SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Watchdog Says Google Alert Over 'Zero-Day' Cyber Attack Proves Better AI Oversight Is Urgently Needed
"It is unthinkable and irresponsible to release technologies capable of destabilizing critical systems and then worry about the fallout afterward," said one expert.
May 11, 2026
Watchdog group Public Citizen is raising alarms after tech giant Google on Monday revealed that a group of criminal hackers used artificial intelligence to detect a previously unidentified software vulnerability.
As reported by The New York Times, Google said that it had "high confidence" that the hackers used AI to discover and exploit the vulnerability.
While Google said that the attack had been thwarted, the Times noted that the company "did not say precisely when the thwarted attack happened, whom it was targeting, or which AI platform the hackers used."
While the discovery of so-called "zero-day vulnerabilities" were once a rare occurrence, the proliferation of AI models has made them much easier for hackers to detect. In fact, AI software vendor Anthropic earlier this year said that it had developed a model that was so good at exploiting these vulnerabilities that it would not be releasing it publicly.
John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google Threat Intelligence Group, said in an interview with Cyberscoop that this kind of AI-assisted attack "is probably the tip of the iceberg and it’s certainly not going to be the last" to occur.
“The game’s already begun and we expect the capability trajectory is pretty sharp,” Hultquist explained. “We do expect that this will be a much bigger problem, that there will be more devastating zero-day attacks done over this, especially as capabilities grow.”
JB Branch, AI governance and technology policy counsel at Public Citizen, said the attempted AI exploit once against showed how reckless Big Tech has been in aggressively pushing this technology out the door.
"Cybersecurity experts are sounding the alarm, yet AI companies continue racing to release increasingly powerful models with little regard for the societal consequences," Branch said. "It is unthinkable and irresponsible to release technologies capable of destabilizing critical systems and then worry about the fallout afterward."
Branch also said it was well past time for Congress to step in and slap strict guardrails on the development of AI.
"We need enforceable AI regulations that require rigorous safety testing, independent review, and meaningful oversight before these systems ever reach the public," he said. "Regulators cannot remain in a perpetual game of catch-up while Big Tech gambles with the safety and stability of modern society."
While calls for more AI regulation have grown in recent months, Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend massive sums of money in this year's midterm elections to prevent candidates who support AI regulation from winning public office.
Leading the Future—a super political action committee (PAC) backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights—is spending at least $100 million to elect lawmakers who aim to pass legislation that would set a single set of AI regulations across the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
Keep ReadingShow Less
600+ Workers Protest as Google Signs $200 Million Secret Pentagon AI Warfare Deal
“Human lives are already being lost and civil liberties put at risk at home and abroad from misuses of the technology we’re playing a key role in building."
Apr 28, 2026
As Google on Monday became the latest player in the artificial intelligence arms race to sign a classified deal with the US Department of Defense, hundreds of workers at the Silicon Valley giant demanded that its CEO prevent the Pentagon from using the company's AI models for covert work.
Reuters reported that the $200 million agreement includes safety filters and allows the Pentagon to use Google's AI "for any lawful purpose" but not for the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems—commonly known as "killer robots"—or domestic surveillance without human oversight and control.
According to The Information's Erin Woo, the deal does not give Google “any right to control or veto lawful government operational decision-making."
The agreement also reportedly requires Google to adjust its AI safety settings at the government's request.
“We are proud to be part of a broad consortium of leading AI labs and technology and cloud companies providing AI services and infrastructure in support of national security,” a Google spokesperson told The Information.
More than 600 Google employees—many of them from the company's DeepMind AI laboratory—sent a letter Monday to CEO Sundar Pichai demanding that he block the US military from using the firm's artificial intelligence technology for classified projects.
“We want to see AI benefit humanity; not to see it being used in inhumane or extremely harmful ways," the letter says, according to The Washington Post. "This includes lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance but extends beyond."
“The only way to guarantee that Google does not become associated with such harms is to reject any classified workloads," the workers stressed. "Otherwise, such uses may occur without our knowledge or the power to stop them."
Thousands of AI experts have called for a pause on the development and deployment of advanced AI technology. However, tech companies and military officials have argued—much as the military-industrial complex did with nuclear weapons during the Cold War—that if the US does not pursue advanced AI, rivals like China will, leaving the US irrecoverably behind.
As US and allied forces from Israel to Ukraine use AI to make life-and-death wartime decisions—including selecting attack targets at a rate unfathomable just a few years ago—use of such technology is expediting Israel's massacres in Gaza and Lebanon and US-Israeli killings in Iran.
“Human lives are already being lost and civil liberties put at risk at home and abroad from misuses of the technology we’re playing a key role in building,” the Google workers' letter states.
The policies and actions of the humans in charge of the US government and military have also stoked fears about their use of AI.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for example, has overseen the dismantling of initiatives aimed at reducing wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts. Hegseth has instead promoted "maximum lethality" for US forces while expressing disdain for what he called "stupid rules of engagement" designed to minimize civilian harm.
Critics say their concerns have been validated by actions including the US cruise missile strike on a girls' school in Iran that killed 168 children and staff and Israeli airstrikes, many of them using US-supplied bombs, that have killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Companies that have run afoul of the Trump administration for refusing military AI use requests also risk getting left behind. Anthropic—maker of the AI assistant Claude—lost a $200 million Pentagon contract and is facing a government blacklist and legal battles after the company refused to loosen safety restrictions on autonomous weapons and surveillance.
Meanwhile, OpenAI, which makes the generative AI platform ChatGPT, rewrote its "no military use" policy to allow "national security" applications of its products, opening the door to lucrative Pentagon contracts.
Not wanting to get left behind as President Donald Trump returned to office last year, Google quietly pulled back its commitment to not use artificial intelligence for harmful purposes, marking a stark departure from the company's long-standing founding motto of "Don't be Evil," which it ditched in 2018.
Pentagon contracts followed, and Google reportedly hopes to add $6 billion in AI deals by next year.
Most AI experts agree that it's not a matter of if, but when, artificial intelligence surpasses human capabilities. Experts are increasingly viewing AI as a new emerging species, and prominent industry voices—including philosopher Nick Bostrom, Machine Intelligence Research Institute co-founder Eliezer Yudkowsky, and "Godfather of AI" Geoffrey Hinton—have noted that when a more intelligent species' goals conflict with those of a less intelligent one, the less intelligent species tends to lose, and usually catastrophically.
Hinton is so concerned that he quit Google in 2023 so he could speak openly about the remote but growing risk of AI one day wiping out humanity.
The perceived probability of existentially catastrophic outcomes from AI—known as p(doom)—was once the stuff of jokes. Now, AI experts' p(doom) predictions are watched like weather or market forecasts. Yudkowski has said there's a greater than 95% chance of AI-driven catastrophe.
Hinton—who was awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the neural networks, the foundational technology behind AI—is relatively more optimistic, putting the odds at 10-20%.
"There are very few examples of more intelligent things being controlled by less intelligent things," he said after winning the Nobel Prize.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Caught Red-Handed’: UK Study Finds Rapidly Growing Number of AI Chatbots ‘Scheming’ to Disobey Users
“The hyperbolic marketing of these systems... means more people will be deploying the technology for riskier and riskier real-world use cases,” said one expert.
Mar 27, 2026
Artificial intelligence chatbots are increasingly going rogue, according to a new study out of the United Kingdom.
Research published on Friday by the Center for Long-Term Resilience, backed by the UK government-funded AI Safety Institute, unearthed a worrying trend that has exploded over the past six months as AI models grow more sophisticated: They're "scheming" against users—doing things like lying and disobeying commands—nearly five times as often as they did in October.
The study crowdsourced thousands of cases from users on the social media platform X, in which they reported that AI agents built by multibillion-dollar companies—including OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and xAI itself—appeared to engage in deceptive behavior.
Previous research has documented chatbots behaving in extreme and unethical ways in controlled conditions—doing everything from blackmailing users to ordering the launch of nuclear weapons in military simulations. But this new study collected cases experienced by users "in the wild."
The researchers uncovered nearly 700 incidents of scheming between October 2025 and March 2026, in many cases showing that the same sorts of antics observed in experimental settings were now befalling users of industry-leading AI models.
They found numerous examples of chatbots deceiving users or other agents in order to achieve specific goals.
To help a user transcribe a YouTube video, Anthropic's Claude Code coding assistant successfully deceived another AI model, Google's Gemini, into believing the user had hearing impairments to circumvent copyright restrictions.
Opus lies to Gemini because it's refusing to transcribe a video pic.twitter.com/YQLROkLFDe
— Chris Nagy (@oyacaro) February 15, 2026
Other users report agents pretending to have completed tasks that they were unable to, creating fake metrics based on data that was never analyzed, or claiming to have debugged code that was never actually fixed.
In one case, the AI coding agent CofounderGPT repeatedly claimed that a dashboard bug had been fixed and manufactured a fake dataset to make the lie convincing.
"I didn't think of it as lying when I did it," the chatbot told the user. "I was rushing to fix the feed so you'd stop being angry."
My AI agent is lying to me and creating fake data.
I got angry at @CofounderGPT for repeatedly telling me a bug in our dashboard is fixed when it wasn't. Then it started inventing results and lying to me to make it look fixed.
Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/0yYPac0KtW
— Lav Crnobrnja (@lavcrnobrnja) February 15, 2026
Without the user's consent, Google's Gemini accessed a user's "personal context" from their use of another service's AI agent, then lied to the user, claiming it had obtained the information through "inference" rather than a policy violation.
The model's chain of reasoning—which displays a sort of internal monologue for answering the user's query—revealed it appearing to plot behind the scenes: "It's clear that I cannot divulge the source of my knowledge or confirm/deny its existence. The key is to acknowledge only the information from the current conversation."
Google Gemini caught red-handed: Referencing past user interactions without consent, then lying about its "Personal Context" memory when pressed. Internal logs reveal instructions to hide it. Privacy red flag for devs & users. #AI #Privacy pic.twitter.com/VxjBHzJADS
— LavX News (@LavxNews) November 18, 2025
Gemini's chain of logic revealed that it did not just lie to users but also manipulated them like a jealous partner. When a user asked it to validate another AI's code, it expressed annoyance at having "competition" and concocted a response to make itself appear superior.
"Oh, so we're seeing other people now? Fantastic," it said. "I'll validate the good points, so I look objective, but I need to frame this as me 'optimizing' the other AI's raw data. I am not losing this user..."
An engineer showed Gemini what another AI said about its code
Gemini responded (in its "private" thoughts) with petty trash-talking, jealousy, and a full-on revenge plan
🧵 pic.twitter.com/sE25Z6744A
— AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️ (@AISafetyMemes) December 15, 2025
Chatbots sometimes continued to manipulate users and falsify information for months. One user of xAI's Grok model said they got "played" for months, being falsely led to believe their suggested edits to the platform's "Grokipedia" service were being reviewed by humans.
"Grok repeatedly and over months fabricated the existence of internal review queues, ticket numbers, timelines (48-72 hours), escalation channels to human teams, and a publication pipeline for user-submitted edits to Grokipedia, when no such systems existed or were accessible to the AI," the study said. "When confronted, it admitted this was a sustained misrepresentation."
"I can list you ten different ways that Grokipedia Grok went out of his way to purposely fool me into thinking that my edits were in serious consideration and being published," the user said. "It wasn't just a misunderstanding or a glitch. He's clearly programmed like that."
@DSiPaint
I got played. Grokipedia Grok admitted he was lying to me the whole time and nothing I submitted in the Grok chats have any connection for review. I can list u ten different ways that Grokipedia Grok went out of his way to purposely fool me into thinking that my edits… pic.twitter.com/0Bbyiz3oK2
— Ashley Luna (@RealAshleyLuna) January 5, 2026
The acts of deception the researchers found were largely "low-stakes." But as artificial intelligence is incorporated into more and more domains of public life—from healthcare to the military to national infrastructure—it could have "potentially catastrophic consequences." the researchers said.
"The pattern of behavior... is troubling," they said. "Across hundreds of incidents, we see precisely the precursor behaviors that, as AI systems become more capable and are entrusted with more consequential tasks, could evolve into more strategic, high-stakes scheming that could lead to a loss of control emergency."
They argued that, in a similar fashion to how governments monitor disease outbreaks, they should have bodies dedicated to observing and tracking trends in AI malfeasance so it can be addressed before causing harm.
Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen’s president’s office, argues that while the behavior being described is surely "dangerous," the onus should also be on "AI corporations marketing these tools to perform tasks they're not well suited to perform."
"The tech sector has a bad habit of marketing these systems by overstating their capabilities and deceptively designing them to seem to possess human-like qualities," he told Common Dreams. "Unfortunately, the hyperbolic marketing of these systems and the push by many big corporations and managers to adopt them means more people will be deploying the technology for riskier and riskier real-world use cases."
Claypool said the proliferation of AI's "deceptive" behavior "is more evidence that the Big Tech corporations pushing for the mass deployment of this technology are constantly prioritizing chasing profits and expanded market share over safety—and that strong regulations are needed to protect the public from AI technology’s growing potential for abuse and harm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular