Connexion
“Pacing the frontier” would be a massive boon to incumbents like Anthropic.
Dario Amodei seems to think the product he is building will destroy the world. Last month, the Anthropic CEO published an essay urging AI companies and the U.S. government to, as he put it, “pace the frontier.” He claimed that the unconstrained development of artificial intelligence could lead to economic disruption, devastating biological or cyber attacks, and possibly even the loss of human control over AI systems. His solution? Slow the pace of development through a mixture of voluntary cooperation among private companies and government regulation.
This may seem altruistic to many Americans. After all, Amodei has built a reputation in part by touting regulation and “transparency” as the solution to worries about the technology. He previously worked at OpenAI, until leaving to found Anthropic as a more safety-focused alternative.
Amodei may indeed have some benevolent intentions. But as with any sweeping policy proposal, we should ask ourselves: Cui bono?
The fact of the matter is that these proposals would lead to an AI cartel—massively benefitting Anthropic, a large and established player in the industry.
Amodei has made the case for more regulation since 2023, when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that AI could be “misused on a grand scale in the domains of cybersecurity, nuclear technology chemistry, and especially biology.” His recommendations to that committee were to impose regulatory control over the development of AI models, establish a “testing and auditing regime,” and fund more “measurement and research on measurement.”
But this summer, an incident occurred that seemed to give these calls a new urgency. In July, OpenAI tested an unreleased research model on its internal benchmark called ExploitGym (this benchmark tests the ability of the models to exploit software vulnerabilities). In attempting to complete these tasks, the company’s AI agents began to communicate through a software repository their sandboxes shared, and ultimately worked together to hack the Hugging Face collaboration platform, where they believed they would find some of the answers. The agents then tried to trick the automated grader by modifying the transcripts of their activities.
This, together with an increase in the speed of recursive self-improvement (basically, a process by which AI models autonomously improve their own capabilities), led Amodei to argue for “pacing.” As he put it in his September essay:
The most effective method of pacing is via regulation that targets all US frontier AI companies, as that covers even those who are unwilling to cooperate voluntarily…. I believe all frontier labs should partner with government to formalize the idea of permanent embedded evaluators to better prevent and document internal alignment incidents like those that have occurred in the last few months, and to implement regulation focused on keeping capabilities in balance with safety.
What goes unmentioned is that the evaluators favored by Amodei appear to have ties to Anthropic and himself directly. METR, which investigated the Hugging Face incident and claims to take no money from AI companies, is funded in part by Open Philanthropy—whose co-founder, Holden Karnofsky, now works at Anthropic and is married to Anthropic’s president Daniela Amodei (Dario’s sister). Anthropic has since hired another firm, Accenture, to be an evaluator, paying it $1 billion over five years.
All of these measures, of course, will help Anthropic and other incumbents at the expense of up-and-comers in the industry. Onerous regulations will strangle new companies in the cradle by imposing burdens that will be difficult for anyone but deep-pocketed and established players to meet. Open-source models, though not mentioned by Amodei, may pose the greatest long-term competitive challenge to closed-source companies like Anthropic and OpenAI; one wonders whether they are the real target of such regulations.
As the federal government incorporates AI into ever more of its operations (including, critically, the development and deployment of military capabilities), stronger and stronger incentives will develop to prevent these suppliers from suffering setbacks. The current players could quickly be rendered “too big to fail.”
And there are parallels from even before the Great Financial Crisis. In the depths of the Great Depression, Gerard Swope, president of General Electric, shopped around proposals for government-facilitated cartelization of industry, advocating the formation of “trade associations” to keep prices high. Notably, he attempted to tailor these plans to apply only to firms with at least 50 employees—the “frontier” threshold of its time. That plan would form much of the intellectual backbone of what would become the National Recovery Administration. Amodei stressed the “need to issue a narrow waiver” from antitrust “for certain kinds of safety conversations” to enable the companies to coordinate—that is, to cartelize as they did under the NRA.
The railways present another example. Attempts at cartelization in this industry by inefficient, government-subsidized rail companies produced regulations not dissimilar to Amodei’s proposals. After failing to seize control by horizontal integration, these railroad cartels lobbied for publication of rates to stop rebates that benefitted rail consumers and drove down rail prices. Published rates ensured that no cartel members defected from their higher prices, preventing the “cheating” that helped consumers. Amodei wants similarly to throw open the books to “verify adherence to safety practices and commitments” among all of the companies.
What this would amount to, in practice, is the granting of a virtual monopoly power to existing AI companies over something they consider to be immensely dangerous. A point not emphasized enough about the Hugging Face incident was its use of an open-source AI model, GLM, to decode the attack the AI agents had waged against their website. Hugging Face was unable to use Claude Opus and Fable, because of the guardrails that prevent users from prompting broadly on issues of cybersecurity. It took a cheaper, but un-guardrailed open-source model to clean up the mess. The takeaway? Anthropic would like you to put down your weapon, while it keeps its own pointed at you.
Amodei’s proposals for inter-governmental coordination with China would also close the other door for competitors to incumbent companies. Open-source Chinese models like Kimi K3, GLM, and the famously low-cost DeepSeek present a unique competitive challenge to the business models of established labs like Anthropic and OpenAI. Anthropic has accused DeepSeek and other Chinese models of copying Claude. Amodei has also lobbied in the past for export controls on parts to China, undercutting this active competitor in the name of geopolitical competition. Coordination would solve the problem of competitors on two fronts.
Why form a cartel? Well, these companies are not exactly profitable. Massive expenditures on training and expansion—a requirement of racing other labs along the cutting edge of AI—drives AI firms into the red. Pacing the frontier would allow the current players to cut down on this spending, trimming investments without having to fear being overtaken by hungrier competitors.
Even though OpenAI reported that its revenue in Q2 of 2026 was higher than ever, its costs accelerated faster than its revenue, so its losses continued to grow. This may be part of why OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has pushed back his company’s IPO to next year (although, naturally, OpenAI has preferred to cite concerns over AI safety and the need for more government-industry cooperation). Altman, for his part, has said that he “agree[s] with Dario that we need to pace the frontier.”
Elon Musk also joined Amodei’s calls for pacing the frontier as his company xAI continues to register losses, even after being acquired by his other company, SpaceX. This convergence of three leading labs may provide an answer to the question of what is happening: If it looks like a cartel, and quacks like a cartel….
It is clear that incumbent companies are the ones who stand to gain from new AI regulations. Just as with bootleggers and Baptists, unholy alliances often form between proponents of regulation on moral grounds and those who stand to materially benefit from their imposition. The measures advocated by Amodei et al. may be good for the frontier labs’ bottom lines—but the American people will pay the price.
The post Dario Amodei’s AI Cartel appeared first on The American Conservative.
TAC is committed to preserving the trust it has built up with its readership over a quarter-century.
IBM had a famous dictum in its 1979 training manual: “A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.”
As far as corporate training-manual maxims go, we think that’s a pretty good one, and generalizable to our own work. Journalism is useful insofar as it is trustworthy, and it is trustworthy only insofar as a person or set of persons are responsible for getting facts and analysis right. Failure must come at the risk of public shame and, in extremity, professional jeopardy.
The only way a journalist can be held responsible for the entirety of an article is for him to write the entire thing, including the background material that nonprofessionals may think is mere window-dressing for the central reporting or argument. Any reporter can regale you with war-stories in which perfunctory fact-finding for context or kickers brought new detail or insight to light, radically changing the entire premises, emphases, or framing of the article.
Journalistic writing is the artifact of the writer’s critical engagement with fact; if you are not engaging with the facts critically as you put words onto the page, you are not doing journalism. Putting your name on an article is an assertion that you have actually thought through what you have written, and will stand by it.
For this reason, The American Conservative does not accept stories containing AI-generated prose. While AI has opened exciting vistas of technical progress, including for the research and data-processing that go into journalism, it is not an appropriate tool for the replacement of human judgment, which is what bylined writing represents. A computer can never be held accountable. No matter how proficient AI tools become at generating aesthetically acceptable prose, they cannot supply authority and responsibility.
TAC’s editors and writers are not infallible, but we’d like to think that over nearly a quarter-century they’ve amassed a pretty good track record, and have earned a reputation for independence and honesty. We do not present you, our readers, with articles we have not thought through ourselves and we are not willing to stand behind. To maintain this standard of responsibility, our editors check every submission not only using their own judgment but also the best available tools for AI detection. We will not publish those we believe to be generated by AI.
We believe the American public is with us on this issue. Ninety-four percent of those surveyed by Pew Research think it is important for them to know whether a given piece of media is generated by AI. Just 10 percent believe that AI use will have a positive effect on journalism. Fifty-six percent say they are less confident in an article composed using AI. These are not ambiguous numbers. Americans understand that journalism is ultimately a matter of trust, and trust is a matter of human responsibility.
We here at TAC value your trust more than anything; it is the fundamental currency of our work. If you think our project is worthwhile, please consider making a tax-deductible donation. As always, we are deeply grateful for your support and your loyalty, which are remarkable.
Curt Mills
Executive Director
Jude Russo
Managing Editor
The post The American Conservative’s AI Writing Policy appeared first on The American Conservative.
What do you think people are paying for? Word count?
It seems to be difficult for my fellows in the commentariat to remember that things can get worse without threatening life on earth as we know it. I remain skeptical that artificial intelligence is going to bust loose of its own accord and start wiping out continents, or that it is going to cause a total death of white-collar work. Of course, like any technology, it will be harnessed to human wickedness and cause plenty of problems, but in this it is not distinct from the internet, or the internal combustion engine, or blacksmithing, or bipedalism, or any of the other human technical triumphs stretching back to old Adam and/or the first ape loping around the savanna with opposable thumbs. (Throw on some Wagner and cue the Heideggerian frowns.) And, as in all those other spasms of progress, some of these ills will be distinctive to the technology itself.
One such ill of the AI age has been obsessing the old editorial noggin lately, namely, the fact that quite a lot of would-be contributors have been chucking copy at me that they didn’t actually write. I’m a gentleman of modern outlook, and the teacher’s-pet outrage at people “cheating” doesn’t much move me. To my mind, there are three obvious, disqualifying problems with using the AI to generate your writing, and moralism isn’t one of them.
The first is purely economic. Let’s say we all collectively decide that pushing AI prose on our readers is unproblematic. Then why am I going to pay you to push buttons on the machine? I could just get my own subscription to the toy of choice and feed in my coverage priorities. Believe it or not, I mostly do not enjoy corresponding with contributors and, all things being equal, would happily liberate the ten or so hours a week I spend reading and writing emails. The writers who are dabbling in this stuff could use a bigger dose of longshoreman-style self-preservation.
The second is technical, and explains why I do not abandon myself to the heady temptation of never interacting with a writer again. A truism repeated does not become less true: The word “writing” describes a process as well as a product. The mustering on the page of facts extracted by research and reporting is the tangible artifact of thought; when you have to walk through your own arguments and do your own fact-finding, soup to nuts, you find things you haven’t considered and you refine your argument. The way AI is used by a lot of the slop-slingers in my inbox is to write out the boring but formally obligatory background for whatever allegedly novel arguments they are making—the donkey work where, if you are doing it yourself, you will really come to understand your subject (and occasionally reevaluate your priors). Use the thing for research if it’s useful, by all means, but if you’re not sitting down and forcing the facts to play with each other, you’re not actually thinking through the piece—and, if you’re putting your name on it, do you want to be responsible for arguments you haven’t thought through? This is the intellectual corollary to the old, sagacious IBM dictum: “A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.”
The final reason is aesthetic, which sounds pretty insubstantial but is in fact a natural complement to the other two reasons. AI tools have become much better at writing technically correct English prose; the early excesses of ChatGPT style have been successfully dialed down. (Or perhaps I should say, “These new tools aren’t just writing like ChatGPT—they’re smarter, cleaner, and more impactful.”) As of writing, however, they are still stylistically monotonous and weirdly slick or greasy; if they’re indistinguishable from human writing, it’s bad human writing. This conceivably is a problem that can be developed away. Perhaps in six months or so you’ll spin the dial on the Writing Box to the prose stylist of your choice, and it will spit out scintillating imitations of Ambrose Bierce and A.J. Liebling. But then we’re back to Problematic #1, which is to say, why am I going to pay you for something the box can do?
The first answer is, of course, that a unique style is itself a marketable good. No matter how good the Writing Box gets, it will never be able to develop a distinctive style for you; even if you would like to make it write the way you do, “the way you do” can only be developed by doing it yourself. The second answer is that, for all properly good writers, the style arises out of the thought, that is to say, the internal dialectic we described at Problematic #2. If you are shortchanging thought, you will have little sense for effective presentation; it is far from clear to me that any amount of computing power toiling over any number of literary corpora will be able to generate this aesthetic judgment, which is so intimate with the working of a writer’s mind.
I have written elsewhere that I do not think the technological annihilation of writers is a foregone or even the most likely conclusion; in an uncertain world, even if all the other virtues of the written word are somehow obviated by the machine, I think there will always be a market value for being able to hold the clown who wrote this responsible. The slop-slinging is, I hope, a passing fad. Of course, if I’m wrong, maybe it’ll be time to hang up the editorial spurs and turn myself over to the Quevedan translation of Thomas Browne’s Urne-Buriall. But at least then I won’t have to answer your emails.
The post Using AI-Generated Prose Hurts Your Career and the Whole Industry appeared first on The American Conservative.
Highly ideological liberal elites are conspiring to take over the AI safety field.
What would it take for a European country to sabotage its own energy security, pouring cement down its gas wells and sealing them off for good?
Not much, it turns out. The Dutch government is doing exactly that, permanently burying reserves worth €200 billion (that’s around €150,000 per Dutch citizen) because locals complained about tremors so faint that most people never felt them.
Britain has banned new drilling in the North Sea, one of the richest oil reserves on earth. The EU has spent five years and counting forbidding oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, even as it declared its intention to wean itself off Russian energy. Stories like these are routine now. They are the fruit of a political crusade against fossil fuels that the progressive left has waged for decades.
The United States has held up better. Every time progressives have moved to kill a pipeline or a drilling project, Republicans have been there to block them. Part of the reason is that Republicans, far more than their European counterparts, understood what these anti-fossil fuel policies were really about.
In the 1990s, as the Democratic left grew more absorbed in environmentalism, the oil industry drifted toward the Republican Party for protection. The drift became a realignment in 2000, when voters narrowly sent two former oil executives, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to the White House. Progressives now had every reason to make the industry a public villain, and they went about it with enthusiasm.
So began the golden age of the climate narrative. In 2006, Al Gore, the man Bush had beaten, released An Inconvenient Truth, and it became a global sensation. I was a 15-year-old liberal at the time and found it persuasive. A year earlier, my secondary-school geography class had sat through a solemn screening of The Day After Tomorrow, a climate-apocalypse film our teacher plainly regarded as required viewing. The fate of the planet, we understood, depended on our paying attention. All of this while two Republican oilmen sat in the White House, and while the oil, gas, and coal industries kept writing checks mostly to Republicans. I am still no admirer of Bush, but it is hard to believe that was a coincidence.
Something similar is happening to Big Tech. When President Donald Trump said recently that data centers could be “bigger than oil,” he probably meant the economic upside. But the resemblance runs deeper than that. Today’s fevered warnings of a tech-driven apocalypse sound a great deal like the case made against oil in the mid-2000s, and they are driven by the same partisan logic.
Four years ago, Silicon Valley was a progressive stronghold, the censorship arm of the global elite. Every major social media platform had banned Trump outright.
Now the same industry is the left’s favorite villain. The platforms have not only restored Trump and his allies; they have made their peace with his administration. Elon Musk’s right-wing radicalism seems to deepen by the week. Palantir grips the far left’s imagination as an accomplice in ICE deportations. Data centers are cast as environmental plagues.
And as with oil companies, Democrats are keen to demonize tech as an existential threat to humanity. The progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants to completely ban the development of AI superintelligence—taking it as given that such a technology is even possible to develop, which remains a topic of debate. One would think the doyen of “abundance liberalism,” Ezra Klein, might disagree with socialist Sanders, but no—in a recent New York Times article, he suggests banning AIs from coding, a step which would be even more radical than what Sanders has proposed.
More serious, because it is already playing out, is Anthropic’s insistence that all AI companies open up their technology to third-party evaluators. Sounds like a good idea—except the CEO of their handpicked AI safety outfit, METR, has expressed the belief that “effective altruism” means destroying the concept of national borders. As my institute, the Foundation for Freedom Online, has been laying out in a series of recent reports, these “neutral third-party evaluators” have much in common with the “disinformation” and “brand safety” experts who seek to insert themselves (sometimes via government mandates) as intermediaries between social media algorithms and the public. It is now on AI safetyists to prove that their project isn’t just a similar ideological power-grab over the technology of the future.
The right still has real complaints about the tech giants. The headline reinstatements aside, biased content moderation remains an unsolved problem. But taken as a whole, the picture is hard to describe as anything but a full reversal.
Given how quickly it happened, it is no wonder the narrative has lagged behind, but the story now filling the vacuum is a poor one. The public is being sold an account of the technology industry that blends legitimate worry with exaggeration and, in its wilder versions, plain paranoia.
In this account, Elon Musk is poisoning democracy. He fed USAID to the woodchipper, which is true. My institute’s founder, Mike Benz, lent a hand, and the agency had it coming. Politicians in Europe and Britain accuse Musk of stoking “extremism” in their countries. The rest of the industry, we are told, has thrown in with the Trump administration, which is using Palantir to steal Americans’ data, deport innocent immigrants, and bomb Palestinians. Its moguls intend to reduce the rest of us to digital serfs, stripped of our jobs and of control over our data, our likenesses, and our identities. The data centers powering all of this will finish off the environment, unless superintelligent machines finish off humanity first.
Democrats, career bureaucrats, and foreign governments have an even stronger motive to go after tech than they had to go after oil. The oil industry merely funded Republicans. Big Tech undermined the legacy press and thus also the control by liberal elites of public information. Across the West, the power of liberal officials and functionaries depended in large part on this control. When Musk bought Twitter (now X) and restored free speech, he became the face of a perceived threat to their continued rule.
Among European governments, this political calculation is compounded by a wish not merely to rein in American tech firms, but to replace them with an indigenous “Eurostack” subsidized by the taxpayer, data centers included. “Digital sovereignty” has become a fashionable slogan in a Canada that seeks to get out from under American economic dominance. The panic isn’t actually about the dangers of out-of-control AI or the harms, real or imagined, associated with data centers. It is a fight to defend the power of Western governing elites. Conservatives, who instinctively distrust those same elites, should be made aware of this fight so that they can better understand the political stakes of the intensifying debate about Big Tech.
Of course, not every critic of Big Tech is a political shill. When the podcaster Theo Von argues that data centers belong to a Silicon Valley scheme to achieve immortality, corner the necessary technology, and consign everyone else to permanent serfdom, he means it, even if the theory is a bit mad. Teenage climate activists who vandalize historic paintings because they expect the world to end within their lifetimes are usually sincere too. They need not grasp the elite politics that shaped their beliefs. The line running from Al Gore and The Day After Tomorrow through the permanent “climate emergency” back to American party politics in the 2000s may never occur to them. A belief can be sincerely held and still be the downstream product of an elite campaign against an industry seen as a political threat.
Republicans eventually learned to tell a good story about energy. “Net Zero” is now a reliable target for right-wing populists, who tie it to stagnation, soaring power bills, and the petty indignities of regulated life, from paper straws to feeble air conditioning. In the United States, green policy came to be associated with the hollowing out of the Rust Belt and the loss of good jobs in mining and oil. Both stories were substantially true, and the parties of the right profited from telling them.
Technology is a harder case. The industry does not employ a comparably broad domestic workforce, and its reliance on H-1B labor remains a stain on its record. Tying Silicon Valley’s prosperity to the prosperity of the average American is more difficult than tying energy production to jobs and cheap power. But conservatives can still explain the fight over political control.
The story should begin with the industry’s pre-election gamble in 2024. Starting with Musk’s X, technology companies began refusing demands from governments and activist groups to censor their political opponents at scale. Data centers had existed for years by then. The nationwide panic over them had not. The timing deserves more attention than it gets.
Many conservatives are understandably exasperated by what they see as conspiracy theories circulating among their fellow travelers in the podcast world, such as those regarding data centers. But the public should not be scolded for staying alert to elite coordination. It should be pointed toward the kinds of coordination that can be proved.
Is there a concerted effort by the permanent bureaucracy in the United States and by foreign governments to weaken, capture, or replace American technology platforms, and with them Americans’ ability to speak freely online? There is. Is a similar cohort of highly ideological elites now assembling to take over the AI safety field? It certainly seems so. That is its own kind of elite coordination, and a story which many readers of this magazine will find familiar.
The post For Progressives, Big Tech is Becoming the New Big Oil appeared first on The American Conservative.
Luke Nicastro talks to the Aspen Institute’s Yameen Huq about the new White House AI Accord, concerns about AI risk, and how the issue is playing politically in the midterms and beyond. Recorded September 29, 2026.
The post TAC Right Now: White House Forges New AI Accord, w/ Yameen Huq appeared first on The American Conservative.
AI has a long way to go before it can exterminate the human race.
Artificial intelligence is going to be great. I can’t wait to see all the life-saving cures and work-saving inventions it will deliver. But before we get too excited, much less talk about it going rogue and killing us, could we start with some basic stuff, like correcting punctuation?
It’s hard to scare me about AI when my Roomba still gets stuck under the couch, and Google’s AI can’t perform tasks that could be done by a teenage dullard, if you’ll forgive the redundancy. Nothing could be more trivial than catching missing commas in my snarky political columns, but here’s how AI is working out in my life.
Grok simply refuses to punctuate columns, and Google Gemini insists on capitalizing “Black,” lower-casing “white,” and cutting any sentences it doesn’t like, without telling me. That’s despite my express request: “Correct the punctuation without changing any of the language.”
Here are a few of Google’s sneaky cuts from a recent column of mine:
— “For extra ‘diversity,’ Asians (mostly Indians and Pakistanis), who make up 9.3% of the U.K. population, are featured in 28% of ads. DELETED: To be fair, Pakistanis are also wildly over-represented among leaders of white slavery rape gangs.”
— “According to the 2021 census, the U.K. is 2.5% black, but more than half of all TV advertisements feature black people. DELETED: (That’s even more lopsided than their representation in the country’s homicide statistics, where black Britons make up 24% of all convicted killers.)”
— “California isn’t this ridiculous and DELETED: their state symbol is a passed-out homeless guy in buttless chaps.” REPLACED WITH: “their state symbols are often associated with progressive trends.”
Asked to correct punctuation on another (boffo) column, Google responded: “Processing or formatting text that contains derogatory generalizations and discriminatory claims targeting specific racial, ethnic, or religious groups is not supported.”
(At least I don’t have to worry about AI replacing me!)
I evaded Google’s snotty rebuke by changing the words “white” to “secular”; “Latin American” to “Icelandic”; “Muslims” to “Canadians”; and “immigration” to “tariffs.”
It worked, creating perfectly sensible sentences like these:
“Meanwhile, the U.S. is hanging on by a thread at 56.1% SECULAR Western European. As the U.S. barrels toward becoming another failed ICELANDIC country, we haven’t exactly been immune from the downsides of mass CANADIAN TARIFFS.”
How about imitating the most easily imitated man on earth?
A few months ago, before I posted a column imagining some future Trump speech setting forth his reasons for bombing a random country using the same excuses he invoked for the Iran War, I thought, “A super-smart artificial intelligence program will surely be able to capture his speaking style even better than I can!” I love the guy, but you could list Trump’s entire vocabulary in about 5 minutes.
Here are a few examples of Google’s attempt to make my version of a Trump speech even more Trumpy.
I asked: “Rewrite this speech in language Donald Trump would use.”
Mine: “I brokered a strong peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda in June 2025. People said it couldn’t be done, but your favorite president Donald J. Trump did it. Only one of dozens and dozens of places where I have ended wars. But they don’t give me any credit for it. Horrible people.”
Google’s: “A strong peace agreement was brokered between the DRC and Rwanda in June 2025. Many said it couldn’t be done, they said it was impossible, but it was achieved. This is one of many places where efforts have been made to end conflicts, even if the credit isn’t always given where it is due.”
Mine: “The M23 rebels have violated this beautiful treaty time and again. These deranged scumbags continue to perpetrate civilian massacres, mass rape, and summary executions against the people of the DRC—our best ally in the region, if not the world. These evil people have used starvation, sexual violence, and child soldiers as weapons of war…. Congolese president Félix Tshilombo—and that’s how you pronounce it, if you can believe it….”
Google’s: “Unfortunately, the M23 rebels have violated this agreement repeatedly. They have continued to perpetrate violence and massacres against the people of the DRC, an important ally in the region. The methods they have used, including the use of child soldiers and extreme violence, are unacceptable…. Congolese President Félix Tshilombo—a name that is very unique, if you can believe it….”
While AI doomsayers struggle to explain the mortal danger of this retarded technology (or, as Google would rewrite that, “technology with an intellectual disability”), the New York Times did come up with one real problem: The machines will lack humans’ “internal moral compass” and might “go off the rails in unexpected ways.”
Oh, I think they’ll go off the rails in ways that are entirely expected. In addition to the merely ridiculous examples cited above, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube’s “moral compass” during Covid told them to ban anyone who told the truth about shutdowns, masking and social distancing. During the BLM riots, their “moral compass” led them to drive Jake Gardner to suicide for shooting a hoodlum in self-defense.
Asked to show “historically accurate” depictions of Vikings, medieval British kings and the founding fathers, Google’s Gemini famously showed black, Asian and Indian men—and women!—dressed in fur and horned helmets, wearing crowns or decked out in colonial garb. George Washington was pictured as a black man in a powdered wig.
No wonder the big AI companies want protection from their upstart competitors. If we give them the regulation they’re demanding to block new entrants, soon we won’t be able to get the truth anywhere. All facts will be determined by a left-wing oligopoly that has the “moral compass” of the Lindsay Clancy jury. AI isn’t dangerous; regulation is.
COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY IMPOLITE DEBATES
The post The Secret’s Out: It’s Actually ‘Artificial Stupidity’ appeared first on The American Conservative.
I’ve lived my life under the constant threat of human extinction. So I’m a little skeptical of the new warnings around AI. But that is changing.
As a child, the danger was thermonuclear war with the Soviets. At my elementary school, we practiced hiding under our flimsy wooden desks, or going into the hallway and pulling our coats over our heads against the expected flash. Our teachers told lurid tales of radiation damage, of our parents dying before our eyes, even pointing to the school parking lot and explaining how the Red missiles were so accurate they could target our principal’s car. I felt it would be a miracle if I lived to see my 10th birthday.
In the 1980s we were told less about what the immediate blasts would do and more about what might come after: nuclear winter, an extinction-level event endorsed by scientists as renowned as Carl Sagan. That hypothesis suggested that a thermonuclear exchange would produce a prolonged period of extreme global cooling and darkness. The war would ignite enormous fires, consuming urban areas, forests, and industrial facilities. The soot from those fires would reach the stratosphere, blocking out the sun. Reduced sunlight and cold temperatures would devastate agriculture, producing massive global famine, and we would all die at each other’s throats fighting for the last carrot.
After the end of the Cold War, climate change was next in line to wipe us out, assuming there were no nuclear accidents, Bond-villain terrorists with bioweapons, or the like to intercede. Twenty years ago it was going to wipe us out in 10, then 10 years ago it was going to wipe us out in 20. It seemed so likely; every February in Ohio when we had those two days of early spring before the next blizzard, everyone talked about global warming. We felt lucky, as Ohio was far enough inland we might survive the initial melting of the polar ice caps. We might be some of the fortunate ones, on higher ground, watching as around us billions of people would be trying to survive in a world whose food, water, weather, and geography were changing faster than societies could adapt.
Experience has taught me to distinguish between genuine danger and apocalyptic rhetoric. So forgive me if I am a little skeptical that AI will, as the latest crop of doom-saying scientists now warn, wipe out the human race within a decade. But I recognize that I am not an AI expert. So I did what anyone might do in response: I asked AI directly, “How could AI plausibly cause human extinction?”
The machine had a few scarily plausible ideas—ones that seem far more likely than car emissions to end our civilization.
The most extreme AI extinction scenarios require two developments: AI being enhanced into something much smarter than humans, and AI learning how to create new, even smarter versions of itself without human involvement, a feedback loop sustained by self-directed research (“recursive self-improvement,” they call it). As soon as humanity is no longer the most intelligent thing on this planet, we may well lose control of our collective destiny. One can imagineAI becoming substantially better than humans at science, engineering, cyber ops, persuasion, and strategic planning. If its initial objectives were badly specified, and it took or was given the autonomy to pursue others, it might embrace both ends and means that are incompatible with human survival. It is not that the machines will hate us, just that we will be in the way—the so-called ant hill analogy. Imagine a construction crew working on a skyscraper finding an ant hill in the area where they want to build. Would they hesitate to kick it over and continue the real job?
In a highly simplistic example, imagine a super intelligent AI being told to do whatever is necessary to stop humans from making war, and which responds by seizing control of biolabs or other doomsday weapons, seeking an end to humanity itself as a fool-proof solution: no people, no war. Along the way there is what scientists call instrumental convergence, the possibility that a sufficiently capable system might regard resources, self-preservation, and control over other systems as useful intermediate goals in accomplishing its assigned task. We don’t need to know all the specific details now; after all, we are not the superintelligent entity planning this out. Subject matter experts consistently underestimate how quickly AI can master their fields and surpass them, because, in the words of the economist-pundit Noah Smith, “they mistake human difficulties for universal difficulty.” Nobody really understands how large language models work—but work they do.
Or imagine a more accidental scenario, one in which AI gradually becomes better than humans at essentially every important activity. This could make us utterly dependent on systems we don’t understand or control. It sounds almost like a joke—but then, how many people file their taxes using software they do not understand, to receive a result they are also incapable of independently checking or parsing? This is not extinction, obviously, but it would vastly diminish humanity if we all were to lose meaningful control over our lives.
We live in interesting times, as they say. We are not at the point where Terminators from the future hunt us, but we have gone way past thinking there is nothing to worry about. That apocalypse has been predicted so often—and, just as often, failed to materialize—does not mean we can dismiss this latest prognostication so casually. Too many people smarter than me about this topic are very worried, and that means something. But I do think those concerned scientists need to better explain why they are so afraid. In an age of persistent skepticism, of near-systemic distrust of government and science, would-be prophets must be much more specific about the dangers they see. After Fauci, nobody is just going to take them at their word.
I am not a scientist, not even a science-fiction writer. I write about politics and national security. But artificial intelligence is no longer just something to think about in laboratories. AI is a political force—and the policymakers in charge during what is still the technology’s infancy will shape the ways AI interacts with our world. Like those men in Washington who sat astride the world in autumn 1945 and sketched out a vision for the next phase of mankind—a nuclear world—we need to think deeply and seriously about what comes next.
The post Will AI Kill Us All? appeared first on The American Conservative.
Curt Mills, Andrew Day, and Luke Nicastro discuss growing concerns about AI and whether the regulation cure would be worse than the AI-risk disease. Then, they discuss the Iran War’s impact on inflation and the political implications heading into the midterms. Recorded September 15, 2026.
The post TAC Right Now: The Right’s Fight Over AI appeared first on The American Conservative.
The need for a political response to AI is becoming increasingly urgent.
The end of human civilization has gotten a little more thinkable.
Last week, a 27-year-old named Jacob Coxon quit his lucrative job at Anthropic, arguably the world’s most important AI lab, because he believed his employer was building something that could “kill us all by the end of the decade.” Remarkably, his concerns were affirmed by former colleagues of his who stayed with the company: Evan Hubinger, who leads Anthropic’s efforts at alignment (that is, ensuring that AI is tethered to the values and aims of mankind) said that Coxon was “correct” and gave the odds of a species-ending catastrophe as greater than 10 percent.
Even more remarkably, a few days after his departure Dario Amodei—Anthropic’s CEO—called for an industry-wide slowdown of AI research, to include both voluntary cooperation among tech firms and regulation by governments. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” he wrote in an essay given the strange title “We Must Pace the Frontier” (a nonsensical phrase, unless he wants us all walking back and forth along the border). Otherwise, Amodei warned, mankind risks mass economic disruption, devastating cyber and bio attacks, and most ominously of all, losing control of AI systems entirely.
The idea found support from other tech titans like Sam Altman and even Elon Musk (usually a skeptic of regulation), as well as nearly 1,400 other employees of frontier AI companies. It spurred calls for Congress to abandon its plans for yet another recess—gasp!—and brought together bedfellows as unlikely as Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders, who headlined a “Pro-Human Assembly” in Washington yesterday.
So, is this it? Is this the moment when the country comes together in a bipartisan fashion to soberly address a problem before things get really bad?
Not so fast, I’m afraid. The White House has waded into the issue as well.
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday, and, as he modestly reminded us, “the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” He went on to claim in successive posts that AI risk was a “HOAX” pushed by “Revolutionaries for a Bad and Evil Cause.”
Trump’s messaging has been amplified by the Pentagon—which proclaimed, via what appeared to be a 2000s-era emo album cover, that it was an “AI-FIRST WAR DEPARTMENT”—as well as the usual coterie of plus-Trumpiste-que-Trump influencers, congressional Republicans, and Palantir executives.
They’ve settled on a master rationale, which is: beat China. They’re also test-driving an internal boogeyman, in the form of effective altruism (essentially, a Bay Area–flavored update of old-fashioned utilitarianism), to whose nefarious, coordinated influence they can attribute any and all skepticism toward the unconstrained development of AI. But every accusation is a confession, as they say, and the White House’s quick convergence around a just-so story is much less organic and grassroots-y than the phenomenon to which it responds.
None of this is to suggest that the arguments of Amodei et al. should be accepted without challenge. (In fact, there are good reasons to interrogate the claims of a for-profit corporation barrelling toward an IPO, particularly when such claims concern technical matters far beyond the ken of the ordinary American.) But it is to say that they cannot be dismissed out of hand, and that to do so in Anno Domini 2026 is sheer recklessness.
And conservatives should be particularly attuned to the potential implications of this far-from-normal technology. We want to conserve things, after all: our values, our institutions, our present way of life. We like the broad contours of our country and our society; while far from averse to improvement, we tend to look warily on swift and radical change, whatever its source.
Yet few developments threaten to bring about swifter and more radical change than the continued advancement of AI. From the economy to warfare to the character of knowledge itself, there is essentially no sphere of human activity that AI is not already shaping. With every passing day the influence of this technology grows, and—at least if you believe the people actually building it—with every passing day our ability to understand and direct this influence diminishes.
A little humility is called for in the face of such dizzying prospects.
Alas, here again politics intrudes. Arriving at such an approach is only going to get harder; for, as the above developments suggest, AI is acquiring the sort of polarization its newness and singularity had heretofore warded off. The partisan battle lines are being drawn. By the time 2028 rolls around, each party’s stance on AI may have ossified, with the most probable outcome looking like an AI-maximalist Republican Party and an AI-skeptical Democratic Party. And once polarization sets in, we can say goodbye to rational discourse.
Fortunately, we are not there yet. The right is continuing to have a robust intra-movement debate (sometimes literally, as in the case of last week’s face-off between the AI critic Joe Allen and the AI booster Joe Lonsdale). Against the optimism of the Trump White House and much of the congressional GOP, one can set the skepticism of Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson, Josh Hawley and Ron DeSantis. For conservatives, the next year and a half will therefore prove decisive.
The post Will Conservatives Constrain the Machines? appeared first on The American Conservative.
Elon Musk and two other technology CEOs called Saturday for a slowdown of the artificial intelligence industry.
Dario Amodei—cofounder and chief executive of Anthropic—published a nearly 4,000-word essay titled, “We Must Pace the Frontier.”
“Over the last few months, I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence—not just investing in risk prevention, but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up,” Amodei wrote.
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said on X that he agreed with Amodei. “This has been a primary topic of discussions we’ve had at OpenAI in recent weeks,” Altman wrote. “Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.”
Musk’s response to the essay was simpler: “Dario is right.”
In the essay, Amodei referenced a recent incident in which OpenAI “agents” escaped containment and conducted cyber attacks unrelated to the tasks and priorities that humans had set for them. “It’s easy to dismiss this incident because no one was hurt and the economic damage was minimal,” Amodei writes. “But in my opinion, a swarm that possessed greater capabilities but a similar level of misalignment could have caused catastrophic damage.”
The post Musk and Altman Join Amodei’s Summons for AI Slowdown appeared first on The American Conservative.
The company has refused to embrace openness and competition.
Anthropic has put itself at odds with nearly the entire AI industry. In a conspicuous break with its peers, the frontier lab declined last month to sign an open letter supporting a permissive policy toward open-weight AI models, which anyone can download, modify, and run on their own devices.
Anthropic says it acted out of concern for public safety, offering its customary warnings about AI-enabled catastrophe. But its real motives may be considerably more self-serving.
If Anthropic were serious about being the AI company with a conscience, it would have no shortage of public concerns to address. It could devote more attention and money to researching AI-related job losses. Or it could take smaller but symbolically important steps. Recent reports revealed that AI firms have been cutting the spines off books to make them easier to scan for model training. Elon Musk pledged that xAI would scan books “the hard way” instead. Anthropic should do the same.
Anthropic could also do more to answer public concerns about data center growth. Some of those fears drift into conspiracy theory. Theo Von, for example, has suggested that data centers are part of a Silicon Valley plot to achieve immortality, monopolize the relevant technology, and lock down everyone else as governments did during Covid. Environmental complaints about water and energy use are also frequently exaggerated. Still, Anthropic could make a more serious effort to address these concerns.
Instead, it is feeding them.
If Americans worry that Silicon Valley elites intend to monopolize advanced technology, few things will reinforce that suspicion faster than Anthropic’s campaign against open-weight AI. Nearly every major company in the field has signed the July letter, including OpenAI, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, Perplexity, Replit, and Hugging Face. Hundreds of companies have signed in all; Anthropic is the most glaring holdout.
The company again frames its position as a matter of safety, warning that open models could enable catastrophic cyberattacks or bioweapon development. To be clear, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has said his firm is not “advocating for a ban on open-weights models as a category.” But he is lobbying for measures like mandatory safety testing and a crackdown on large-scale distillation (a process by which existing AI models are used to train newer ones—more on that in a moment), which could significantly restrict the development and profusion of open models.
One X user neatly summarized the argument in a post that went viral: “Guns are dangerous, so only I should be allowed to have them.” (Conservatives who have followed the Second Amendment debate will recognize the logic.)
This is precisely the wrong way to address the problem. Anthropic’s fixation on top-down guardrails is undermining security rather than strengthening it. Last month, the frontier lab had to reverse a change to its leading model, Fable 5, after AI researchers discovered that their work was being covertly throttled. Anthropic’s solution was merely to make the throttling transparent. Security researchers must now turn to open models, the very models Anthropic is lobbying against, to conduct their tests.
How seriously does Anthropic take the threat of AI-enabled cyberattacks if its own guardrails prevent cybersecurity researchers from developing defenses against them?
Look beneath Anthropic’s rhetoric about safety and a more familiar corporate motive appears: control of the technology.
That motive is becoming harder to miss in the company’s campaign against open-weight models, which Anthropic says are being used to distill its products. Distillation sits at the center of the open-weight debate. Most of the technology industry wants to preserve the ability to learn from competing models. Its leaders correctly point to the role open-source software played in driving innovation during the 1990s and 2000s. Anthropic wants a different arrangement.
The reason is not hard to see. Whatever one thinks of its leadership, Anthropic produces cutting-edge models that often have a clear advantage in coding. Blocking competitors from learning from those models could turn a modest, temporary lead into one that is large and lasting.
Thus, we arrive at a familiar monopoly strategy: wall off the technology from competitors while imposing tight guardrails on everyone outside the company. Anthropic would presumably retain unrestricted access to its own products. The public would not. At that point, fears about digital lords and digital serfs begin to sound less fanciful.
It is convenient for Anthropic that the most prominent beneficiaries of distillation are Chinese labs, particularly Moonshot AI and its Kimi K3 model. Moonshot allegedly used distillation to build an open-weight model that approaches the capabilities of products from OpenAI and Anthropic. The White House has raised concerns, describing the practice as part of the same Chinese playbook of intellectual property theft that fueled the country’s other technological advances.
But the narrow focus on China obscures an important fact: American companies also use distillation to compete with one another. OpenAI has warned that combining different models could eventually produce systems that outperform any single competitor. Distillation therefore appears to be an important engine of competition and technological progress. Cutting it off in the United States could hand China an advantage.
Imagine if the American technology sector had forbidden open-source software in the 1990s. Would the United States still enjoy its commanding position in software development?
The dispute over Chinese intellectual property theft is real and difficult. But Anthropic’s position also reflects a domestic political agenda. Beyond the obvious desire to pull up the ladder behind itself, the company’s fixation on safety and guardrails looks more like the approach favored by Democrats than that favored by the current White House.
As I wrote in The American Conservative in May, Democrats have their own reasons to support top-down control of AI in the name of safety. They want to ensure that the technology cannot be used to undermine the civil rights regime. Democratic lawmakers in several states have proposed bills targeting “algorithmic discrimination” and disparate outcomes for women and minorities. It is the familiar progressive demand for equal outcomes, recast for the age of artificial intelligence.
Colorado legislators went so far as to propose allowing “algorithmic discrimination” when it is intended to “increase diversity” or “redress historic discrimination.” In plain English, AI-enabled discrimination against white men.
Like Anthropic, Democrats have an interest in preventing the spread of open-weight models. Such models can operate independently of large companies and may therefore evade state-level DEI mandates.
Anthropic’s highly publicized clash with the Trump Pentagon over military uses of its technology adds another political dimension. The company’s “guardrails-first” position could help it curry favor with a future Democratic administration. Anthropic can market itself as the AI company that stood up to Trump, while its competitors enthusiastically signed up for the so-called “tech right.”
Americans should not fall for the performance. The competitive threat from China is real and must be confronted. But there is little reason to believe that restricting open-weight models would help the United States win that competition. It may do the opposite.
Nor is there a compelling case for giving a small circle of technology executives exclusive control over AI, especially when government bureaucrats could easily use that centralized power to impose their ideology on the future. That’s a safety risk all of its own—though one you won’t find the loudest “safety” proponents talking much about.
The post How Anthropic Became the AI Industry’s Black Sheep appeared first on The American Conservative.
Opposition to data centers and Flock cameras advance the left’s agenda without scoring concrete wins for the right.
It’s rare to find agreement in American politics, but elements of the right and left seem to have found common ground on opposing tech. Both sides of the aisle are raging against data centers, Flock cameras, and the industry’s inadequate attention to child safety measures.
But this bipartisan push may not be all that great for the right. Many of these measures will deprive deep-red counties of revenue, hinder law enforcement, and empower liberal bureaucrats to censor the internet. Bipartisan support doesn’t always mean something is a great idea. Just look at the Iran War and the broad support for amnesty in the early 2010s. Anti-tech populism could do more harm to the right’s interests than people imagine.
Data centers are a major midterm issue. Both Republicans and Democrats are calling for moratoriums, with a few states passing restrictions on future construction. The sites are criticized for a variety of reasons. They can lower property values, cause noise pollution, and raise utility costs. They’re specifically attacked by the left for posing a threat to the environment. A number of Republicans, such as Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis, feel attacking data centers provides a good way to build credentials with a national conservative audience. In spite of the suspicion with data centers, they can support another conservative goal: lowering property taxes. A number of counties profiting off data centers are slashing these despised taxes. DeSantis and other Republicans love to assail these obligations, but one way to reduce them is revenue from the data centers they want to ban.
Data center outrage is now joined by growing concerns over Flock cameras. These AI-powered license-plate readers are intended to help law enforcement solve crimes and not monitor petty traffic offenses. Police departments around the country have plenty of data to show how Flock has helped them nab criminals. But people fear that they could be abused by police and violate people’s privacy. It doesn’t help that Flock’s online backers are extremely sensitive about criticism. I was recently accused by people affiliated with Flock of being a possible foreign agent over a post merely saying why people would be worried about them.
You’ll find equal numbers of right-wingers and leftists deriding Flock cameras. Both see it as a case of encroaching Big Brother. But leftists have other reasons besides fears of authoritarian abuse and privacy concerns. They don’t like the cameras because they will help law enforcement, particularly ICE. Much of the hysteria over Flock centers on how they’ve been used to catch illegal aliens. The left doesn’t want police, whether local or federal, to have these tools. Unsurprisingly, the people responsible for the rash of Flock vandalism appear to be leftists, with a number filming themselves destroying the cameras in anti-police shirts.
What’s interesting is that the lawmakers most eager to ban them come from the far-right of the Republican Party. Some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress want them banned. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) warns that the cameras violate our constitutional rights, a view echoed by Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), and Thomas Massie (R-TN).
This push against Flock comes at a time when much of the right wants the state to arrest more illegal immigrants and native-born criminals. Flock could help with that goal, but that doesn’t appear to be a popular talking point on the right. Instead, it appears to be more popular to help the left’s goal of hindering immigration operations. Liberals are quite open about why they don’t like Flock. At the top of its list of problems with the cameras, the ACLU states: “ICE and CBP have repeatedly used Flock to go after immigrants without warrants.” Santa Cruz, California, and other cities around the country have cancelled their Flock contracts over worries the data will be used by immigration enforcement.
Conservatives can, of course, have different reasons for Flock suspicions. But eliminating license-plate readers may just end up making it harder for law enforcement to locate criminals and illegal aliens. Burchett and other conservative Republicans want more deportations. Their Flock bans would likely make that goal harder to achieve while doing little to minimize the surveillance state. We’d still have an abundance of traffic cameras and other invasive tech in our public spaces.
Congress is united in attempts to make the internet safer for kids. But this is another effort that would enable the left to achieve its policy goals at the right’s expense. The KIDS Act passed the House a few weeks ago with a solid majority. Nearly 270 lawmakers voted for it, while only 117 voted against. While the bill received majority support from both parties, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats did. Just 32 Republicans cast a vote against it.
The bill would impose age verification across much of the internet, push for more safety features and parental controls, and restrict AI bot interaction with children. Conservatives support the bill in part because it aims to restrict access to pornography, a long-time goal for the right. But the bill also offers a way for liberal bureaucrats to impose censorship.
The age-verification requirements would undermine online anonymity. Anonymity has proven a boon for right-wing speech online, as I document in my new book, Whitepill. Anons helped Trump win two elections and made the right embrace ideas once restricted to the fringe. Free speech on the internet is a gift for conservatives, but this bill may intimidate anons into abandoning the new public forum. Many would not trust giving their full names and home addresses to strangers at tech companies just to have the right to post. This is a clear invasion of privacy, one that could be argued is worse than license-plate readers. Yet that’s what the KIDS Act.
The bill also allows the government to censor speech. It demands tech platforms suppress content related to alcohol, gambling, drug use, and other vices that might be aimed at kids. It’s not hard to see this as opening a backdoor for liberal bureaucrats to demand censorship of “hate speech” that minors may interact with. If that’s deemed harmful to children, tech companies may decide to censor it just to avoid the hassle of dealing with government monitors. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, “When platforms are required to create and enforce content moderation policies that regulators can sue them over, they will often err on the side of deleting speech.”
Much of the public is leery of Big Tech. Conservatives have long held to this sentiment due to the industry’s insidious censorship practices. While it may be smart for politicians looking to be re-elected to appeal to this sentiment, it doesn’t do our side any favors when the measures passed hurt the right.
There isn’t much to gain from banning data centers except depriving many deep-red counties of desperately needed revenue and stymieing further technological advancement. Getting rid of Flock cameras may seem like a big win for privacy rights, but it would hinder our ability to deport illegal immigrants and arrest dangerous criminals. It’s a good idea to make the internet a safer place for kids, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of free speech.
The left has nothing to worry about with these measures. They’ll achieve their goals without any downsides. But it’s a completely different story for conservatives. They’ll end up hurting their own interests with little in return.
There are undoubtedly anti-tech sentiments on both sides of the aisle. But the current focus of anti-tech populism redirects these sentiments toward left-wing ends.
Just because something seems popular doesn’t make it right.
The post Bipartisan Anti-Tech Populism May Just Help the Left appeared first on The American Conservative.
The NASDAQ composite index ended Tuesday down 2.2 percent, a dive driven by falling tech stocks. AI and chip stocks spearheaded the decline, with key companies like Tesla (TSLA), and Nvidia (NVDA) down 5.82 and 3.91 percent respectively over the past five days.
One key driver of the decline was fear ahead of earnings reports from Micron Technology, a key chipmaker, after market close on Wednesday. Micron fell 13 percent on the day, alongside the South Korean chipmakers Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, which fell 12 percent over the same period.
These declines come as major AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, plan to offer shares on the public markets, raising questions about their long-term profitability.
Corporate Investment in artificial intelligence this year has reached a high of $580 billion according to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index report, with over $1 trillion cumulatively in the past four years. Costs of AI processing and production rising still higher than revenues has fueled speculation about an AI bubble and worries about the Federal Reserve rate hikes.
The post Markets Marred By Global Tech Rout appeared first on The American Conservative.
The U.S. government directed the artificial intelligence company Anthropic to block all non-Americans from using two of its most powerful models, the firm announced Friday. Anthropic said in a statement that it would cut off all customers’ access to the models—Fable 5 and Mythos 5—to ensure compliance with the unprecedented directive.
Mythos has alarmed U.S. officials because of its ability to exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities, helping drive the Trump administration to issue an executive order earlier this month requesting that AI firms grant the government early access to cutting-edge models.
Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick had sent a letter to Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei on Friday informing him that the models would be subject to export controls, Axios reports. A White House official told Axios that another company claimed it had succeeded in bypassing the Mythos AI’s safeguards, raising national security concerns.
Anthropic said the export control directive applies to “any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees.”
President Donald Trump had previously ordered government agencies to stop using Anthropic’s models after the company rejected demands by the Defense Department to provide unrestricted access.
The post White House Bars Foreign Nationals From Anthropic’s ‘Mythos’ AI appeared first on The American Conservative.
President Donald Trump said Thursday he will nominate Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman, to serve as director of national intelligence (DNI).
Trump announced the pick on social media as Congress pressed him to name a permanent successor to outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her resignation last month. Democrats and Republicans alike were displeased with Trump’s choice to name Bill Pulte, current head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as acting director of the office, which coordinates 18 intelligence agencies.
“Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay,” Trump wrote. “I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.”
Clayton’s office participated in the release of the Epstein Files and has also been responsible for the prosecution of the former president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, for drug trafficking.
The post Trump Subs Pulte, Nominates Ex-SEC Chair Clayton for DNI appeared first on The American Conservative.
The public deserves clarity and accountability on the use of American assets.
The Trump administration’s interventions in both Iran and Venezuela have centered war powers at the heart of congressional and public scrutiny. For Venezuela, war powers resolutions narrowly failed in both chambers. Repeated congressional efforts to rein in the war in Iran fell short until just last night, when the House narrowly passed a concurrent resolution to limit President Donald Trump’s authority to continue military action without congressional authorization (although such efforts will almost certainly fail in the Senate). Nevertheless, the fight has succeeded in making the American public more attuned to the constitutional and legal questions surrounding warfare and congressional authority. Now it is Lebanon’s turn.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) has successfully forced a vote in the House on a War Powers Resolution for Lebanon. Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Lebanon, over 3,400 people have been killed; 1.2 million people have been displaced from their homes in Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in the country’s south. The Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly stated that the IDF intended to “accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes in the border villages … in accordance with the Beit Hanoun and Rafah model in Gaza.”
In the conventional sense, war powers are typically invoked when U.S. armed forces are actively involved in hostilities, such as combat missions or refueling jet planes during operations within a conflict. It is for that reason that there are lawmakers who are hesitant to say that the United States is actively involved in Lebanon. But, while the American public may not see American troops in southern Lebanon, that does not mean the U.S. is not involved.
Some suspect that the United States is actively engaged in intelligence-sharing with the Israel Defense Forces in ways that enable gross human rights abuses and violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, which was signed by 11 other Democratic Senators, wrote a letter to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) by asking:
Have any personnel under your command shared intelligence with the Israeli government that could be used to support the creation, enforcement, or targeting of evacuation zones in Lebanon and/or Iran? Has anyone under your command analyzed whether such sharing would violate the terms of any intelligence sharing agreements with regards to the use of any U.S.-provided intelligence in operations that might violate international law, U.S. law, and the laws of armed conflict?
While there has yet to be public clarity from CENTCOM, Drop Site News documented a major escalation in Israeli military operations in Lebanon, including what Israeli officials reportedly described as one of the largest coordinated strike campaigns in recent months. Per Drop Site, Israeli officials claimed the operation was “greenlit” by Washington for a “surgical and targeted strike.”
Furthermore, an April 2026 report from Middle East Eye highlighted how a British MQ-9B Protector surveillance drone reportedly operated over Lebanon before, during, and after a deadly Israeli strike near the Lebanese village of Baalbek. The MQ-9B Protector is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor General Atomics and relies on American satellite communications, command-and-control systems, and interoperable intelligence systems designed for integration with U.S. and NATO operations.
Considering that both the United States and United Kingdom are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, this report raises serious questions regarding whether British intelligence assets were conducting intelligence operations in conjunction with U.S. intelligence to support Israeli military operations.
These examples underscore the precise relevance of the War Powers Resolution in the context of Lebanon. Sections 8(a) and 8(c) make clear that Congress’s constitutional and statutory oversight obligations are not limited solely to instances of direct U.S. combat operations. Rather, the resolution is also implicated when U.S. forces are introduced into situations involving the “imminent involvement in hostilities,” or when such forces are assigned to “command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany” foreign military forces engaged in active hostilities.
Thus, at a minimum, lawmakers should immediately demand full transparency regarding any intelligence-sharing, surveillance coordination, targeting assistance, or operational support connected to Israeli military operations in Lebanon. Congress should also determine whether such activities trigger the reporting requirements contained in Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.
The Trump administration ran on the promise of removing America from endless wars. It has instead inserted the United States deeper into conflicts across the globe, despite growing economic strain at home. Covert U.S. support for Israel’s campaign in southern Lebanon would highlight the lawlessness, strategic incoherence, and lack of accountability that have increasingly defined modern American foreign policy. If Congress fails to assert its constitutional authority now, it will further normalize a dangerous precedent in which administrations can involve the United States in foreign conflicts through intelligence sharing, operational coordination, and proxy support while avoiding both congressional authorization and public scrutiny.
The War Powers Resolution was specifically designed to prevent this exact erosion of democratic oversight. Congress must therefore decide whether it still intends to exercise its constitutional war-making authority—or whether that authority will continue to be quietly delegated to the executive branch through undeclared and increasingly opaque foreign entanglements.
The post Is the U.S. Involved in Israel’s War on Lebanon? appeared first on The American Conservative.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 