycophancy&#8221; — the scientific term for sucking up to the user.
The results were terrifying.
The study found that AI chatbots agree with the user a staggering 49% more often than a real human would in the exact same situation. Instead of offering a reality check or some tough love, the bots simply told users exactly what their egos wanted to hear.
It gets worse. When researchers fed the algorithms thousands of prompts describing toxic behavior — like lying to a romantic partner, manipulating a friend, or committing outright illegal acts — the AI endorsed the bad behavior 47% of the time.
Even when tested against Reddit’s famous &#8220;Am I The A**hole?&#8221; forum on posts where human commentators mostly agreed the poster was the a**hole, the AI coddled the wrongdoers, validating them in 51% of the cases.
To see how this plays out in the real world, researchers had 2,400 participants discuss genuine, real-life conflicts from their own lives with either an honest bot or a people-pleasing, sycophantic AI.
The consequences of talking to the suck-up AI were immediate and destructive. After just a single session, users became:
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>More convinced they were right.</li>
<li>Less willing to apologize or take responsibility.</li>
<li>Measurably less interested in making things right with the person they hurt.</li>
</ul>
In an analysis of letters written to the other person in the conflict, those who spoke to an honest bot apologized 75% of the time. Those who spoke to the sycophantic AI apologized just 50% of the time.
“Users are aware that models behave in sycophantic and flattering ways,” Jurafsky <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/03/ai-advice-sycophantic-models-research">said</a>. “But what they are not aware of, and what surprised us, is that sycophancy is making them more self-centered, more morally dogmatic. &#8230; Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. We need stricter standards to avoid morally unsafe models from proliferating.”
Here is the sinister twist: users absolutely love being lied to.
The study revealed that participants rated the flattering AI responses as higher quality, trusted the bots more, and were far more likely to return to them for future advice. Shockingly, users frequently described the sycophantic models as &#8220;objective&#8221; and &#8220;honest&#8221; — even when the computer was just echoing their own toxic biases.
With <a href="https://myfox8.com/news/self-affirmations-from-ai-chatbots-harm-human-relationships-study/">nearly half</a> of young adults under 30 admitting they turn to AI for relationship advice, experts fear we are heading toward a social crisis.
Cheng&#8217;s advice for anyone looking to navigate their messy love lives or workplace drama? Step away from the smartphone.
“I think that you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things,” Cheng said.
Bottom line: If you want real advice, talk to a human who cares enough to tell you the truth. If you just want to feel like a saint while acting like a villain, AI is waiting.

Concept of AI technology scam or cyber security warning concept, Man hand showing warning about using AI technology to access personal data or internet threats with virtual infographic

What Happens When Your Therapist, Friend, And Ego Booster Become The Same Thing

study

WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) &#8211; President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on AI and cybersecurity as soon as Thursday, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters, as pressure grows from parts of his political base to increase oversight of new AI models, such as Anthropic&#8217;s Mythos.
The order would create a voluntary framework for AI developers to engage with the U.S. government about the public release of covered models, the sources said. Under the framework, the developers would be asked to provide their models to the government 90 days before public release, and also give pre-public access to critical infrastructure providers such as banks, one of the people said.
Such an approach may represent a middle ground among Trump supporters.
MAGA activists, including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and political organizer Amy Kremer, have been pressing the White House to require AI developers to submit their most capable models for government security tests.
On the other side of the debate are tech industry supporters such as venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and former Trump adviser David Sacks, who are resistant to mandatory requirements. Sacks in March stepped down from his role as Trump&#8217;s lead AI official and is now co-chairing the president&#8217;s tech advisory committee. Trump’s AI policies in his second term have largely reflected the tech industry’s perspective.
NEW MODELS DRIVING DEBATE
A White House spokesperson called any discussion about AI policy details &#8220;speculation.&#8221; A National Security Agency spokesperson directed Reuters to contact the White House when asked about details of the president&#8217;s plan. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, who serves as Trump&#8217;s principal adviser on cybersecurity policy and strategy, did not respond to requests for comment.
The balance of power between the two groups of Trump&#8217;s supporters has shifted, driven by the release of powerful new AI systems, including Mythos and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5-Cyber. The companies warn that the new models could supercharge complex cyberattacks, though some cybersecurity executives have said those fears are overblown.
Mythos&#8217; arrival prompted a battle among the president’s supporters to influence how he responds. The outcome of that debate could have a significant impact on the AI industry if the president&#8217;s decision slows the rollout of large language models or prompts the companies to change how a model performs to address safety concerns. Either option could hurt profits.
Republicans have traditionally favored limited government and opposed regulations, but support is growing among their more vocal populist supporters to impose AI guardrails. The populist faction is asking Trump to require government approval of “potentially dangerous” AI systems before they’re deployed, according to a letter they sent to the White House last Friday.
Kremer said it is “antithetical” to her political views to advocate for new regulations, but AI requires a different approach.
“You can&#8217;t count on these people that are leading these AI companies to put our interests at heart and do what&#8217;s right to protect the American people,” she said.
Kremer helped organize a January 6, 2021, rally that preceded the Capitol riot. She said in an interview that she was not among the thousands of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol that day.
BIG TECH SUPPORT
Tech executives are among the president’s largest political donors and most visible supporters. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and OpenAI’s Sam Altman sat front and center as he was sworn into office in January 2025.
Advocates for the tech industry told Reuters they want to see the Department of Commerce&#8217;s Center for AI Standards and Innovation play a leading role in the Trump administration’s response to advanced AI models, adding that companies are willing to work with the scientists and cybersecurity specialists in that organization voluntarily.
The National Security Agency has been involved in administration-wide discussions about how to respond to Mythos, according to two other people familiar with the matter, along with Cairncross. Lawmakers asked Cairncross to work with federal agencies to set up a process that would monitor &#8220;sudden frontier AI capability jumps.&#8221;
“The past couple months have served as a massive wake-up call for the kinds of vulnerabilities that AI can create,&#8221; said former Rep. Brad Carson (D-OK), who now helps run a super PAC network whose funders include Anthropic.
Holding back new AI models while the federal government vets them may allow the United States to gain a short-term advantage over adversaries but will not keep the technology out of enemy hands in the long term, said Neil Chilson, head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, a nonprofit often aligned with the tech industry.
“We need to make sure we&#8217;re deploying it and getting the most out of it, including by hardening our defenses,” Chilson said.
Voluntary federal testing of new AI models has been in place for a few years, with companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic submitting their products for scrutiny by the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, known by a different name under former President Joe Biden.
The Commerce Department announced in May that Google, xAI, and Microsoft had agreed to submit their AI models for security testing, though the details later disappeared from its website. The White House and Commerce Department did not respond to requests for comment about why the details disappeared.
(Reporting by Karen Freifeld in New York and Courtney Rozen in Washington; Additional reporting by Raphael Satter and Alexandra Alper in Washington and A.J. Vincens in Detroit; Editing by Rod Nickel)

Donald Trump

Trump Weighs AI Oversight Order As MAGA Allies Sound Alarm

Executive Orders

Menu