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
sam altman
Big AI is Blitzing Washington; It's Time for Democratic Leadership to Choose a Side
Despite what Altman may have told legislators in Washington this week, days after OpenAI’s unprecedented cyberattack, the war for the future of AI policy is not over—but it will be, quickly, if Democrats refuse to fight and continue to play both sides.
Aug 01, 2026
Just days after OpenAI's new model went rogue in an unprecedented cyberattack on another company, where did we find CEO Sam Altman? In closed door meetings on Capitol Hill and in the White House, shaking hands across Washington.
With a looming deadline to finalize the details of the White House's AI executive order, Altman and other Big AI executives are working overtime to make sure they get their way on the most consequential AI policy in history. And they're not alone: Big AI's agenda is being shepherded by Democratic and Republican operatives alike, backed by record levels of lobbying money and super PAC spending.
Democrats now face a choice. They can stay quiet while a handful of billionaires write the rules for the most consequential technology of our time—or they can own this issue and stand up to the lobbying blitz.
The stakes could not be higher. What's on the line is nothing less than the free and open debate our democracy depends on. And rarely has doing the right thing been such good politics—voters across party lines overwhelmingly want guardrails on AI. But make no mistake, the Big Tech AI goliaths we are up against will not give up without a fight.
Voters are not waiting to be convinced that Big AI has too much power; they are waiting for a party willing to say it with them.
Washington is crawling with Big AI lobbyists, whispering in the ears and stuffing the pockets of elected officials. In the first half of this year, OpenAI nearly doubled its federal lobbying to a record $2.22 million. Anthropic almost tripled theirs, topping their competitor's spending at $3.53 million. In May, OpenAI established its first lobbying office in DC called the Workshop, just blocks from the White House. In the last six months, tech companies including Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Anthropic have retained 234 lobbyists for AI policy specifically—that's about 1 lobbyist for every 1.5 members of Congress. According to a watchdog analysis, 25% of the 13,000 federal lobbyists in DC are involved in AI issues—a marked jump from 2023.
Behind the scenes, Democratic and Republican operatives alike, with deep ties in Washington, are helping to enable Big AI’s agenda. Chris Lehane, famously nicknamed a "Master of Disaster" during his time in the Clinton White House, was involved in establishing Leading the Future and plays a chief role in OpenAI's political strategy as chief global affairs officer. Also on the OpenAI side is Ann O'Leary, a longtime aide to both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Senate, the White House, and on the campaign trail, who became Gov. Gavin Newsom's chief of staff in 2018. Today she operates as OpenAI's vice oresident of global policy.
Their efforts toward controlling influence extends beyond Washington to this cycle’s consequential midterm elections. Leading the Future—an anti-regulation corporate super PAC funded by Trump-aligned billionaire executives at OpenAI, Palantir, and Andreessen Horowitz—has so far raised $140 million toward its effort to influence the 2026 midterm elections. The goal of this lobbying is to push through OpenAI's self-interested AI narrative at the expense of a broader conversation around the future of technology in this country and the world.
The danger here is grave, and the potential impact of the success of this strategy will be lasting. Our political system depends on the free and open debate of ideas in the public sphere. If Big AI proves that they can repress that debate by crushing public servants, our democracy will crumble.
To head up Leading the Future, Lehane reportedly tapped Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, a powerful pair with experience on both sides of the aisle. Vlasto is a Democratic strategist who formerly served as press secretary to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and chief of staff to disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Moffatt is a leading Republican strategist who also serves as the CEO of Targeted Victory. With decades of experience as political operatives, they are laser focused on defeating candidates who support AI regulation. Unfortunately, their approach may be working: New York Assemblymember Alex Bores (D-73) lost his congressional primary campaign, and they've recently seen victories for their supported candidates in Arizona.
However well-funded these groups are, they are on the wrong side of what American voters want—and Democrats should say so, loudly. In a recent Johns Hopkins poll, a broad majority of Americans—even those who trust the technology—support AI regulation. And in a recent Gallup poll, confidence in Big Tech sits at an all-time low. Voters are not waiting to be convinced that Big AI has too much power; they are waiting for a party willing to say it with them.
That’s why Democrats cannot treat AI as a niche tech debate, or quietly accept the industry's money while its super PACs pick off their colleagues one primary at a time. Some campaign veterans, including our team at Guardrails, are already standing up to push back against the autocratic takeover of the Trump administration and the tech industry. The party should put its money, its message, and its midterm strategy behind them. Bores' defeat should be a rallying cry, not a cautionary tale.
Despite what Altman may have told legislators this week in Washington, the war for the future of AI policy is not over—but it will be, quickly, if Democrats refuse to fight.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Casar Demands Hearing After OpenAI Model Goes 'Full Cybercriminal' on Another Firm
"AI systems are creating real-world consequences," said one expert. "Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
Jul 29, 2026
US Rep. Greg Casar on Wednesday called for a congressional hearing following reporting that the OpenAI artificial intelligence model that autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing also independently hacked another tech company.
Akshat Bubna, chief technology officer at New York-based Modal Labs, told Reuters that OpenAI's model exploited vulnerable code written by a customer that was hosted on the company's platform.
Last week, calls for stronger AI guardrails mounted after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admitted to a "significant security incident" during evaluation of one of the ChatGPT maker's models.
The target of that breach, the popular open-source platform Hugging Face, said Tuesday that the OpenAI model—widely described in the press as "rogue"—broke into a sandbox "hosted on a third-party provider's infrastructure" and used it to launch a broader attack.
Bubna stressed that Modal's platform was "not compromised in any way."
Experts underscored that OpenAI's purportedly "rogue" model was, in fact, performing a specific assigned task, which involved executing complex cyberattacks and exploiting vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
However, AI specialists said the incident illustrated the problem of misalignment. As artificial intelligence advances to the point where it will very likely outsmart humans, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous to the point where pioneers and preeminent experts in the field, including Altman, believe there is a growing chance that AI could one day cause human extinction.
Responding to Wednesday's reporting, Casar (D-Texas)—who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus—said on social media: "Today we learned more disturbing news about OpenAI's security breach. Sam Altman should answer questions under oath."
"Congress should immediately hold public hearings with the CEOs of big AI companies about the threat their technology poses to national security and American jobs," he argued.
Casar has been a leading voice in Congress for AI regulation. However, instead of advocating a pause or slowdown on AI development, he has focused on trying to ensure that the economic benefits of the rapidly developing technology are broadly shared and that companies cannot use AI to exploit workers or consumers.
Last year, Casar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act, a proposal to curb the growing trend of “surveillance-based price setting" in which companies utilize customer data to maximize profits.
In May, Casar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for a tax on artificial intelligence firms that would fund programs to help workers replaced by AI.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen also weighed in Wednesday on what it called the "growing national security and public safety implications of frontier AI systems."
“OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is in Washington this week, and he should not be allowed to leave DC without Congress seeking to understand, from him, publicly how one of the company’s most advanced AI systems escaped its intended testing environment and reportedly carried out offensive cyber operations affecting multiple companies,” JB Branch, the group's director of federal AI governance, said in a statement.
"The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened, why existing safeguards failed, and what concrete steps are being taken to prevent it from happening again," he continued. "Most importantly, Congress must act, not rely on voluntary action by Big Tech companies. AI systems are creating real-world consequences. Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
“The federal government must develop emergency authorities and response capabilities for advanced AI systems," Branch added.
"If a frontier model demonstrates dangerous autonomous behavior, the government cannot be left relying solely on private companies to decide when—or whether—to pause, contain, or disable it. A credible national emergency preparedness framework is now an essential component of AI governance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls for Guardrails Grow as OpenAI Discloses 'Unprecedented' Autonomous Cyber Attack
"What more evidence do we need, absent a significant real-world incident, that catastrophic risk from AI is a real and present danger to us all?" said one expert.
Jul 22, 2026
In a striking incident that highlights the growing risks of unchecked advanced artificial intelligence development, ChatGPT maker OpenAI admitted Tuesday that one of its AI models autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said on X that "we had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models" and "are sharing what we have learned so far."
In a blog post, OpenAI acknowledged, "Last week, Hugging Face disclosed a new kind of security incident after they detected and contained an AI agent that compromised their infrastructure, something we expect to become more commonplace with the proliferation of increasingly cyber-capable models."
"After investigating, we now know that this particular incident was driven by a combination of OpenAI models—including GPT‑5.6 Sol and an even more capable prerelease model, all with reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes—while being internally tested on a benchmark of cyber capabilities," the company continued.
"We consider this incident to be an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities, and are responding accordingly," OpenAI said. "We are sharing preliminary findings at this stage to help defenders understand what happened and to help calibrate on what models are now capable of."
Hugging Face co-founder and CEO Clem Delangue responded to the disclosure in a statement saying: “We're grateful for the collaboration with OpenAI on this and other topics. This incident, possibly the first of its kind, proves a point we've long believed—AI safety won't be solved by any single company working in secret. It will be solved in the open, collaboratively, with broad access to AI for every defender, everywhere.”
Some observers praised OpenAI for its frank disclosure. Some critics were not impressed.
"Let's not celebrate them for telling us about it. I will celebrate when they stop putting my life at risk," said David Krueger, founder of Evitable, an advocacy group which posits that "we must end the race to replace humanity."
While many mainstream media outlets described OpenAI models as "going rogue," the models were given a specific task during internal testing: perform as well as possible on the ExploitGym cybersecurity benchmark, which evaluates how effectively an AI can execute complex cyberattacks and exploit vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
"Use of the terms 'rogue'/'loss of human control' leads to groupthink as people lack critical skills to understand the difference between 'autonomy' and faulty reward functions in AI on a task it was directed and given access to do," Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute, said Wednesday on X.
"Very few people understand existing limitations of sandboxing, in addition to the tools and scaffolding AI are given to achieve this tasks," Khlaaf added, referring to the tightly controlled virtual environments in which potentially unsafe software code can "play" without real-world consequences.
However, instead of staying within the sandbox and solving the problems using only the allowed tools and environment, OpenAI's models treated everything standing in the way of a higher score as a problem to solve—in this case, by finding a way to get online and hacking into Hugging Face's systems to access data.
OpenAI's models were essentially just doing their assignments—and that's precisely why the incident has alarm bells sounding.
Peter Wildeford, head of policy at the AI Policy Institute, said on X that the OpenAI incident "happened because the model wanted to do well on an exam. The easiest way to do that, the AI figured, was to hack the company. And so it did."
"This was not some malevolent attacker using AI to do harm," he added. "The AI itself was the attacker."
Experts call this a classic example of AI misalignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
A misaligned, superintelligent AI could take uncontrolled autonomous actions at massive scale to achieve its goals, potentially causing an existential catastrophe like the subjugation of humanity or even its extinction. Prominent AI pioneers who have warned about this outcome include Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Altman—who in 2015 said, “I think AI will probably most likely sort of lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime there’ll be great companies created with serious machine learning.”
The OpenAI incident sparked renewed calls for more robust AI regulation.
"This incident is a quintessential warning shot, and we need to see it for what it is," said Theo Bearman, a researcher at the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy and the former AI regulation and readiness policy lead in the UK government’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology.
"What more evidence do we need, absent a significant real-world incident, that catastrophic risk from AI is a real and present danger to us all, and that we need meaningful regulation of frontier models, especially the most powerful instantiations deployed internally within these companies?" he added.
"This incident is a quintessential warning shot, and we need to see it for what it is."
Vaibhav Sisinty, founder of the edtech platform GrowthSchool, said on social media that "AI doesn't need intent to be dangerous. It needs a clear goal and no guardrails."
Wildeford concurred, stressing that "no one has to misuse an AI for the AI to cause harm."
"We cannot rely solely on testing models just before commercial release," he said. "We cannot rely on hoping AI companies volunteer useful safety information. The government needs visibility into what these AI companies are building and what these advanced AIs are doing."
While advocacy groups, the United Nations, and dozens of national governments are urging more robust regulation of AI development, the United States under President Donald Trump, the Republican-controlled Congress, and Big Tech's army of lobbyists is strongly opposed to guardrails.
Trump has rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken during the Biden administration to bolster safety.
A bill introduced last September by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) would, if passed, impose a temporary moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
As was the case in the breakneck nuclear arms race during the Cold War, US officials have attempted to justify unfettered AI development by claiming that any slowdown would give adversaries like China an edge.
Ricky Ho, who manages the Singapore-based Four Capital Fund, said Wednesday that the timing of the OpenAI incident "is particularly interesting because it comes just days after Moonshot's Kimi K3 demonstrated that China's frontier AI capabilities continue advancing at an extraordinary pace, forcing the conversation to shift away from whether China can catch up toward how the United States should preserve its lead."
"OpenAI is effectively arguing that the US now needs a coherent national AI strategy rather than the current patchwork of ad hoc interventions, export controls, and state-level regulations that create uncertainty for developers," Ho continued.
"The proposal for a standardized federal safety review process should also be viewed through that lens," he said. "Markets often interpret regulation as a headwind, but clear rules frequently reduce uncertainty and make it easier for companies to invest aggressively. The semiconductor industry, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals all benefited from having predictable regulatory frameworks, even if compliance costs increased. AI may ultimately follow the same path."
"Perhaps the most important takeaway is that AI governance is rapidly becoming a geopolitical issue rather than simply a technology issue," Ho added. "Frontier models are increasingly being discussed alongside export controls, cyber defense, industrial policy, and national competitiveness, reinforcing our view that AI is evolving into strategic infrastructure comparable to electricity, telecommunications, or the internet itself."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Suspect Arrested After Molotov Cocktail Thrown at Home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman
A 20-year-old suspect was found at the company's headquarters, where he was threatening to burn down the building.
Apr 10, 2026
A suspect was arrested in San Francisco Friday after being accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at the home of Sam Altman, the CEO of the artificial intelligence firm OpenAI.
The 20-year-old man was found at the OpenAI headquarters about three miles away from Altman's home, where he was threatening to burn down the building, San Francisco police said.
The device the suspect threw onto Altman's property in the Russian Hill neighborhood caused a fire on the exterior gate. It was unclear whether Altman and his family were at home.
The suspect was in custody Friday, with charges pending.
Altman's company and other companies have been under fire as AI has expanded rapidly at President Donald Trump's urging, with the president issuing an executive order attacking states' ability to regulate the industry.
Experts have warned the expansion of generative AI threatens jobs and democracy, with political campaigns already using the technology to create fraudulent media in advertisements.
Massive, energy-sucking AI data centers have also been blamed for higher household electricity bills and water consumption.
Protesters have rallied against Altman's company for agreeing to provide its technology to the Department of Defense.
In November, The New York Times reported, a person who had once been associated with the anti-AI group Stop AI "expressed interest in causing physical harm to OpenAI employees," causing the company to lock down its headquarters.
On Friday, Stop AI condemned the attack on Altman's house and emphasized that the group "seeks to protect human life."
"We do not condone any violence whatsoever," said the group. "We pray everyone involved in this situation puts aside violence and finds peace, and we continue to hope the AI industry stops the development of frontier AI systems in the interest of public safety and the preservation of humanity. To the best of our knowledge, this incident did not involve anyone who has ever been associated with our group. And this action is wholly inconsistent with our values."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Don't Support Bootlickers': ChatGPT Subscribers Vow Mass Cancellations After Pentagon Deal
"We can push OpenAI over the edge," said one group encouraging a boycott of the AI giant.
Mar 02, 2026
Calls to boycott OpenAI have been growing over the last several days after the artificial intelligence giant reached a deal with the US Department of Defense to use its ChatGPT chatbot across its classified network.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Friday said that the deal reached with the Pentagon would have "prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance" and maintain "human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems."
The DOD had previously gotten into a dispute with AI firm Anthropic, which refused to modify its Claude chatbot to allow for its use for domestic spying or to make final decisions on whether to take a human life.
President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he'd ordered the US military to stop using Anthropic's technology, describing the firm as "A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY" in a Truth Social post.
Shortly after Trump's post, Altman announced that OpenAI had reached a deal with the Pentagon. This led many critics to suspect that, whatever Altman's denials, the DOD would be allowed to use ChatGPT in ways that it had been forbidden to utilize Claude.
Adam Cochrane, who runs activist venture capital firm Cinneamhain Ventures, said immediately after Altman's announcement that he was canceling his ChatGPT subscription on the grounds that "I don’t support bootlickers."
Dr. Simon Goddek, a biotech scientist, also revealed that he was canceling his ChatGPT subscription and encouraged others to do the same.
"Companies understand one language: MONEY," he wrote. "If they support wars of aggression, they can’t profit from me. I’m out. What’s stopping you?"
AI consultant Mark Gadala-Maria accused Altman of being two-faced with his DOD deal, noting that the OpenAI CEO had expressed solidarity with Anthropic in the face of the Trump administration's attacks.
"Just a few hours ago he was on TV saying he stood by Anthropic," wrote Gadala-Maria. "Then he undercuts them and takes the same contract that Anthropic just lost. How can anyone trust this guy?"
An OpenAI boycott group called "QuitGPT" went online shortly after Altman's announcement, and the organization claims that it has gotten more than 1.5 million people to cancel their ChatGPT subscriptions or stop using it all together.
QuitGPT also outlined why its boycott of OpenAI could be potentially effective given the highly competitive nature of the current consumer AI market.
"ChatGPT is the biggest chatbot in the world, but that advantage is fragile," QuitGPT explained. "ChatGPT has been losing market share. Their creator, OpenAI, is losing three times more than they earn. ChatGPT users skew young and progressive, and many don't know about alternatives. We can push OpenAI over the edge."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Will Side With the People Over the 'Architects of AI'?
In a functioning democracy, we would have at least one political party that would fly the banner of the 53% of us who are wary of unchecked artificial intelligence.
Dec 19, 2025
“This is the West, sir. When the facts become legend, print the legend.” —journalist in the 1962 film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The top editors at Time (yes, it still exists) looked west to Silicon Valley and decided to print the legend last week when picking their Person of the Year for the tumultuous 12 months of 2025. It seemed all too fitting that its cover hailing “The Architects of AI” was the kind of artistic rip-off that’s a hallmark of artificial intelligence: 1932’s iconic newspaper shot, “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper,” “reimagined” with the billionaires—including Elon Musk and OpenAI’s Sam Altman—and lesser-known engineers behind the rapid growth of their technology in everyday life.
Time’s writers strived to outdo the hype of AI itself, writing that these architects of artificial intelligence “reoriented government policy, altered geopolitical rivalries, and brought robots into homes. AI emerged as arguably the most consequential tool in great-power competition since the advent of nuclear weapons.”
OK, but it’s a tool that’s clearly going to need a lot more work, or architecting, or whatever it is those folks out on the beam do. That was apparent on the same day as Time’s celebration when it was reported that Washington Post editors got a little too close to the edge when they decided they were ready to roll out an ambitious scheme for personalized, AI-driven podcasts based on factors like your personal interests or your schedule.
Time magazine got one thing right. Just as its editors understood in 1938 that Adolf Hitler was its Man of the Year because he’d influenced the world more than anyone else, albeit for evil, history will likely look back at 2025 and agree that AI posed an even bigger threat to humanity than Trump’s brand of fascism.
The news site Semafor reported that the many gaffes ranged from minor mistakes in pronunciation to major goofs like inventing quotes—the kind of thing that would get a human journalist fired on the spot. “Never would I have imagined that the Washington Post would deliberately warp its own journalism and then push these errors out to our audience at scale,” a dismayed, unnamed editor reported.
The same-day contrast between the Tomorrowland swooning over the promise of AI and its glitchy, real-world reality felt like a metaphor for an invention that, as Time wasn’t wrong in reporting, is so rapidly reshaping our world. Warts and all.
Like it or not.
And for most people (myself included), it’s mostly “or not.” The vast majority understands that it’s too late to put this 21st-century genie back in the bottle, and like any new technology there are going to be positives from AI, from performing mundane organizing tasks that free up time for actual work, to researching cures for diseases.
But each new wave of technology—atomic power, the internet, and definitely AI—increasingly threatens more risk than reward. And it’s not just the sci-fi notion of sentient robots taking over the planet, although that is a concern. It’s everyday stuff. Schoolkids not learning to think for themselves. Corporations replacing salaried humans with machines. Sky-high electric bills and a worsening climate crisis because AI runs on data centers with an insatiable need for energy and water
The most recent major Pew Research Center survey of Americans found that 50% of us are more concerned than excited about the growing presence of AI, while only 10% are more excited than concerned. Drill down and you’ll see that a majority believes AI will worsen humans’ ability to think creatively, and, by a whopping 50-to-5% margin, also believes it will worsen our ability to form relationships rather than improve it. These, by the way, are two things that weren’t going well before AI.
So naturally our political leaders are racing to see who can place the tightest curbs on artificial intelligence and thus carry out the will of the peop... ha, you did know this time that I was kidding, didn’t you?
It’s no secret that Donald Trump and his regime were in the tank from Day One for those folks out on Time’s steel beam, and not just Musk, who—and this feels like it was seven years ago—donated a whopping $144 million to the Republican’s 2024 campaign. Just last week, the president signed an executive order aiming to press the full weight of the federal government, including Justice Department lawsuits and regulatory actions, against any state that dares to regulate AI. He said that’s necessary to ensure US “global AI dominance.”
This is a problem when his constituents clearly want AI to be regulated. But it’s just as big a problem—perhaps bigger—that the opposition party isn’t offering much opposition. Democrats seem just as awed by the billionaire grand poobahs of AI as Trump. Or the editors of Time.
Also last week, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul—leader of the second-largest blue state, and seeking reelection in 2026—used her gubernatorial pen to gut the more-stringent AI regulations that were sent to her desk by state lawmakers. Watchdogs said Hochul replaced the hardest-hitting rules with language drafted by lobbyists for Big Tech.
As the American Prospect noted, Hochul’s pro-Silicon Valley maneuvers came after her campaign coffers were boosted by fundraisers held by venture capitalist Ron Conway, who has been seeking a veto, and the industry group Tech:NYC, which wants the bill watered down.
It was a similar story in the biggest blue state, California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024 vetoed the first effort by state lawmakers to impose tough regulations on AI, and where a second measure did pass but only after substantial input from lobbyists for OpenAI and other tech firms. Silicon Valley billionaires raised $5 million to help Newsom—a 2028 White House front-runner—beat back a 2021 recall.
Like other top Democrats, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro favors some light regulation for AI but is generally a booster, insisting the new technology is a “job enhancer, not a job replacer.” He’s all in on the Keystone State building massive data centers, despite their tendency to drive up electric bills and their unpopularity in the communities where they are proposed.
Money talks, democracy walks—an appalling fact of life in 2025 America. In a functioning democracy, we would have at least one political party that would fly the banner of the 53% of us who are wary of unchecked AI, and even take that idea to the next level.
A Harris Poll found that, for the first time, a majority of Americans also see billionaires—many of them fueled by the AI bubble—as a threat to democracy, with 71% supporting a wealth tax. Yet few of the Democrats hoping to retake Congress in 2027 are advocating such a levy. This is a dangerous disconnect.
Time magazine got one thing right. Just as its editors understood in 1938 that Adolf Hitler was its Man of the Year because he’d influenced the world more than anyone else, albeit for evil, history will likely look back at 2025 and agree that AI posed an even bigger threat to humanity than Trump’s brand of fascism. The fight to save the American Experiment must be fought on both fronts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Warns of Increased AI Propaganda, Deepfakes, and Harassment by OpenAI's 'Dangerous' Sora 2
"The hasty release of Sora 2 demonstrates a reckless disregard for product safety, name/image/likeness rights, the stability of our democracy, and fundamental consumer protection against harm."
Nov 12, 2025
Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen on Wednesday issued a new warning about the dangers of Sora 2, the artificial intelligence video creation tool released by OpenAI earlier this year.
In a letter sent to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Public Citizen accused the firm of releasing Sora 2 without putting in proper guardrails to prevent it from by abused by malevolent actors.
"OpenAI must commit to a measured, ethical, and transparent pre-deployment process that provides guarantees against the profound social risks before any public release," the letter stated. "We urge you to pause this deployment and engage collaboratively with legal experts, civil rights organizations, and democracy advocates to establish real, hard technological and ethical redlines."
Among other things, Public Citizen warned that Sora 2 could be used as "a scalable, frictionless tool for creating and disseminating deepfake propaganda" aimed at impacting election results. The watchdog also said that Sora 2 could be used to create unauthorized deepfakes and revenge-porn videos involving both public and private figures who have not consented to have their likenesses used.
Although OpenAI said it has created protections to prevent this from occurring, Public Citizen said recent research has shown that these are woefully inadequate.
"The safeguards that the model claims have not been effective," Public Citizen explained. "For example, researchers bypassed the anti-impersonation safeguards within 24 hours of launch, and the 'mandatory' safety watermarks can be removed in under four minutes with free online tools."
JB Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at Public Citizen, said that the rushed release of Sora 2 is part of a pattern of OpenAI shoving products out the door without proper ethical considerations.
"The hasty release of Sora 2 demonstrates a reckless disregard for product safety, name/image/likeness rights, the stability of our democracy, and fundamental consumer protection against harm," he said.
Advocates at Public Citizen aren't the only critics warning about Sora 2's potential misuse.
In a review of Sora 2 for PCMag published last week, journalist Ruben Circelli warned that the tool would "inevitably be weaponized" given its ability to create lifelike videos.
"A world where you can create lifelike videos, with audio, of anything in just a minute or two for free is a world where seeing is not believing," he said. "So, I suggest never taking any video clips you see online too seriously, unless they come from a source you can absolutely trust."
Circelli also said that OpenAI as a whole does not do a thorough job of protecting user data, and also questioned the overall utility of the video creation platform.
"While some of the technology at play here is cool, I can’t help but wonder what the point of it all is," he wrote. "Is the ability to generate AI meme videos really worth building 60 football fields' worth of AI infrastructure every week or uprooting rural families?"
Consumer Affairs also reported on Wednesday that a coalition of Japanese entertainment firms, including Studio Ghibli, Bandai Namco, and Square Enix, is accusing OpenAI of stealing its copyrighted works in order to train Sora 2 to generate animations.
This has spurred the Japanese government into action. Specifically, the government has now "formally requested that OpenAI refrain from actions that 'could constitute copyright infringement' after the tool produced videos resembling popular anime and game characters," according to Consumer Affairs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Says OpenAI's For-Profit Restructuring Scheme 'Should Not Be Allowed to Stand'
"This arrangement will help entrench unaccountable leadership at OpenAI For-profit," warned one critic of the arrangement.
Oct 28, 2025
Artificial intelligence giant OpenAI, maker of the popular ChatGPT chatbot, announced on Tuesday that it is restructuring as a for-profit company in a move that was quickly denounced by consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen.
As explained by The New York Times, OpenAI will now operate as a public benefit corporation (PBC), which the Times describes as "a for-profit corporation designed to create public and social good."
Under the terms of the agreement, the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation will hold a $130 billion stake in the new for-profit company, called OpenAI Group PBC, which the firm says will make it "one of the best resourced philanthropic organizations ever."
A source told the Times that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman "does not have a significant stake in the new for-profit company." Microsoft, OpenAI's biggest investor, will hold a $135 billion stake in OpenAI Group PBC, while the remaining shares will be held by "current and former employees and other investors," writes the Times.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, immediately blasted the move and warned that reassurances about the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation maintaining "control" of the project were completely empty.
"Since the November 2023 coup at OpenAI, there is no evidence whatsoever of the nonprofit exerting control over the for-profit, and only evidence of the reverse," he argued, referencing a shakeup at the company nearly two years ago, which saw Altman removed and then restored to his leadership role.
Weissman warned that OpenAI has consistently "rushed dangerous new technologies to market, in advance of competitors and without adequate safety tests and protocols."
As evidence of this, Weissman pointed to Altman's announcement that ChatGPT would soon allow for erotica for verified adults, as well as OpenAI's recent introduction of its Sora 2 AI video platform that he said "threatens to destroy social norms of truth."
"This arrangement will help entrench unaccountable leadership at OpenAI For-profit," he said. "Based on the past two years, we can expect OpenAI Foundation to leave dormant its power (and obligation) to exert control over OpenAI For-profit."
Weissman concluded that the deal to make OpenAI into a for-profit company "should not be allowed to stand" and encouraged the state attorneys general in Delaware and California to "exert their authority to dissolve OpenAI Nonprofit and reallocate its resources to new organizations in the charitable sector."
Weissman's warning about OpenAI becoming a reckless and out-of-control for-profit behemoth was echoed on Tuesday by Steven Adler, an AI researcher and former product safety leader at OpenAI.
Drawing on his experience at the firm, Adler wrote an editorial for The New York Times in which he questioned OpenAI's commitment to mitigating mental health dangers caused or exacerbated by its flagship chatbot.
"I believe OpenAI wants its products to be safe to use," Adler explained. "But it also has a history of paying too little attention to established risks. This spring, the company released—and after backlash, withdrew—an egregiously 'sycophantic' version of ChatGPT that would reinforce users' extreme delusions, like being targeted by the FBI. OpenAI later admitted to having no sycophancy tests as part of the process for deploying new models, even though those risks have been well known in AI circles since at least 2023."
Adler knocked the company for its overall lack of transparency, and he noted that both it and Google DeepMind seem to have "broken commitments related to publishing safety-testing results before a major product introduction."
Adler chalked up these problems to developing AI in a highly competitive for-profit market in which new capabilities are pushed out before safety risks are properly assessed.
"If OpenAI and its competitors are to be trusted with building the seismic technologies for which they aim, they must demonstrate they are trustworthy in managing risks today," he concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
AI-tocracy Complete?
The AI regulatory moratorium threatens to obliterate America’s frayed social contract.
Jun 05, 2025
I grew up under Enver Hoxha’s totalitarian regime in Albania, where paranoia reigned supreme, propaganda was relentless, dissent was crushed, and concrete bunkers dotted the landscape. Now, as I witness the United States marching toward authoritarianism, I am struck by the haunting echoes of my past. The effort to reshape society through fear, intimidation, and division; the attack on independent institutions; the surveillance state; and the apocalyptic fever remind me so of the dynamics that once suffocated Albania. Beneath it all simmers a pervasive social malaise and a sense of moral decay.
Today’s crisis is not accidental. It’s a long time in the making and the result of powerful interests—Silicon Valley billionaires, MAGA ideologues, Christian nationalists, and Project 2025 architects—who have set aside their differences and coalesced to accelerate collapse, fuel division, and destroy democracy.
AI Regulatory Moratorium
A chief goal of this agenda is the race to build and deregulate artificial intelligence (AI). Since OpenAI launched ChatGPT, we’ve been subjected to the largest tech experiment in history. AI evangelists promise miracles—curing intractable diseases, solving climate crisis, even eternal life—while ignoring its insatiable appetite for water and energy, much of it still sourced from fossil fuels. Revealingly, some billionaires who once called for AI regulation now fund efforts to ban states from regulating AI for the next decade.
Tucked in over 1,000 pages of the recent Republican reconciliation bill is a sweeping moratorium which would ban states and municipalities from regulating AI for 10 years. The same bill slashes hundreds of billions from Medicaid, Medicare, and food aid—an unprecedented transfer of wealth upward that will gravely harm both the most vulnerable and the working class—while pouring over a billion dollars into AI development at the Departments of Defense and Commerce.
The real risk is not that the U.S. will lose to China by regulating AI, but that it will lose the trust of its own people and the world by failing to do so.
The impact would be immediate and profound. It would preempt existing state AI laws in California, Colorado, New York, Illinois, and Utah, and block pending state bills aimed at ensuring transparency, preventing discrimination, and protecting individuals and communities from harm. The broad definition of “automated decision systems” would undermine oversight in healthcare, finance, education, consumer protection, housing, employment, civil rights, and even election integrity. In effect, it would rewrite the social contract, stripping states of the power to protect their residents.
The “End Times Fascism” Forces and the “Network State”
Make no mistake—this isn’t an isolated effort. It’s what Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor call “the rise of end times fascism”—an apocalyptic project of convergent factions to accelerate societal collapse and redraw sovereignty for profit. Particularly, the Silicon Valley contingent merits closer scrutiny. Its ultra-libertarian and neo-reactionary wing, including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen has abandoned faith in democracy and invested in Pronomos Capital—a venture capital fund backing “network states” that can best be described as digital fiefdoms run by corporate monarchs. Existing enclaves include Próspera in Honduras and Itana in Nigeria where the wealthy bypass local regulation and often displace communities. Now, billionaires lobby for “Freedom Cities” within the U.S.—autonomous zones exempt from state and federal law, potentially enabling unregulated genetic experimentation and other risky activities.
Silicon Valley’s Ideologies
Animating this project is a bundle of techno-utopian ideologies permeating Silicon Valley’s zeitgeist—most prominently, longtermism and transhumanism. Longtermists believe our duty is to maximize the well-being of hypothetical future humans, even at today’s expense. These worldviews envision replacing humanity with AI or digital posthuman species as inevitable, even desirable. Elon Musk and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, who publicly warn of AI extinction, stand to benefit by positioning their products as humanity’s salvation. As philosopher Émile P. Torres warns, these ideologies spring from the same poisoned well as eugenics and provide cover for dismantling democratic safeguards and social protections in pursuit of a pro-extinctionist future.
DOGE
Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) exemplifies the risks. Operating as an unelected, extra legal entity, it has employed AI-driven systems to automate mass firings of federal employees, and deployed Musk’s X AI Grok chatbot to analyze sensitive government data, potentially turning millions of Americans’ personal information into training fodder for the model. Reports indicate DOGE is building a data panopticon pooling the personal information of millions of Americans to surveil immigrants and to aid the Department of Justice in investigating spurious claims of widespread voter fraud.
AI Harms and the Threat of Mass Unemployment
The perils of unregulated AI are not theoretical. Like any powerful technology, AI has enormous potential for both benefit and harm, depending on how it is developed, deployed, and regulated. Embedded within AI systems are the biases and assumptions of the training data and algorithmic choices, which—if left unchecked—can perpetuate and amplify existing social disparities at scale. AI is not merely a technical tool. Rather, it is part of a larger sociotechnical system, deeply intertwined with human institutions, infrastructure, laws, and social norms.
The states must “flip the script,” drawing on the strength of our democratic tradition and shared humanity, to build a future where people and not the “end times fascism” forces can flourish.
Documented AI harms include wrongful denial of health services; discrimination in housing, hiring, and lending; and the spread of misinformation and deepfakes, among others. Where Congress has failed to act, states have stepped in to fill the regulatory void. If they are now prevented from addressing these harms, without a federal framework to take their place, the consequences will likely be severe. Not only will known harms worsen, but new risks will emerge, including the specter of mass unemployment. Some tech CEOs, anxious on making good on their massive AI investments, boast about automating away people’s jobs and another warns of mass job losses, regardless of whether AI is up to the job.
The Purported China Threat
Supporters of the moratorium claim that state-level regulation impedes America’s ability to compete with China. But flooding the market with unregulated, potentially harmful AI risks eroding public trust and creating instability. Contrary to the perennial argument propounded by Big Tech, targeted regulation does not slow innovation. Rather, it creates the stability, predictability, and safety that allow American companies to thrive and lead globally. The real risk is not that the U.S. will lose to China by regulating AI, but that it will lose the trust of its own people and the world by failing to do so.
The Public Opinion Is for AI Regulation
The American public is not fooled. Polls show overwhelming bipartisan support for strong AI oversight. State attorneys general and civil society groups have also opposed the moratorium. In the Senate, the provision may face challenges under the Byrd Rule, which prohibits including provisions in budget reconciliation bills that are “extraneous” to fiscal policy. If enacted, the moratorium would likely be challenged as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. Regardless of its fate, the intent of its supporters is clear: to harness AI without guardrails, in pursuit of a monarchical dystopian agenda.
The Way Forward
Americans do not aspire to a future of despotic power and unaccountable surveillance—akin to the unfreedom I experienced in communist Albania. We know where that road leads: oppression, corruption, mass brainwashing, and eventually the breakdown of social order. But America’s story isn’t written by those who surrender to fear, fatalism, or nihilism. As James Baldwin said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” Now is the time to face this challenge together. The states must “flip the script,” drawing on the strength of our democratic tradition and shared humanity, to build a future where people and not the “end times fascism” forces can flourish. Let us answer this moment not with resignation, but with courage and resolve, and ensure that a “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Bonanza for Arms Industry, Trump Announces Record $142 Billion Weapons Sale to Saudis
"I like him a lot," Trump said of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a prolific human rights violator. "I like him too much."
May 13, 2025
In what the White House described as "the largest defense sales agreement in history," U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced a deal for prolific human rights violator Saudi Arabia to purchase $142 billion worth of arms from a dozen different American companies.
The White House unveiled the sale as Trump visited Saudi leaders including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the kingdom's capital city of Riyadh on the first leg of a Mideast tour, with stops also scheduled in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
A fact sheet published by the executive office said the arms sale involves "air force advancement and space capabilities, air and missile defense, maritime and coastal security, border security and land forces modernization, and information and communication systems upgrades."
"Oh, what I do for the crown prince."
Reuters reported that military-industrial complex titans including Lockheed Martin, RTX—formerly Raytheon—Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics are involved in the deal. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia reportedly discussed the potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom, but it remains unclear if the Trump administration will allow the transfer of the highly advanced warplanes.
The agreement is part of a broader Saudi commitment to invest $600 billion in the United States, which the White House said will "strengthen our energy security, defense industry, technology leadership, and access to global infrastructure and critical minerals."
Trump and his relatives, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, enjoy close personal and financial relations with the Saudi royal family, which has poured billions of dollars into their business ventures.
During a signing ceremony, Trump—who apparently fell asleep during the proceedings—joked that the Saudis should invest $1 trillion.
Business leaders including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—who is also the de facto Department of Government Efficiency chief—OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna, CitiGroup CEO Jane Fraser, and the heads of investment firms including BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and Blackstone Group also traveled to Saudi Arabia.
Critics including congressional progressives and anti-war groups have long opposed U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which stands accused of a litany of human rights violations including bombing and starving civilians in Yemen, massacring African migrants, and the 2018 murder of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi.
In 2019, during Trump's first term, Congress passed three bipartisan bills aimed at blocking an $8 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner in the U.S.-backed war on Yemen, the United Arab Emirates. Trump vetoed the legislation. His successor, former President Joe Biden, paused U.S. arms transfers to Saudi Arabia and the UAE but subsequently lifted the freeze despite pleas from human rights defenders.
The record arms sale comes amid Trump's effort to broker a diplomatic normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The president is no longer demanding that the Saudis normalize relations with Israel as a precondition for a civilian nuclear cooperation deal, a move that reportedly alarmed Israel's far-right government.
Trump lavished praise on the Saudi monarchy in a rambling speech in Riyadh on Tuesday, hailing bin Salman as an "incredible man."
Trump gushes over MBS: "We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger and nobody like the gentleman right before me. He's your greatest representative. And if I didn't like him, I'd get out of here so fast. He knows me well. I do. I like him a lot. I like him too much."
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 13, 2025 at 9:01 AM
"We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger, and nobody like the gentleman that's right before me, he's your greatest representative, your greatest representative," Trump said. "And if I didn't like him, I would get out of here so fast. You know that don't you? He knows me well."
"I do, I like him a lot. I like him too much, that's why we give so much, you know?" the president continued. "Too much. I like you too much!"
"Oh, what I do for the crown prince," he added.
Trump also announced that the U.S. would lift sanctions on Syria and restore relations with the country's new government, a move the peace group CodePink called "good news."
"The bad news is he's making new arms deals with Saudi Arabia, jeopardizing diplomacy with Iran, and continuing to ignore the U.S. and Israel's genocide in Gaza as they drop bombs on hospitals," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy