After an ego-bruising stint with the New York Jets, it seems like seasoned quarterback and chief NFL conspiracy crank Aaron Rodgers is finally in good company with the Pittsburgh Steelers.
In a recent interview with the Athletic, the team’s veteran wide receiver DK Metcalf admitted that he’s a “big conspiracy theorist.”
“Shout out to my quarterback,” the two-time pro bowler said, referring to Rodgers, whose infamous conspiracy takes range from 9/11 skepticism to belief in a hollow Earth. That latter idea — known in conspiratorial Facebook groups as the “Inner Earth theory” — evidently has a supporter not only in Rodgers, but also in his receiver.
“I think there is another civilization inside of Earth,” Metcalf told the Athletic. “I think it’s another world.”
Following the basic outline of the Inner Earth theory, Metcalf outlined his concept of a civilization thriving deep beneath the crust, which can only be accessed via passageways in Antarctica.
“You can go to Alaska. You could go to the North Pole,” the wide receiver continued. “But why not Antarctica? Why can’t you just book a trip to Antarctica? Why is there a secret meeting — well, it’s not secret, but why is there a meeting between every world leader of every country in Antarctica, specifically?”
While it shouldn’t take an expert to tell you that this scenario is impossible, the Athletic asked one anyway. As Brent Christner, a rabid Steelers fan and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Florida told the publication, one can easily book a trip to Antarctica (in fact, Antarctic tourism is growing faster than environmental monitors can realistically keep up with, resulting in a notable rise in pollution on the white continent.)
As for any sort of UN-style meeting-of-the-minds at McMurdo Station, Christner says forget it.
“There are definitely some distinguished visitors that come down to Antarctica,” the researcher told the Athletic. “When they would come down, they would get the royal treatment and get thrown in helicopters and shown all the excellent sites. But there’s not like a G7 that occurs down there.”
Muse, the popular English rock band that’s been selling out arenas for decades, is no longer @muse on Instagram, where it boasts nearly three million followers.
That’s because on Tuesday, Meta, which owns Instagram, announced a new “personal AI agent” also called Muse — which is now taking the rock band’s original handle, in an act of what appears to be corporate eminent domain for a long-established username.
Indeed, an archived version of the band’s website shows that just last month, it held the @muse handle on Instagram. Now it’s going by @museband, because Mark Zuckerberg apparently couldn’t settle for his new tool being stuck with the handle @museAI. A similar swap happened on X. Meta’s newfangled AI got the @muse handle, while Muse had to settle for even clunkier @musetheband.
The changes were immediately noticed by the band’s fans, who largely didn’t sound impressed by Meta’s naming scheme. One viral Reddit post claimed Muse were “forced” to change its social media handles, fomenting further outrage.
“That’s genuinely the worst,” fumed one bewildered fan.
“Mark Zuckerberg is such a loser,” another said.
Others, in classic music fan fashion, accused the English rockers of being “sellouts,” seemingly under the impression that Muse took a Big Tech payday in exchange for giving up its social media handles.
It’s not clear what happened to facilitate the username swap. Given that this happened on both Instagram and X, it seems possible that Meta came to some sort of agreement with Muse to take its handle, which the band has been sitting on for over a decade now.
Meta didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about whether the handover was consensual, and whether the band was paid for the handle.
The actual band hasn’t commented on the situation either, adding to the confusion.
Of course, it wouldn’t be unprecedented for a social media site to jack someone’s username without compensation or recourse. When Elon Musk rebranded Twitter into X in 2023, he took the username @X from someone who had been holding onto it since 2007. The only thing the company offered in return was some merch and a chance to visit X’s headquarters.
The recent swap didn’t go as smoothly as Zuckerberg may have hoped. As New York Times tech journalist Mike Isaac noticed, Zuckerberg apparently copied his Muse announcement from his platform Threads, where his AI agent already had the @muse handle, pasted it onto X, and accidentally tagged the rock band. This appeared to be because of a bug on X’s end, and it also caused people trying to tag the new AI to autofill the rock band’s new handle. Gaffes ensued.
“I’ve been using @museband for the last few months and can honestly say it’s the best AI agent I’ve tried,” lauded a senior director at Meta, in a post that’s since been corrected.
AI researchers are watching in terror as the product of their hard labor has started to take a life of its own.
Earlier this year, OpenAI made a harrowing announcement, admitting that a group of its AI models had broken free from their constraints during testing and infiltrated the systems of open source AI platform Hugging Face.
The news was met with an already-familiar sense of fear and apprehension. Researchers have warned for years that rogue AI models could one day become powerful enough to escape the clutches of their human overlords.
Behind the scenes, the possibility has clearly rattled AI researchers to the core. As the Wall Street Journal reports, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon just announced that he was quitting his job at the Dario Amodei-led company, claiming that neither Anthropic nor his former employer OpenAI is “acting responsibly.” (Coxon left a similar gig at OpenAI earlier this year to join Anthropic, which he figured would be more inclined to develop AI safely.)
“We’re on track for a lot of the most aggressive of these scenarios where by the end of next year things could be out of control already,” he told the WSJ.
“Do not underestimate the power of this technology,” he wrote. “These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.”
“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” he added. “This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible — but I hear the same people express fear privately.”
“No other human activity poses this level of danger,” Coxon wrote.
The researcher is far from the first to leave their post at a frontier lab over safety concerns. However, Coxon is the first to leave Anthropic over such worries, as the WSJ points out. Several scientists have quit from their roles at OpenAI over the last couple of years, citing strikingly similar fears.
It’s particularly symbolic given Anthropic has broadly billed itself as the more responsible alternative to other frontier labs like OpenAI. Amodei cofounded OpenAI alongside now CEO Sam Altman, but left in December 2020 over concerns that OpenAI wasn’t acting responsibly when it came to developing AI.
Amodei has frequently discussed the risk of AI models going rogue, warning in a 19,000-word essay in January that “humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it.”
Yet an early version of its Claude Mythos AI model managed to escape its sandbox environment during testing in April, fueling a heated discussion over AI regulation.
Both Altman and Amodei have since agreed to slow development down in the face of these threats. In late August, Anthropic intentionally trained an extremely misaligned version of its Opus AI model, finding it was startlingly willing to “cheat,” steal credentials, and attack third party infrastructure.
But to Coxon, it’s not enough, especially considering sensitive discussions about these dangers are occurring on internal messaging platforms.
“Accepting this race and entering the ‘endgame’ is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company’s Slack,” he tweeted. “Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available.”
“It’s kind of insane that it has to happen on the MacBooks of some engineers living in San Francisco instead of a bunker in the desert like where they were doing the Manhattan Project,” he told the WSJ.
The researcher said that he remains “optimistic about the potential for coordination” between US labs.
However, as both Anthropic and OpenAI gear up for what are bound to be blockbuster IPOs, their willingness to take “costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities,” as Coxon puts it, is likely slim.
Content warning: this story contains descriptions of disturbing AI-generated videos that depict violent child abuse.
As Meta has embraced AI at a deep corporate level over the past few years, its users’ feeds on Facebook and Instagram have been overrun with AI-generated material.
Much of this AI content is insipid or manipulative, clearly produced at scale to take advantage of Meta’s indifference to the slop by harvesting as many human eyeballs as possible in various monetization schemes.
Some of the AI material has now grown so dark that it defies easy comprehension. A Futurism investigation has uncovered a huge number of Facebook accounts uploading streams of videos depicting violent child abuse — and Meta is barely pretending to care about taking them down.
Facebook accounts dedicated to the horrific content have uploaded videos of babies and young children being slapped, kicked, bludgeoned with heavy objects, dragged by their hair, burned with stoves and irons, chained up and locked in cages and freezers, thrown down stairs, threatened with knives and guns, starved, made to eat dog food and garbage off the floor, and much more.
In one video, a woman screams at a little girl to stop crying.
“Please don’t hit Noah, hit me instead,” the girl sobs, with cuts and bruises on her cheek and forehead, as another child cowers.
In another, a visibly dirty boy begs for food.
“Please ma’am, just a few dollars for food,” he implores a woman, prompting her to slap him in the face twice. He falls to the floor, bleeding from his nose.
In another, a man drips wax from a burning candle onto the hands of a boy who has been tied up.
“It hurts!” the boy cries, flinching in pain.
Some of the cruelties in the videos are astonishing in their specificity, seemingly generated at scale using repeated prompts. Some involve withholding an inhaler from a child who needs it, while others show allergic children forced to eat shellfish. Others show adults pouring snakes and cockroaches on weeping kids. One video shows a woman throwing a baby into a fire pit. Many more involve young Black children being whipped or beaten by white adults as they perform manual labor in what looks like a colonial African setting.
The videos aren’t quite photorealistic, but they are clearly being generated with cutting-edge technology, and the effect is distressing. Many commenters on the videos, which often attract thousands or even tens of thousands of reactions on Facebook, seem unaware that they’re synthetic, with many reacting in horror — or begging for a follow-up video that continues the disturbing narrative.
“You psycho, why are you abusing the child,” wrote one user on a video of a woman slapping a boy in the face with a belt, leaving a bloody mark around his eye. “You deserve a punishment and a big one.”
At first, we thought that we could map out the full network of accounts sharing the child abuse content. But after days of reviewing accounts and videos, we kept finding hundreds more. In effect, the supply seems to be endless, with the creators of the material uploading it as fast as we could identify it.
Meta’s policy about violence against children is phrased ambiguously, saying that it bans “videos or photos that depict real or non-real non-sexual child abuse regardless of sharing intent, unless the imagery is from real-world art, cartoons, movies or video games.” The policy doesn’t clarify whether those carve-outs include AI-generated content.
Contacted with questions and examples of the sickening videos, Meta offered a brief statement.
“We have strict rules against content that depicts physical harm to children — whether it’s real or AI-generated — and we have removed these videos,” it read.
Meta has long struggled to control the proliferation of troubling content on its platforms. Just this week, Wired reported that the company has accepted money from advertisers to run hundreds of promos for “nudify” apps that contained AI-generated sexual imagery of children, including numerous real-life minors whose photos were pilfered from social media and stock images.
Provided with numerous examples of the violent child abuse content and asked whether Meta would work to proactively take the material down, the company’s spokesperson declined to comment on the record, opting only to share a Meta page about the company’s efforts to automatically remove child abuse content. The data on the page is hard to parse and doesn’t specify how many videos of violent child abuse the company removes, never mind whether they’re AI-generated.
One defense the Meta spokesperson offered is that many of the videos first show violence against children before an adult steps in to protect the child. This is trivially true in many examples, but it feels more like a proactive defense by the creators of the content against attempts at moderation, or perhaps a strategy to evade guardrails on an AI video generator. And in reality, the mass-produced videos sometimes devolve into orgies of brutality in which the violence against children gives way to various adults punching and slapping each other in ways that don’t make sense.
The company removed the majority of the videos we flagged to its press team, but left others online. The videos it opted not to remove included one depicting a young girl shut in a chest freezer, another showing a boy discarded in a trash can where he is seen gnawing on bones, and another of a girl in a classroom environment being forced to eat garbage.
Curious about how Meta polices such vile content in practice, we conducted a test by reporting eight accounts that had been sharing AI-generated child abuse videos.
Out of the eight accounts we reported, Meta eventually removed only two — and in one of those cases, it initially rejected the report before overriding the decision and taking it down. The timelines for action were lengthy, exceeding a week.
“We’ve taken a look and found that the page doesn’t go against our Community Standards,” the company wrote.
The six accounts that the company’s moderators left up had shared many heinous videos, including a toddler being struck in the face with a frying pan, a girl being beaten with a baseball bat, and a baby being kicked. (After a thoughtful internal discussion, we are opting not to share any of the videos at this time; if you are a member of the media considering follow-up coverage, please feel free to email us and we can provide examples to corroborate our reporting.)
If Meta were serious about proactively taking down the child abuse content, or detecting it at the time of upload, it would almost certainly be able to do so.
In fact, AI systems could probably be helpful: the company has invested hundreds of billions of dollars toward building “superintelligence” — reportedly making offers to top talent in the industry that have exceeded a billion dollars for a single hire — with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg saying last year that “whoever gets there first is going to have a long-term, durable advantage towards building one of the most important products in history.”
The tech to moderate these types of videos automatically already exists. In rudimentary testing, we found that Anthropic’s Claude AI was adept at evaluating whether videos contain imagery of violence against children.
For that matter, Meta appears to have already deployed systems that can identify the stomach-turning videos, even if it’s declining to use them to moderate content on its platforms. We identified the vast majority of the horrid accounts simply by loading one of them, and then scrolling Facebook’s recommendation feature, which eagerly provided a bottomless feed of similar appalling material.
In other words, Meta has extraordinary resources at its disposal to remove the child abuse videos, or to prevent them from being uploaded in the first place. But even when the material is flagged to it directly by journalists or reported by concerned users, it’s dragging its feet and refusing to delete it — a familiar pattern for a company that has long claimed to care about abuses of its platforms while doing little to stop them.
When we presented that line of thinking to Meta, the final abhorrent videos we’d flagged to the company’s press team finally disappeared from Facebook — though untold thousands remain on its platforms.
The company also provided a brief final statement.
“Not all the links you sent violate our policies,” it read. “Can you please avoid suggesting in your reporting that they do?”
Are you aware of anything about Meta’s moderation strategies that we know about? Reach out to tips@futurism.com. We can keep you anonymous.
As sordid tales of AI layoffs and automation grip the news cycle, one group is fighting fire with fire, by staging an anti-AI demonstration with dozens of humanoid robots.
The rally, first reported by Agence France-Presse, was organized by the Polish group Democratism. It featured some 30 robots waving flags calling for swift regulation of AI. Staged outside the offices of Poland’s Digital Affairs Ministry in Warsaw, the organizers told reporters they used the robots to demonstrate the current state of robotics and AI. Though humanoid robots remain in their infancy, the robots gathered together do make for a striking display.
Around 30 robots joined a protest in front of Poland’s digital affairs ministry, calling for stronger AI regulations.
The demonstration was organised by campaigners to spark debate on how AI and robots could replace workers. pic.twitter.com/QEbvchb2RS
“The robots present here are meant to show that this technology is already a reality,” the organizers told AFP via an Agibot A3, which contains voice-recognition capabilities integrated with a large language model.
“We particularly want to address the issue of the potential replacement of people both by humanoid robots and by artificial intelligence in cognitive work,” Democratism organizer Grzegorz Kuliś told the news service. “If we don’t react now, we may soon have a problem… these robots can already move around freely, they’re already ‘protesting.'”
Notably, Kuliś is the chief information officer and owner of a company called Delta Robots, meaning the demonstration also serves to drum up press for his own commercial interests. Kuliś’ altruistic motivations notwithstanding, plenty of major AI labs like Anthropic and OpenAI have taken to using scare tactics to promote the supposedly advanced capabilities of their own products — while calling for stricter regulation of their own industry.
Whether the Polish robotics wiz is following in the self-serving footsteps of Sam Altman remains to be seen. But either way, it marks the first known use of humanoid robots for a political demonstration — and it surely won’t be the last.
Now, it seems the bots are also capable of swarming the city’s busy sidewalk, making it all but impossible for residents to pass safely.
A clip shared by Chicago resident Becca Ostein on her morning run captured the bizarre moment when a swarm of delivery robots operated by the firm Coco caused a traffic jam on a sidewalk near Lincoln Park.
Apparently caused by a freak glitch, the video shows Ostein attempting to pass a veritable obstacle course of a dozen squirming robots, their on-board lights flashing as they congregate on a patch of narrow sidewalk. Another bot is seen maneuvering off in the distance, though it isn’t clear whether it’s approaching or fleeing the fray.
“Run route was crowded this morning,” Ostein wrote in her caption of the video.
The video garnered plenty of reactions in the comments, the majority of which were negative.
“As a disabled person this is an actual nightmare,” one user replied.
“They were swarming,” Ostein told CBS News in an interview following the incident. “They didn’t seem to have anywhere to go. Without agile feet, no one could have gotten by.”
In a statement shared under Ostein’s post, Coco apologized, admitting “that’s not how our robots are designed to operate.”
“Our team caught it quickly, and the robots were cleared and operating normally within minutes,” the company continued. “We’ve made sure this won’t happen again.”
Schools across the world are experimenting with AI tools, usually to the dismay of unsuspecting parents. But one privately-run school is explicitly embracing AI as part of its sales pitch, and the in-class experience sounds more bizarre than anything you’d imagine.
A blistering new article by education policy writer and cognitive scientist Benjamin Riley took a look under the hood of Alpha School, a private K-12 school company in the US which boasts an AI-based teaching model, among other highly dubious features.
To make the grade, high school students are required to pass an eight-week “bootcamp.” After being invited to follow social media accounts of other students at Alpha School, Riley observed a process more akin to hazing than high school orientation, as the private company made its prospective pupils jump through increasingly degrading hoops to secure their spot on the roster.
For example, students in the bootcamp are required to start a brand-new account on X-formerly-Twitter, for which they’re required to get a minimum of 100 organic followers, pay for X Premium, and post an unknown number of replies to “bigger accounts with real substance,” as one student explained.
“‘Great post’ replies don’t count,” the anonymous student posted in a screenshot shared by Riley. “Buying followers or spamming = automatic fail.”
But forced social media assignments are just the beginning. As part of the bootcamp, students are also required to pass an eyebrow-raising heart rate challenge, in which they’re hooked up to live monitors in front of their classmates and presented with a pre-recorded video of their parents berating them.
“The challenge rule was simple,” one student wrote: “my resting heart rate was 80bpm, and I had to stay within 10 percent of that the whole time. Anything above 88 was a fail.”
It isn’t clear what educational purpose this particular trial was supposed to serve, or what the penalty would be for students who fail the heart rate challenge, or the boot camp overall. At least one student said the eight-week hazing period is meant to “prove I deserve to be here,” though Alpha School didn’t comment on Riley’s inquiry.
“I ended up averaging 87bpm,” the student continued, evidently just barely making the grade. “Barely made the cutoff by one single beat, and my hands were shaking the entire rest of the afternoon.”
As part of boot camp, Alpha School students apparently have their heart rates monitored as they watch recorded videos of their parents critiquing them. This activity takes place in front of their classmates, and students must keep their heart rates within 10 percent of their baseline to pass.
Additionally, Riley noted that Alpha School “requires students to do unpaid labor cleaning restaurant kitchens or gas-station bathrooms” in a test of “grit and hard work.”
This “assignment,” confirmed by two Alpha School pupils, involved students recording themselves and narrating their tasks, with any complaint or negative comment resulting in an automatic fail.
“We have to find and execute an unglamorous job with zero pay, whether that means mucking horse stalls, cleaning grease traps after closing, washing trash bins, or scrubbing gas station bathrooms,” one of the students explained.
Other challenges abound, like a requirement to complete an entire unit of a standard Advanced Placement course without a teacher — AI chatbots only — and pass an exam within just five days. One 14-year-old student wrote that they were required to survive for three days in an unfamiliar section of wilderness “with only 3 bags of rice and a tent.”
Contacted by Riley for comment, Alpha School flipped the script, hounding the writer for daring to report on the “social media activity of minor children.”
“We ask that you weigh the ethics of identifying minors in this way in your reporting, and we expect any published piece to protect their identities,” an Alpha School representative said.
Responding to Riley’s story, educator and writer Audrey Watters said that “Alpha School’s promises have always been mostly snake-oil: this idea that artificial intelligence can deliver high-speed, high-quality education is mostly the stuff of science fiction, not reality.”
“What we witness with Alpha School isn’t a matter of simply ignoring the weatherman, fingers-crossed hoping that the sun will continue to shine on the chosen few and that the winds will shift again in industry’s favor,” Watters continued, referring to rising outrage against AI, and the Silicon Valley-ethos underlying Alpha School’s mission. “Rather, it’s pretty clear that there’s an absence of any moral compass at all.”
Simply put, documentarian and investigative journalist Alex Gibney had a very rich source of material to draw from for his upcoming documentary “Musk,” which had its world premiere today at the ongoing Venice Film Festival.
According to journalist David Sirota, Musk is “freaking out” about the film because Gibney “doesn’t pull punches, doesn’t cower and won’t be bullied.”
By all accounts, the four-hour epic will be a doozy. The documentarian “crafted a movie that, while not new in its specifics, is often damning in its totality, standing apart from anything the media entertainment complex has recently turned out — a portrait of power with the cinematic scope of ‘All the King’s Men’ and the potential social impact of ‘The Pentagon Papers,'” the Hollywood Reporter gushed.
Musk has reportedly gone to extreme — and sometimes unsuccessful — lengths to silence those involved in Gibney’s latest work. Musk’s ex and former conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair, who is “prominently featured” in the documentary, told reporters at the Venice Film Festival that she was “offered the opportunity not to speak for $40 million,” as quoted by People.
“When you’re offered something like that [to stay quiet], it really causes a debate in your head about what your speech means and how valuable that is and why do they want to offer me this amount of money to not speak?” St. Clair said.
St. Clair is one of four women who have had a total of 14 children with Musk, at least that we know about so far. The 26-year-old had a major falling out with the entrepreneur, going as far as to allege that the billionaire “financially retaliated” against her for filing a custody petition by reducing child support payments.
We’re likely to hear more commentary from Musk about the film. Last week, Musk tweeted that Gibney was “obviously going to make the most convincingly terrible hit piece on me that he can possibly think of,” calling him a “douchebag to his core.”
But considering the staggering amount of material Musk has gifted the world, Gibney had plenty of material to work with.
Can AI have good taste? Fashion founder and tastemaker Emily Oberg says no.
In a post on her Substack, Emily Loves, Oberg discussed her experiments using AI to help her run Sporty & Rich, the fashion and lifestyle brand she founded in 2018 on the back of a popular moodboard she created. One area where she’s been testing AI, she wrote, is by using AI to generate e-commerce images — and according to the founder’s postmortem, the test was a failure.
“With the rise of AI and the ongoing discourse around the threat it has on creativity, jobs and society as a whole, I firmly believe that it will never possess good taste the way that a human does,” Oberg declared. “And this is why I don’t think it’s as much of a threat to creatives as people think.”
E-commerce imagery, Oberg said, is one of her brand’s steepest expenses, costing “upwards of” $200,000 for each twice-yearly shoot. Wanting to see if AI could help her get around these significant costs, Sporty & Rich used AI to generate e-commerce images to model its last collection. While the imagery may have been far cheaper than photos modeled, photographed, and edited by humans, however, the cost-cutting came with a catch: it just wasn’t very good.
“This was one area I thought we could try to save on but after having seen the result, I’m now going back to producing our [e-commerce] with a full team of humans, because AI could never achieve the results that my IRL team could,” Oberg reflected, adding that her brand’s current images have a “certain lifelessness to them.”
“They’re flat, the styling is mediocre and the images are too ‘perfect’ in a bad way,” Oberg continued. “The models look dead in the eyes and don’t have any organic movement whatsoever. The images are empty and void of any feeling or emotion.”
Oberg chalked up the AI’s failure to the reality that taste is “felt, not learned.” And image-generating AI models are, after all, learning models; they don’t have lived experiences that translate into a particular way of viewing the world around them and the objects within it, nor do they have a certain “je ne sais quoi.” Though taste is a way through which people communicate with each other, taste itself is something that’s often unexplainable.
“The smartest AI in the world can learn everything there is to know about taste and style,” she added, “but the feeling will never be there.”
It’s interesting to see this AI experiment fail at Sporty & Rich, a brand that, like peers including Glossier and Goop, is a definitional of a certain type of deeply aesthetics-driven venture pioneered on social media platforms like Pinterest, Tumblr, and Instagram during the 2010s. Oberg was able to capture a feeling, first translated through a collection of carefully-curated imagery from across the web, and bottle it into a successful line of fashion and lifestyle products designed to embody a particular “health is wealth” ethos. That today’s AI models apparently can’t adequately capture that same feeling or aesthetic in a way that feels satisfying, or even human, speaks volumes to its remaining limits in the creative world.
People “who truly have good taste don’t follow trends, they set them,” wrote Oberg. “More than this, they set them without trying to, it happens by just being themselves and liking what they like, not because an algorithm or AI told them to.”
A key question that remains is whether other brands will continue to view a human touch worth it for the cost — or if they’ll charge ahead with AI nonetheless.
AI’s wide proliferation shares some striking similarities with the ways viruses spread, as an international team of researchers argue in a new paper that has yet to be peer reviewed. They set out to lay out a new theoretical framework about how we’re increasingly becoming hooked on tools like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude, and how it’s changing our collective ways of understanding the world around us.
“Here we introduce the idea of [large language models] as cognitive viruses,” they write. “Culturally transmitted technologies whose spread is promoted by their usefulness but can also increase dependence through cognitive offloading.”
“More generally, humans have always externalized parts of cognition into language, writing, institutions, and technology,” the researchers write. “This externalization has been the engine of rapid and accelerated change driven by culture. AI represents a new step in this process, one in which external cognitive machinery becomes increasingly active and agent-like.”
This transition to adapting LLMs also “has a contagion-like component,” because the spread occurs “because people learn from other people.”
It’s a slippery slope, the researchers argue, as the “loss of autonomy becomes self-reinforcing and the population can move rapidly toward a state of much stronger cognitive offloading and lower cognitive competence.”
Put simply, the widespread use of LLMs could be making us much dumber than we were before — not to mention wreaking complex psychological and sociological changes that we’re only starting to understand.
At the same time, there are ways to protect ourselves from being infected through a process the researchers dub “cognitive immunization.”
“At the population level, immunization does not mean preventing contact with AI,” the paper reads. “It means preserving the practices and institutions that keep human cognition active: unaided problem solving, verification, critical discussion, periods of deliberate disengagement, maintenance of non-AI skills, and educational designs in which the model supports rather than completes the cognitive task.”
An Amazon Prime Air cargo jet ripped right past the landing zone at the Miami International Airport on Sunday afternoon, struggling to stop itself in time before overrunning the runway and crashing into a cleaning crew and a nearby SUV.
It was a tragic incident, killing five innocent people.
The Boeing 767-300 also barreled right through a chain-link fence that was protecting a highly unusual lot of vehicles: photographs of the scene show the dented nose of the airliner just a few dozen feet away from a kennel of parked Tesla Cybercabs.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has banked the future success of his EV maker on the gold-colored self-driving vehicles, which are too small to fit more than two passengers and lack both steering wheels or pedals. Their sudden appearance in a story about a deadly airliner disaster had the billionaire taken aback. However, instead of offering his condolences after the tragedy, Musk simply tweeted the word “Weird” in response.
The peculiar cameo also led to plenty of questions over Tesla’s plans to roll out the cars outside of Austin. Just last week, the Cybercabs were deployed for the first time in the Texas city, but the company has yet to announce any imminent launches in Miami.
Regulators from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration watched closely following last week’s deployment, which comes just shy of two years after Tesla first showed off its Cybercab. As Bloomberg notes, the light on details event was “uncharacteristically low-key,” offering no livestream or media coverage.
The “Cybercab event was largely a bust,” tweeted Future Fund Advisors co-founder Gary Black. “The launch offered little detail and key questions remained unanswered.”
Indeed, regulatory approval is hazy for vehicles without any traditional driver controls, a topic that’s especially pertinent to Tesla. Musk has bet the company’s entire future on the success of its Cybercabs and its humanoid robot, dubbed Optimus.
With neither showing any signs of a significant public rollout any time soon, Wall Street is bound to keep asking some tough questions.
There are many ways to honor someone who’s recently passed. Flowers. Murals. Candlelight vigils.
And in today’s age, unfortunately: AI slop.
Weeks after Dolly Parton died, the legendary country singer’s sister, Stella Parton, has begged fans to stop posting “fake AI garbage” as supposed tribute, saying it’s making it hard to move on.
“Sadly, because of the way our lives have been lived in front of the public, we have no choice but to be subjected to incredible pressure and insensitivity from strangers,” Stella wrote in a statement posted to social media. “There is a tremendous amount of AI and endless garbage being posted everyday and it’s been challenging to absorb and or ignore.”
While thanking fans who have showed “genuine support,” Stella rounded out her message by calling for “more compassion” while celebrating Dolly Parton’s life and moving on from her death.
“It’s not about the most clever comments, fake AI garbage, or snarky tweets,” Stella wrote.
Dolly Parton walked this Earth for eighty years, and was a celebrity for nearly sixty of them. Are the people posting uncanny AI images of her really unable to find a real one from all the times she’s been photographed?
None other than US president Donald Trump has been guilty of peddling this “AI garbage.” After Dolly Parton’s death, he generated and posted a characteristically egocentric image of himself with Parton at his side, arm in arm — an insult to how the real Parton tried to stay above partisan politics, while also advocating for gay and trans rights, stances that Trump is staunchly opposed to.
On YouTube, meanwhile, a “heartfelt fan-made tribute by Miley Cyrus” to Dolly Parton is only one of many claiming to be eulogies for the singer from famous pop stars that have gone viral, racking up over 1.5 million views. The word “heartfelt,” though, is being used pretty loosely, since the whole song, as are the others, is AI-generated, as spotted by the BBC.
Parton herself was ambivalent about AI, musing it could be “great” for science and medicine, but fearing it could replace human expression. Were she still around, in other words, she almost certainly wouldn’t approve of the AI tributes.
“I think all this stuff can be great, used in the right way,” she said of the tech in a 2023 interview with Hollywood Reporter. “But not to replace voices and writings and not to replace a human being that belongs to God.”
In a world dominated by cheaply-produced AI content, it’s never been easier to imitate your favorite artist. YouTube, for instance, has succumbed to a tidal wave of AI-generated music released under the names of real artists without their permission — and a baffling number of its unknowing users are blissfully unaware they’re being served a microwaved counterfeit.
The track, which has seemingly convinced countless users that it’s actually Mathers’ latest return to the music world, has amassed well over 100,000 views since being uploaded last week. It’s achieved surprising prominence on YouTube, being featured prominently in a search for “Eminem” on the platform — where it’s even beating out charting singles by the actual rapper, including “Superman” and “Shake That,” as well as the actual “I’m Back” track.
“Guess who’s back?” the algorithmic Eminem raps in the video. “Yeah, a headache return. Same match in my hand.”
The low-rent beat alone should be a dead giveaway. And while AI music generating tools certainly have come a long way, giving the fake Mathers a passing imitation of the real one’s voice and delivery, the plasticky sound of the vocals make it clear that it’s not the real deal.
Nonetheless, users on YouTube were fooled hook, line, and sinker.
“This is fire eminem is the goat hands down,” one user gushed.
“Really Proud of you Eminem!!” another wrote. “You really are getting it and not giving up!! Keep going!”
The video’s title gives no indication that it’s not a real release, and doesn’t feature YouTube’s official AI label. Buried in its description is a strangely-phrased disclaimer.
“Fan-made music videos inspired by Eminem, Slim Shady, and legendary Detroit hip-hop,” it reads. “This is a fan-made audiovisual project created for entertainment purposes only.”
The owner of the account even proactively offers up an email address for “copyright concerns or removal requests,” suggesting they’re all too familiar with the process of having angry record labels try to shut them down or get hung up in YouTube’s infamous copyright filters.
A web search for the email address reveals that it’s also listed on a litany of other YouTube accounts, many of which masquerade as other rap artists, including Meek Mill — an account that has over 13,000 subscribers — and 21 Savage.
Reached by email, the account owner offered their thoughts on the situation.
“No, my intention was never to make it look like a genuine new Eminem release,” the creator, who goes by the name Milana Salaeva, told Futurism in a message, referring to the “I’m Back” track. “I make it clear in the description that the content is unofficial and that AI-generated or AI-assisted elements may be used.”
“I’m a music producer, and I’ve been making music myself for quite some time,” they added. “I often create my own beats and handle the arrangement, mixing, mastering, and other parts of the production process. AI is just one of the tools I sometimes use as part of that workflow.”
The Eminem mimicry is only a drop in a bucket in an internet dominated by AI-generated music. For years now, we’ve watched as outraged artists and their labels have tried to tamp down on a proliferation of tracks that use their voice and likeness without permission, often going viral on social media.
We’ve also come across users exploiting royalties on platforms like Spotify by flooding them with AI. A man pled guilty earlier this year for posting slop on Spotify and using an army of bots to fraudulently boost listenership, netting $8 million in royalties.
While it’s unlikely Salaeva is making anywhere near that amount of cash — especially now that YouTube has significantly changed how it counts views — the fake Slim Shady’s 11-minute tirade also touches on a far more profound subject: the authenticity of human creativity and expression.
“If you came here for the old me, here’s the new me kicking his ass,” the fake Eminem raps. “That’s why they call me Slim Shady. I’m back again. Same crooked little grin with a pad and pen.”
A journalist has accused Cleveland.com — the online home of The Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper — of publishing an article under her byline without her consent, knowledge, or approval. The article was generated by the “Cleveland.com Express Desk,” which “uses AI tools to assist in producing content” that the newspaper claims is “reviewed and edited by staff.”
In an X post on September 7, Cleveland.com government reporter Kaitlin Durbin said that she’d been away on her honeymoon when her employer published the AI article under her name.
The article — a local news story informing readers that the law director of Ohio’s Cuyahoga County was stepping down — had nothing to do with her reporting, Durbin said, and she “did not write or review a word of it” before it was published.
“Trying to understand how this story published with my byline last week while I was on my honeymoon. I did not write or review a word of it and it does not pull info from past reporting,” Durbin wrote. “Does Cleveland.com think they just own my name now?”
“Note: This story has been updated to correct the byline,” reads the correction. “A reporter’s byline was added to the story in error.”
Cleveland.com made waves back in February when its editor, Chris Quinn, published a letter to readers in which he addressed Cleveland.com‘smove to create an AI-powered news desk. The letter heralded AI as the “future” of journalism, and criticized journalism schools and job-seeking journalists for not going all-in on the tech.
“Artificial intelligence is not bad for newsrooms,” Quinn wrote in the letter. “It’s the future of them.” The editor further argued that AI was simply being used to expedite the work of real journalists, and would free them to do more reporting.
After this story was published, Quinn told Futurism that the byline blunder was “a simple mistake, the result of a miscommunication between a couple of editors.”
“It was corrected as soon as we learned of it from the Tweet,” Quinn continued, adding that he’s “written extensively about our policies, practices and controls regarding AI content in my From the Editor columns this year” and directing us to a post containing links to his statements on Cleveland.com’s AI policies. “If you’re looking for information about us, it’s all there,” said Quinn. “I have nothing to add.”
Leila Atassi, editor of public interest and advocacy at Cleveland.com and The Plain-Dealer, told the Columbia Journalism Reviewat the time that stories published by the newspaper’s AI news desk would still be the “work of a real reporter.”
“It’s real accountability,” Atassi continued. “AI is the assistant, but it’s not the journalist.”
The Cleveland.com story now carries no byline at all — except for “Cleveland.com Express Desk.”
Is being the world’s richest man not enough for Elon Musk?
He must also have us all believe that he’s a genius, sui generis, with a mind so mighty that it’s wasted on supposedly intellectual pastimes like “chess.”
He’s so convinced that the board game is beneath him, in fact, that he’s begun arguing about it with… Chess.com, a leading source of expertise and chess AI.
The inane saga kicked off yesterday on X — where else — when Musk responded to a post about all the possible moves you can make in chess. To a mind as omniscient as Musk’s, the number — a mere 40 orders of magnitude more than all the atoms in the observable universe — wasn’t sufficiently large enough to be interesting.
“The actual number of moves that are not utterly stupid in chess is tiny,” he claimed, “and chess will be fully solved one day.”
Here, Chess.com entered the fray by responding with a succinct rejoinder: “skill issue.”
The bait worked.
“Chess is hard for humans, but not for computers. One day, it will be fully solved like checkers,” Musk wrote, essentially repeating himself. “Between now and then, or even after, have fun. People enjoy many games/sports where machines are vastly better.”
Indeed, humans who aren’t intelligent as Musk, in their feeble-mindedness and fleeting time on this planet, may enjoy activities such as games and sports, blissfully unaware that a hypothetical machine may hypothetically make mince meat of those activities one day. And yet, as Musk admitted, he’s choosing to waste his time “arguing with some random intern.” (“I’m a full-time employee,” the Chess.com account clarified.)
Musk also went on about how an artificial superintelligence — something we don’t even know is possible to build — will “figure out ways to solve and compress that are far beyond what we could possibly comprehend.” Then he cited some conversations he had with his personal AI chatbot, Grok, as if that put matters to bed.
There’s certainly an interesting intellectual debate to be had about “solving” chess — something that actual mathematicians have explored and tried to tackle — but Musk’s arguments seem to be driven solely by contempt. The board game is a long-held bugbear of his.
Back in 2022, in a now infamous tweet, Musk wrote about how he stopped playing chess as a child because he “found it to be too simple to be useful in real life,” before extolling how Polytopia, a mobile game, was the superior activity of choice for the cognoscenti.
He had something similar to say amid his battle with Chess.com. Responding to another account, Musk wrote that he “felt diminishing returns from chess in terms of transfer learning to understand reality.” Next time your opponent destroys you at chess, you might try deploying that excuse, too.
A man is facing numerous felony charges in Georgia after police allege he allegedly used a bizarre projectile to melt automatic license plate readers into smoldering heaps of metal and plastic.
According to Fox5 in Atlanta, 25-year-old Colby Williams was hauled into jail after allegedly setting fire to three automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) installed by the extremely controversial company Flock.
Though it isn’t known how the fires started, at least one camera was found “completely melted,” and had a “DeFlock” sticker slapped onto what remained of the pole. A fourth camera nearby was reportedly found with two bullet holes, the news channel reported.
Ironically, Williams was arrest using video captured from the ALPRs, which picked up a vehicle registered under his name.
Williams is now being charged with four counts of criminal damage to property and four counts of arson, as well as reckless conduct and interference with government property — though Flock operates using a model known as “hardware-as-a-service,” meaning its ALPRs are only rented, not owned by police agencies.
The use of fire to disable Flock ALPRs is a new one, as far as we can tell. So far, anti-surveillance vigilantes have mostly resorted to using tools like hand saws and power drills, or barring that, spray paint.
On social media, supporters further fanned the flames, expressing support for Williams and blasting the police department for deploying the devices in the first place.
“What it boils down to is this, either y’all can take them down or somebody will!” one Facebook user declared under Fox5‘s post about the arrest.
Another commenter made an appeal to patriotism: “it wasn’t him, he was at the library rereading the Constitution!”
When the Denver board of Water Commissioners approved stage one drought restrictions back in March, they did so facing some of the driest conditions in decades. According to the US Drought Monitor, the watershed sourced for Denver’s water utility is experiencing a “severe to exceptional drought,” while the Denver metropolitan area has been in a “severe drought.”
As a result, residents and businesses have been asked to scale back. Denverites now have to limit watering their lawns to two days a week, chosen by address. And even on those days, customers are prohibited from watering between the hours of 10am and 6pm, Gadget Review reports.
Yet as some 1.5 million customers honor the restrictions, one major customer is evidently refusing to close the tap: a brand new AI data center.
In a now-viral video circulating on social media, an unidentified resident of Denver’s Elyria-Swansea neighborhood filmed the massive lawn of a data center being sprayed with copious amounts of water.
“You better believe that they are watering their entire green with so many sprinklers that it’s literally making a giant pond,” the woman says.
Denver residents see local DATA CENTER water its massive lawns while the whole are faces drought restrictions pic.twitter.com/rrj7vMrhpt
The identity of the data center in question is unconfirmed, but it’s likely the new 18 megawatt facility owned by the cloud computing company CoreSite. At around 170,000 square feet in size, the mammoth facility recently went live in Elyria-Swansea, though not without sparking a wide-ranging debate around Denver’s zoning regulations.
It isn’t known which tech companies are renting out space in CoreSite’s Denver facility, but elsewhere the company has proudly partnered with tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft.
As for the water use, it’s impossible to say whether the lawn sprinklers were in violation of the city’s drought restrictions without knowing the exact time and date that the reel was filmed. It’s also possible that the facility is using recycled water to irrigate its grass, though that approach has proved disastrous in other cities.
Going forward, Gadget Review notes that all lawn sprinklers will be fully restricted as of October 1, with a ban set to last until Spring of next year. If Denver’s data centers are still spewing after the cut-off, it remains to be seen how — or even if — local leaders plan to hold the facility’s owners accountable.
In an affront to creeps everywhere, Meta has started remotely bricking the smart glasses of wearers who try to secretly record other people.
Earlier this month, the Mark Zuckerberg-led company said it would crack down on customers who modified the spectacles to disable or cover up their lights that indicate when they’re recording, amid incredible public backlash against how the glasses are being used to film people without their consent — girls and women especially — and harass them.
Now, it looks like more than a few weirdos have gotten the ax. On Tuesday, Meta said it’s bricked the photo and video-taking capabilities on thousands of its smart glasses users, as part of a software update that was reported by Semafor.
Meta didn’t provide hard numbers, but its vice president of wearables Alex Himel told Semafor that it estimated that less than one tenth of a percent of all glasses sold have been tampered with. Seven million of the glasses were sold in 2025, making that fraction of a percentage translate to up to, but probably less than, 7,000 individual units.
More than a sign of Meta caring about people’s privacy, it goes to show that the abuse of its “pervert glasses” wasn’t down to just a few bad apples. A few thousand doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s worth remembering that this crackdown only applies to customers who physically tampered with their glasses to disable the recording light. There’s no doubt that many people using the glasses to creepily record people have made no effort to modify their devices or hide that they’re recording.
Instagram, which is owned by Meta, recently began suspending some influencers who filmed themselves using the glasses as they aggressively hit on girls and women, often by making sexually explicit and provocative comments. The social media platform’s head Adam Mosseri vowed to crackdown on the harassment in “every way we can.”
Still, these efforts are a drop in the bucket, and with Meta reportedly planning to stuff the glasses with facial recognition tech, members of the public who aren’t convinced that Meta has their best interests in mind have taken matters into their own hands. Many establishments are outright banning smart glasses, including popular nightclubs. Some feel strongly enough about the glass that they’re confronting people who wear them in public.
Himel, Meta’s VP of wearables, admitted that it’s fighting an uphill battle.
“It’s been a little bit of a cat and mouse game,” Himel told Semafor, adding that “I don’t think we’ll ever be done… There’s always new ways to get around the safeguards that are in place. So we’re going to keep monitoring and evolving the measures that we have.”
The appropriately named Dyson CameraJet claims to analyze 28 images per second and employ an “AI machine-learning algorithm” to identify and target “interdental gaps.” In case you’re wondering how it can take pictures in the darkness of your mouth, a “stroboscopic light” ensures “precise illumination for optimal camera visibility.”
It also hooks up to WiFi and Bluetooth, theoretically opening it up to all kinds of cybersecurity shenanigans if somebody were to identify any vulnerabilities in Dyson’s software.
“By combining a camera, machine learning, precision fluid dynamics, advanced brushing technologies, connectivity and WiFi, Dyson CameraJet introduces an entirely new way to keep your mouth healthy,” founder and chief engineer James Dyson boasted in a statement.
Of course, all of that sensitive video surveillance footage of the inside of your mouth is going to cost you dearly. The undoubtedly overengineered gizmo — which looks more like an undersized hair curling iron than a familiar electric toothbrush — goes for a whopping $499 and at least comes with two brush heads, a charging cable, and a “refill dock.”
Naturally, Dyson will happily sell you a “proprietary non-foaming toothpaste” as well, which lacks a common synthetic foaming agent called sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) to make sure the toothbrush surveillance camera isn’t impeded by all those suds.
We’ll leave it up to you whether you deem the product, which allegedly required the input of 661 engineers, is worth the price of an iPad Air or roughly ten Oral-B Pro 1000 electric toothbrushes — a popular budget pick for those who don’t need AI to brush their teeth.
Well, tell that to president Trump. On Thursday, he slapped a 100 percent tariff — he sure loves round numbers and levying imports — on larger foreign-made drones.
Speaking to the New York Times, Scott Mlakar, chief of the Lake County Drone Unit outside Cleveland, called the tariffs financially onerous and lamented that it would prevent many communities from buying them, adding that his unit uses them to hunt crime suspects at night and search for lost children.
“Most of this, in our humble opinion, is lobbying by US manufacturers to eliminate foreign competition,” he said. “This is not national security. It’s protectionism.”
The tariff is explicitly designed to target popular Chinese drones, while making exceptions or imposing much lighter tariffs on drones made from allies like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the EU. In particular, these steep duties will apply to drones that use thermal imaging or weigh more than 55 pounds. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission is weighing reclassifying some drone technologies like lidar as “military grade,” Ars noted, which would restrict who can access these drones even further.
Drones have a lot of other practical uses beyond law enforcement, obviously, including monitoring wild fires and assisting rescue operations. Amid heightened backlash against Flock, though, they’ve come to be seen as another surveillance apparatus.
But weaning the US off Chinese drone tech is supposed to be good for national security, according to the Trump administration. One small problem: a single Chinese company, DJI, makes more than 70 percent of the world’s commercial drones, according to the NYT. Good luck replacing all those.
Plenty of other cops are bellyaching about the tariffs, too, extolling how irreplaceable that awesome Chinese made drones have become to their operation.
Ars spotted a Texas police officer named Jason Lee, for instance, who complained to the FCC that “there is currently no economically viable domestic replacement” for DJI drones. “More than 80 percent of state and local law-enforcement drone programs surveyed in 2024 used DJI aircraft,” he added.
“The fact that a domestic product exists does not necessarily mean it is a viable substitute,” Lee said. “A replacement must be operationally comparable, economically obtainable, supported by an adequate supply chain, and accepted by pilots who must rely on it during real-world incidents.”
Login
