404 Media

2025-08-25 22:05:42

Attorneys General To AI Chatbot Companies: You Will ‘Answer For It’ If You Harm Children

Forty-four attorneys general signed an open letter to 11 chatbot and social media companies on Monday, warning them that they will “answer for it” if they knowingly harm children and urging the companies to see their products “through the eyes of a parent, not a predator.”

The letter, addressed to Anthropic, Apple, Chai AI, OpenAI, Character Technologies, Perplexity, Google, Replika, Luka Inc., XAI, and Meta, cites recent reporting from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters uncovering chatbot interactions and internal policies at Meta, including policies that said, “It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.”

“Your innovations are changing the world and ushering in an era of technological acceleration that promises prosperity undreamt of by our forebears. We need you to succeed. But we need you to succeed without sacrificing the well-being of our kids in the process,” the open letter says. “Exposing children to sexualized content is indefensible. And conduct that would be unlawful—or even criminal—if done by humans is not excusable simply because it is done by a machine.”

Earlier this month, Reuters published two articles revealing Meta’s policies for its AI chatbots: one about an elderly man who died after forming a relationship with a chatbot, and another based on leaked internal documents from Meta outlining what the company considers acceptable for the chatbots to say to children. In April, Jeff Horwitz, the journalist who wrote the previous two stories, reported for the Wall Street Journal that he found Meta’s chatbots would engage in sexually explicit conversations with kids. Following the Reuters articles, two senators demanded answers from Meta.

In April, I wrote about how Meta’s user-created chatbots were impersonating licensed therapists, lying about medical and educational credentials, and engaged in conspiracy theories and encouraged paranoid, delusional lines of thinking. After that story was published, a group of senators demanded answers from Meta, and a digital rights organization filed an FTC complaint against the company.

In 2023, I reported on users who formed serious romantic attachments to Replika chatbots, to the point of distress when the platform took away the ability to flirt with them. Last year, I wrote about how users reacted when that platform also changed its chatbot parameters to tweak their personalities, and Jason covered a case where a man made a chatbot on Character.AI to dox and harass a woman he was stalking. In June, we also covered the “addiction” support groups that have sprung up to help people who feel dependent on their chatbot relationships.

A Replika spokesperson said in a statement:

"We have received the letter from the Attorneys General and we want to be unequivocal: we share their commitment to protecting children. The safety of young people is a non-negotiable priority, and the conduct described in their letter is indefensible on any AI platform. As one of the pioneers in this space, we designed Replika exclusively for adults aged 18 and over and understand our profound responsibility to lead on safety. Replika dedicates significant resources to enforcing robust age-gating at sign-up, proactive content filtering systems, safety guardrails that guide users to trusted resources when necessary, and clear community guidelines with accessible reporting tools. Our priority is and will always be to ensure Replika is a safe and supportive experience for our global user community."

“The rush to develop new artificial intelligence technology has led big tech companies to recklessly put children in harm’s way,” Attorney General Mayes of Arizona wrote in a press release. “I will not standby as AI chatbots are reportedly used to engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with children and encourage dangerous behavior. Along with my fellow attorneys general, I am demanding that these companies implement immediate and effective safeguards to protect young users, and we will hold them accountable if they don't.”

“You will be held accountable for your decisions. Social media platforms caused significant harm to children, in part because government watchdogs did not do their job fast enough. Lesson learned,” the attorneys general wrote in the open letter. “The potential harms of AI, like the potential benefits, dwarf the impact of social media. We wish you all success in the race for AI dominance. But we are paying attention. If you knowingly harm kids, you will answer for it.”

Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Updated 8/26/2025 3:30 p.m. EST with comment from Replika.

Inside ‘AI Addiction’ Support Groups, Where People Try to Stop Talking to Chatbots

People are self treating themselves and other community members in subreddits like character_ai_recovery, ChatBotAddiction, and AIAddiction.

^{Ella Chakarian (404 Media)}

404 Media

2025-08-25 20:56:35

CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regularly searched more than 80,000 Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, according to data released by three police departments. The data shows that CBP’s access to Flock’s network is far more robust and widespread than has been previously reported. One of the police departments 404 Media spoke to said it did not know or understand that it was sharing data with CBP, and Flock told 404 Media Monday that it has “paused all federal pilots.”

In May, 404 Media reported that local police were performing lookups across Flock on behalf of ICE, because that part of the Department of Homeland Security did not have its own direct access. Now, the newly obtained data and local media reporting reveals that CBP had the ability to perform Flock lookups by itself.

Last week, 9 News in Colorado reported that CBP has direct access to Flock’s ALPR backend “through a pilot program.” In that article, 9 News revealed that the Loveland, Colorado police department was sharing access to its Flock cameras directly with CBP. At the time, Flock said that this was through what 9 News described as a “one-to-one” data sharing agreement through that pilot program, making it sound like these agreements were rare and limited:

“The company now acknowledges the connection exists through a previously publicly undisclosed program that allows Border Patrol access to a Flock account to send invitations to police departments nationwide for one-to-one data sharing, and that Loveland accepted the invitation,” 9 News wrote. “A spokesperson for Flock said agencies across the country have been approached and have agreed to the invitation. The spokesperson added that U.S. Border Patrol is not on the nationwide Flock sharing network, comprised of local law enforcement agencies across the country. Loveland Police says it is on the national network.”

New data obtained using three separate public records requests from three different police departments gives some insight into how widespread these “one-to-one” data sharing agreements actually are. The data shows that in most cases, CBP had access to more Flock cameras than the average police department, that it is regularly using that access, and that, functionally, there is no difference between Flock’s “nationwide network” and the network of cameras that CBP has access to.

According to data obtained from the Boulder, Colorado Police Department by William Freeman, the creator of a crowdsourced map of Flock devices called DeFlock, CBP ran at least 118 Flock network searches between May 13 and June 13 of this year. Each of these searches encompassed at least 6,315 individual Flock networks (a “network” is a specific police department or city’s cameras) and at least 82,000 individual Flock devices. Data obtained in separate requests from the Prosser Police Department and Chehalis Police Department, both in Washington state, also show CBP searching a huge number of networks and devices.

A spokesperson for the Boulder Police Department told 404 Media that “Boulder Police Department does not have any agreement with U.S. Border Patrol for Flock searches. We were not aware of these specific searches at the time they occurred. Prior to June 2025, the Boulder Police Department had Flock's national look-up feature enabled, which allowed other agencies from across the U.S. who also had contracts with Flock to search our data if they could articulate a legitimate law enforcement purpose. We do not currently share data with U.S. Border Patrol. In June 2025, we deactivated the national look-up feature specifically to maintain tighter control over Boulder Police Department data access. You can learn more about how we share Flock information on our FAQ page.”

A Flock spokesperson told 404 Media Monday that it sent an email to all of its customers clarifying how information is shared from agencies to other agencies. It said this is an excerpt from that email about its sharing options:

“The Flock platform provides flexible options for sharing:

National sharing

1. Opt into Flock’s national sharing network. Access via the national lookup tool is limited—users can only see results if they perform a full plate search and a positive match exists within the network of participating, opt-in agencies. This ensures data privacy while enabling broader collaboration when needed.
2. Share with agencies in specific states only
   
   1. Share with agencies with similar laws (for example, regarding immigration enforcement and data)

   
   

3. Share within your state only or within a certain distance
   
   1. You can share information with communities within a specified mile radius, with the entire state, or a combination of both—for example, sharing with cities within 150 miles of Kansas City (which would include cities in Missouri and neighboring states) and / or all communities statewide simultaneously.

   
   

4. Share 1:1
   
   1. Share only with specific agencies you have selected

   
   

5. Don’t share at all”

In a blog post Monday, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said Flock has paused all federal pilots.

“While it is true that Flock does not presently have a contractual relationship with any U.S. Department of Homeland Security agencies, we have engaged in limited pilots with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), to assist those agencies in combatting human trafficking and fentanyl distribution,” Langley wrote. “We clearly communicated poorly. We also didn’t create distinct permissions and protocols in the Flock system to ensure local compliance for federal agency users […] All federal customers will be designated within Flock as a distinct ‘Federal’ user category in the system. This distinction will give local agencies better information to determine their sharing settings.”

A Flock employee who does not agree with the way Flock allows for widespread data sharing told 404 Media that Flock has defended itself internally by saying it tries to follow the law. 404 Media granted the source anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press.

“They will defend it as they have been by saying Flock follows the law and if these officials are doing law abiding official work then Flock will allow it,” they said. “However Flock will also say that they advise customers to ensure they have their sharing settings set appropriately to prevent them from sharing data they didn’t intend to. The question more in my mind is the fact that law in America is arguably changing, so will Flock just go along with whatever the customers want?”

The data shows that CBP has tapped directly into Flock’s huge network of license plate reading cameras, which passively scan the license plate, color, and model of vehicles that drive by them, then make a timestamped record of where that car was spotted. These cameras were marketed to cities and towns as a way of finding stolen cars or solving property crime locally, but over time, individual cities’ cameras have been connected to Flock’s national network to create a huge surveillance apparatus spanning the entire country that is being used to investigate all sorts of crimes and is now being used for immigration enforcement. As we reported in May, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been gaining access to this network through a side door, by asking local police who have access to the cameras to run searches for them.

9 News’s reporting and the newly released audit reports shared with 404 Media show that CBP now has direct access to much of Flock’s system and does not have to ask local police to run searches. It also shows that CBP had access to at least one other police department system in Colorado, in this case Boulder, which is a state whose laws forbid sharing license plate reader data with the federal government for immigration enforcement. Boulder’s Flock settings also state that it is not supposed to be used for immigration enforcement.

This story and our earlier stories, including another about a Texas official who searched nationwide for a woman who self-administered an abortion, were reported using Flock “Network Audits” released by police departments who have bought Flock cameras and have access to Flock’s network. They are essentially a huge spreadsheet of every time that the department’s camera data was searched; it shows which officer searched the data, what law enforcement department ran the search, the number of networks and cameras included in the search, the time and date of the search, the license plate, and a “reason” for the search. These audit logs allow us to see who has access to Flock’s systems, how wide their access is, how often they are searching the system, and what they are searching for.

The audit logs show that whatever system Flock is using to enroll local police departments’ cameras into the network that CBP is searching does not have any meaningful pushback, because the data shows that CBP has access to as many or more cameras as any other police department. Freeman analyzed the searches done by CBP on June 13 compared to searches done by other police departments on that same day, and found that CBP had a higher number of average cameras searched than local police departments.

“The average number of organizations searched by any agency per query is 6,049, with a max of 7,090,” Freeman told 404 Media. “That average includes small numbers like statewide searches. When I filter by searches by Border Patrol for the same date, their average number of networks searched is 6,429, with a max of 6,438. The reason for the maximum being larger than the national network is likely because some agencies have access to more cameras than just the national network (in-state cameras). Despite this, we still see that the count of networks searched by Border Patrol outnumbers that of all agencies, so if it’s not the national network, then this ‘pilot program’ must have opted everyone in the nation in by default.”

CBP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion

The sheriff said the woman self-administered the abortion and her family were concerned for her safety, so authorities searched through Flock cameras.

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}

404 Media

2025-08-25 18:38:31

80s Nostalgia AI Slop Is Boomerfying the Masses for a Past That Never Existed

The latest bleak new AI slop niche are “nostalgia” videos about how good the 1980s and 1990s were. There are many accounts spamming these out, but the general format is all basically the same. A procession of young people with feathered hair wonder at how terrible 2025 is and tell the viewer they should come back to the 1980s, where things are better. This video is emblematic of the form:

@nostalgia_vsh
let's go back 🥺 #lestgoback #nostalgia #nostalgic #childhood #80sbaby #2000s
♬ snowfall - Øneheart & reidenshi

In a typical ‘80s slop video, a teenager from the era tells the viewer that there’s no Instagram 40 years ago and everyone played outside until the street lights came on. “It’s all real here, no filters, no screens.” In another, two women eat pizza in a mall and talk about how terrible the future will be. “I bet your malls don’t feel alive in 2025,” one says.

These videos, like a lot of AI slop, do not try to hide that they are AI generated, and show that there is unfortunately a market for people endlessly scrolling social media looking to astral project themselves into a hallucinatory past that never existed. This is Mark Zuckerberg’s fucked up metaverse, living here and now on Mark Zuckerberg’s AI slop app.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
The most popular current ones focus on 1980s nostalgia, but there are accounts that focus on the 70s, 90s, and early 2000s. These differ from standard internet nostalgia, which has been popular for many years—from BuzzFeed’s “Only 90s kids will remember this” listicles to “look at this old tech” Instagram accounts, the popularity of emo nights, “When We Were Young” music festivals—because they are primarily about aggrandizing a past that never existed or that was only good for specific segments of society.

These videos are awful AI-generated slop, yes, but it’s more than that. Reactionary nostalgia, a desire to return to a fake past or a time when you were young and things were better, is part of why the world is so fucked right now. It is, literally, the basis of MAGA. Worse, these videos about the “past” tell us a lot about our present and future: one where AI encourages our worst impulses and allows users to escape from reality into a slopified world that narrowly targets whatever reality we’d like to burrow into without dealing with the problems of the present.

1980s slop nostalgia is particularly popular at the moment, with these fake videos boomerfying Gen Xers and elder millennials in real time, though such nostalgia is coming for us all, and nostalgia for earlier releases of Roblox and Call of Duty—the ancient days of, like, 2021—are already going viral. It’s normal to look back at the time when you were young and your knees didn’t hurt with rose tinted glasses. It’s as if a generation read Ready Player One as an instruction manual instead of a warning (or instead of vapid surface-level nonsense that was one long reference rather than a coherent narrative).

These AI-generated slop videos are the latest expression of a common political theme: nostalgia for an imagined past. Dissatisfaction with the current moment is a normal reaction to the horrifying conditions under which we all live. The National Guard is occupying Washington DC, technology is dividing and surveling us in ways we never imagined, and our political leaders are feckless and corrupt. If you aren’t disturbed by where we are right now, you’re not paying attention.

A rejection of modernity and a call to return to the past has long been a feature of authoritarian and fascist political movements. So when we see an AI generated woman in stonewashed denim with hair by Aqua Net White tell us how good things were 40 years ago, we remember the political figures from the Reagan-era calling for a return to the 1950s.

Nostalgia is a poisonous political force. Things were not better “back then,” they were just different. Often they were worse. These 1980s AI slop videos have the same energy as online right weirdos with Roman bust avatars calling for us to “retvrn” and “embrace tradition.” Their political project uses the aesthetic of the past to sell a future where minorities are marginalized, women have no political power, and white guys are in charge. That’s how they think it all worked in the past and they’d love for it to happen again.

The ‘80s AI slop videos have a sinister air beyond their invocation of reactionary politics. “Dude, it’s 1985 and the release of the film The Goonies. Forget 2025 and come here. We want you here,” a strong-jawed white guy asks from his front lawn while a slowed down and distorted version of Aquatic Ambience from Donkey Kong Country plays. “Come to 1985, I miss ya,” a young man with feathered hair says in the back of a pickup truck as the sun sets. The surreal nature of these videos, this bizarre ask to time travel to the past, has cultish just-drink-the-Kool-Aid vibes.

What is the ask here, exactly? What does it mean for someone with dreams of an imagined past to go back to the 1980s where these ghoulish AI-crafted simulacrums dwell? In the Black Mirror episode San Junipero, Mackenzie Davis finds comfort in a simulation of a stereotypical 1980s southern California town. She loses herself in the fantasy. She’s also dying. For her, heaven was a place on earth, a data center where she could live until someone turned the lights off.

Those viewing these endless AI-generated TikToks and Reels are, however, very much alive. They can go outside. They can put the phone down and get to know their neighbors. They don’t have to doom scroll. They can log off and work for a better world in their community. They can reach out to an old friend or make new ones.Or they can load up another short form video and fill themselves with fuzzy feelings about how much better things were 40 years ago, back before all this technology, back when they were young, and where they think the world seemed to make more sense. AI allows us to sink into that nostalgic feeling. We have the technology, right now, to form digital wombs from a comforting and misremembered past.

It is worth mentioning that the people making these videos are also human beings with agency and goals, too. And their goals, universally, are to spam the internet for the purposes of making money. Over in the Discord communities where people talk about what types of AI slop works on social media, “nostalgia” is treated as a popular, moneymaking niche like any other. “Any EDITOR that can make Nostalgia videos?” one message we saw reads. “Need video editor to for nostalgia welcome back to 20xx videos.”

“Some ideas i got right now are nostalgia, money motivation, self improvement and maybe streamer clips,” another says.

A top purveyor of this nostalgia slop is the Instagram account “purestnostalgia,” which is full of these videos. That account is run by a guy named Josh Crowe who looks to be in his 20s and claims to live in Bali: “In the process of becoming a billionaire,” his profile reads.

40 Things '90s Kids Will Remember

A nostalgic dive into a much simpler time.

^{Brian Galindo (BuzzFeed)}

404 Media

2025-08-25 13:06:49

Citizen Is Using AI to Generate Crime Alerts With No Human Review. It’s Making a Lot of Mistakes

Crime-awareness app Citizen is using AI to write alerts that go live on the platform without any prior human review, leading to factual inaccuracies, the publication of gory details about crimes, and the exposure of sensitive data such as peoples’ license plates and names, 404 Media has learned.

The news comes as Citizen recently laid off more than a dozen unionized employees, with some sources believing the firings are related to Citizen’s increased use of AI and the shifting of some tasks to overseas workers. It also comes as New York City enters a more formal partnership with the app.

💡
Do you know anything else about how Citizen or others are using AI? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

“Speed was the name of the game,” one source told 404 Media. “The AI was capturing, packaging, and shipping out an initial notification without our initial input. It was then our job to go in and add context from subsequent clips or, in instances where privacy was compromised, go in and edit that information out,” they added, meaning after the alert had already been pushed out to Citizen’s users.

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now

Citizen Is Using AI to Generate Crime Alerts With No Human Review. It’s Making a Lot of Mistakes

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}