404 Media

2025-10-21 16:49:29

Anthropic Promises Trump Admin Its AI Is Not Woke

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has published a lengthy statement on the company’s site in which he promises Anthropic’s AI models are not politically biased, that it remains committed to American leadership in the AI industry, and that it supports the AI startup space in particular.

Amodei doesn’t explicitly say why he feels the need to state all of these obvious positions for the CEO of an American AI company to have, but the reason is that the Trump administration’s so-called “AI Czar” has publicly accused Anthropic of producing “woke AI” that it’s trying to force on the population via regulatory capture.

The current round of beef began earlier this month when Anthropic’s co-founder and head of policy Jack Clark published a written version of a talk he gave at The Curve AI conference in Berkeley. The piece, published on Clark’s personal blog, is full of tortured analogies and self-serving sci-fi speculation about the future of AI, but essentially boils down to Clark saying he thinks artificial general intelligence is possible, extremely powerful, potentially dangerous, and scary to the general population. In order to prevent disaster, put the appropriate policies in place, and make people embrace AI positively, he said, AI companies should be transparent about what they are building and listen to people’s concerns.

“What we are dealing with is a real and mysterious creature, not a simple and predictable machine,” he wrote. “And like all the best fairytales, the creature is of our own creation. Only by acknowledging it as being real and by mastering our own fears do we even have a chance to understand it, make peace with it, and figure out a way to tame it and live together.”

Venture capitalist, podcaster, and the White House’s “AI and Crypto Czar” David Sacks was not a fan of Clark’s blog.

“Anthropic is running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering,” Sacks said on X in response to Clark’s blog. “It is principally responsible for the state regulatory frenzy that is damaging the startup ecosystem.”

Things escalated yesterday when Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s co-founder and a megadonor to the Democratic party, supported Anthropic in a thread on X, saying “Anthropic was one of the good guys” because it's one of the companies “trying to deploy AI the right way, thoughtfully, safely, and enormously beneficial for society.” Hoffman also appeared to take a jab at Elon Musk’s xAI, saying “Some other labs are making decisions that clearly disregard safety and societal impact (e.g. bots that sometimes go full-fascist) and that’s a choice. So is choosing not to support them.”

Sacks responded to Hoffman on X, saying “The leading funder of lawfare and dirty tricks against President Trump wants you to know that ‘Anthropic is one of the good guys.’ Thanks for clarifying that. All we needed to know.” Musk hopped into the replies saying: “Indeed.”

“The real issue is not research but rather Anthropic’s agenda to backdoor Woke AI and other AI regulations through Blue states like California,” Sacks said. Here, Sacks is referring to Anthropic’s opposition to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which wanted to stop states from regulating AI in any way for 10 years, and its backing of California’s SB 53, which requires AI companies that generate more than $500 million in annual revenue to make their safety protocols public.

All this sniping leads us to Amodei’s statement today, which doesn’t mention the beef above but is clearly designed to calm investors who are watching Trump’s AI guy publicly saying one of the biggest AI companies in the world sucks.

“I fully believe that Anthropic, the administration, and leaders across the political spectrum want the same thing: to ensure that powerful AI technology benefits the American people and that America advances and secures its lead in AI development,” Amodei said. “Despite our track record of communicating frequently and transparently about our positions, there has been a recent uptick in inaccurate claims about Anthropic's policy stances. Some are significant enough that they warrant setting the record straight.”

Amodei then goes to count the ways in which Anthropic already works with the federal government and directly grovels to Trump.

“Anthropic publicly praised President Trump’s AI Action Plan. We have been supportive of the President’s efforts to expand energy provision in the US in order to win the AI race, and I personally attended an AI and energy summit in Pennsylvania with President Trump, where he and I had a good conversation about US leadership in AI,” he said. “Anthropic’s Chief Product Officer attended a White House event where we joined a pledge to accelerate healthcare applications of AI, and our Head of External Affairs attended the White House’s AI Education Taskforce event to support their efforts to advance AI fluency for teachers.”

The more substantive part of his argument is that Anthropic didn’t support SB 53 until it made an exemption for all but the biggest AI labs, and that several studies found that Anthropic’s AI models are not “uniquely politically biased,” (read: not woke).

“Again, we believe we share those goals with the Trump administration, both sides of Congress, and the public,” Amodei wrote. “We are going to keep being honest and straightforward, and will stand up for the policies we believe are right. The stakes of this technology are too great for us to do otherwise.”

Many of the AI industry’s most vocal critics would agree with Sacks that Clark’s blog and “fear-mongering” about AI is self-serving because it makes their companies seem more valuable and powerful. Some critics will also agree that AI companies take advantage of that perspective to then influence AI regulation in a way that benefits them as incumbents.

It would be a far more compelling argument if it didn’t come from Sacks and Musk, who found a much better way to influence AI regulation to benefit their companies and investments: working for the president directly and publicly bullying their competitors.

Americans Prioritize AI Safety and Data Security

Most Americans favor maintaining rules for AI safety and security, as well as independent testing and collaboration with allies in developing the technology.

^{Benedict Vigers (Gallup)}

404 Media

2025-10-13 13:00:47

What Happened When AI Came for Craft Beer

A prominent beer judging competition introduced an AI-based judging tool without warning in the middle of a competition, surprising and angering judges who thought their evaluation notes for each beer were being used to improve the AI, according to multiple interviews with judges involved. The company behind the competition, called Best Beer, also planned to launch a consumer-facing app that would use AI to match drinkers with beers, the company told 404 Media.

Best Beer also threatened legal action against one judge who wrote an open letter criticizing the use of AI in beer tasting and judging, according to multiple judges and text messages reviewed by 404 Media.

The months-long episode shows what can happen when organizations try to push AI onto a hobby, pursuit, art form, or even industry which has many members who are staunchly pro-human and anti-AI. Over the last several years we’ve seen it with illustrators, voice actors, music, and many more. AI came for beer too.

“It is attempting to solve a problem that wasn’t a problem before AI showed up, or before big tech showed up,” Greg Loudon, a certified beer judge and brewery sales manager, and who was the judge threatened with legal action, said. “I feel like AI doesn’t really have a place in beer, and if it does, it’s not going to be in things that are very human.”

“There’s so much subjectivity to it, and to strip out all of the humanity from it is a disservice to the industry,” he added. Another judge said the introduction of AI was “enshittifying” beer tasting.

💡
Do you know anything else about how AI is impacting beer? 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.

This story started earlier this year at a Canadian Brewing Awards judging event. Best Beer is the company behind the Canadian Brewing Awards, which gives awards in categories such as Experimental Beer, Speciality IPA, and Historic/Regional Beers. To be a judge, you have to be certified by the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP), which involves an exam covering the brewing process, different beer styles, judging procedures, and more.

Around the third day of the competition, the judges were asked to enter their tasting notes into a new AI-powered app instead of the platform they already use, one judge told 404 Media. 404 Media granted the judge anonymity to protect them from retaliation.

Using the AI felt like it was “parroting back bad versions of your judge tasting notes,” they said. “There wasn't really an opportunity for us to actually write our evaluation.” Judges would write what they thought of a beer, and the AI would generate several descriptions based on the judges’ notes that the judge would then need to select. It would then provide additional questions for judges to answer that were “total garbage.”

“It was taking real human feedback, spitting out crap, and then making the human respond to more crap that it crafted for you,” the judge said.

“On top of all the misuse of our time and disrespecting us as judges, that really frustrated me—because it's not a good app,” they said.

Screenshot of a Best Beer-related website.

Multiple judges then met to piece together what was happening, and Loudon published his open letter in April.

“They introduced this AI model to their pool of 40+ judges in the middle of the competition judging, surprising everyone for the sudden shift away from traditional judging methods,” the letter says. “Results are tied back to each judge to increase accountability and ensure a safe, fair and equitable judging environment. Judging for competitions is a very human experience that depends on people filling diverse roles: as judges, stewards, staff, organizers, sorters, and venue maintenance workers,” the letter says.

“Their intentions to gather our training data for their own profit was apparent,” the letter says. It adds that one judge said “I am here to judge beer, not to beta test.”

The letter concluded with this: “To our fellow beverage judges, beverage industry owners, professionals, workers, and educators: Sign our letter. Spread the word. Raise awareness about the real human harms of AI in your spheres of influence. Have frank discussions with your employers, colleagues, and friends about AI use in our industry and our lives. Demand more transparency about competition organizations.”

33 people signed the letter. They included judges, breweries, and members of homebrewer associations in Canada and the United States.

Loudon told 404 Media in a recent phone call “you need to tell us if you're going to be using our data; you need to tell us if you're going to be profiting off of our data, and you can't be using volunteers that are there to judge beer. You need to tell people up front what you're going to do.”
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
At least one brewery that entered its beer into the Canadian Brewing Awards publicly called out Best Beer and the awards. XhAle Brew Co., based out of Alberta, wrote in a Facebook post in April that it asked for its entry fees of $565 to be refunded, and for the “destruction of XhAle's data collected during, and post-judging for the Best Beer App.”

“We did not consent to our beer being used by a private equity tech fund at the cost to us (XhAle Brew Co. and Canadian Brewers) for a for-profit AI application. Nor do we condone the use of industry volunteers for the same purpose,” the post said.

Ob Simmonds, head of innovation at the Canadian Brewing Awards, told 404 Media in an email that “Breweries will have amazing insight on previously unavailable useful details about their beer and their performance in our competition. Furthermore, craft beer drinkers will be able to better sift through the noise and find beers perfect for their palate. This in no way is aimed at replacing technical judging with AI.”

With the consumer app, the idea was to “Help end users find beers that match their taste profile and help breweries better understand their results in our competition,” Simmonds said.

Simmonds said that “AI is being used to better match consumers with the best beers for their palate,” but said Best Beer is not training its own model.

Those plans have come to a halt though. At the end of September, the Canadian Brewing Awards said in an Instagram post the team was “stepping away.” It said the goal of Best Beer was to “make medals matter more to consumers, so that breweries could see a stronger return on their entries.” The organization said it “saw strong interest from many breweries, judges and consumers” and that it will donate Best Beer’s assets to a non-profit that shows interest. The post added the organization used third-party models that “were good enough to achieve the results we wanted,” and the privacy policies forbade training on the inputted data.
A screenshot of the Canadian Beer Awards' Instagram post.
The post included an apology: “We apologize to both judges and breweries for the communication gaps and for the disruptions caused by this year’s logistical challenges.”

In an email sent to 404 Media this month, the Canadian Brewing Awards said “the Best Beer project was never designed to replace or profit from judges.”

“Despite these intentions, the project came under criticism before it was even officially launched,” it added, saying that the open letter “mischaracterized both our goals and approach.”

“Ultimately, we decided not to proceed with the public launch of Best Beer. Instead, we repurposed parts of the technology we had developed to support a brewery crawl during our gala. We chose to pause the broader project until we could ensure the judging community felt confident that no data would be used for profit and until we had more time to clear up the confusion,” the email added. “If judges wanted their data deleted what assurance can we provide them that it was in fact deleted. Everything was judged blind and they would have no access to our database from the enhanced division. For that reason, we felt it was more responsible to shelve the initiative for now.”

One judge told 404 Media: “I don’t think anyone who is hell bent on using AI is going to stop until it’s no longer worth it for them to do so.”

“I just hope that they are transparent if they try to do this again to judges who are volunteering their time, then either pay them or give them the chance ahead of time to opt-out,” they added.

Now months after this all started, Loudon said “The best beers on the market are art forms. They are expressionist. They're something that can't be quantified. And the human element to it, if you strip that all away, it just becomes very basic, and very sanitized, and sterilized.”

“Brewing is an art.”

XhAle Brew Co.

XhAle is not just a craft beer company. We are a company comprised of majority equity-deserving folks, and have been and still are marginalized in this industry. We understand and have personally...

^{www.facebook.com}

404 Media

2025-09-30 13:03:31

18 Lawyers Caught Using AI Explain Why They Did It

Earlier this month, an appeals court in California issued a blistering decision and record $10,000 fine against a lawyer who submitted a brief in which “nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated” through the use of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok. The court said it was publishing its opinion “as a warning” to California lawyers that they will be held responsible if they do not catch AI hallucinations in their briefs.

In that case, the lawyer in question “asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not ‘manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.’ He accepted responsibility for the fabrications and said he had since taken measures to educate himself so that he does not repeat such errors in the future.”

As the judges remark in their opinion, the use of generative AI by lawyers is now everywhere, and when it is used in ways that introduce fake citations or fake evidence, it is bogging down courts all over America (and the world). For the last few months, 404 Media has been analyzing dozens of court cases around the country in which lawyers have been caught using generative AI to craft their arguments, generate fictitious citations, generate false evidence, cite real cases but misinterpret them, or otherwise take shortcuts that has introduced inaccuracies into their cases. Our main goal was to learn more about why lawyers were using AI to write their briefs, especially when so many lawyers have been caught making errors that lead to sanctions and that ultimately threaten their careers and their standings in the profession.

To do this, we used a crowdsourced database of AI hallucination cases maintained by the researcher Damien Charlotin, which so far contains more than 410 cases worldwide, including 269 in the United States. Charlotin’s database is an incredible resource, but it largely focuses on what happened in any individual case and the sanctions against lawyers, rather than the often elaborate excuses that lawyers told the court when they were caught. Using Charlotin’s database as a starting point, we then pulled court records from around the country for dozens of cases where a lawyer offered a formal explanation or apology. Pulling this information required navigating clunky federal and state court record systems and finding and purchasing the specific record where the lawyer in question tried to explain themselves (these were often called “responses to order to show cause.”) We also reached out to lawyers who were sanctioned for using AI to ask them why they did it. Very few of them responded, but we have included explanations from the few who did.

What we found was incredibly fascinating, and reveals a mix of lawyers blaming IT issues, personal and family emergencies, their own poor judgment and carelessness, and demands from their firms and the industry to be more productive and take on more casework. But most often, they simply blame their assistants.

Few dispute that the legal industry is under great pressure to use AI. Legal giants like Westlaw and LexisNexis have pitched bespoke tools to law firms that are now regularly being used, but Charlotin’s database makes clear that lawyers are regularly using off-the-shelf generalized tools like ChatGPT and Gemini as well. There’s a seemingly endless number of startups selling AI legal tools that do research, write briefs, and perform other legal tasks. While working on this article, it became nearly impossible to keep up with new cases of lawyers being sanctioned for using AI. Charlotin has documented 11 new cases within the last week alone.

This article is the first of several 404 Media will write exploring the use of AI in the legal profession. If you’re a lawyer and have thoughts or firsthand experiences, please get in touch. Some of the following anecdotes have been lightly edited for clarity.

💡
Are you a lawyer or do you work in the legal industry? We want to know how AI is impacting the industry, your firm, and your job. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at jason.404. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.

A lawyer in Indiana blames the court (Fake case cited)

A judge stated that the lawyer “took the position that the main reason for the errors in his brief was the short deadline (three days) he was given to file it. He explained that, due to the short timeframe and his busy schedule, he asked his paralegal (who once was, but is not currently, a licensed attorney) to draft the brief, and did not have time to carefully review the paralegal's draft before filing it.”

A lawyer in New York blamed vertigo, head colds, and malware

"He acknowledges that he used Westlaw supported by Google Co-Pilot which is an artificial intelligence-based tool as preliminary research aid." The lawyer “goes on to state that he had no idea that such tools could fabricate cases but acknowledges that he later came to find out the limitation of such tools. He apologized for his failure to identify the errors in his affirmation, but partly blames ‘a serious health challenge since the beginning of this year which has proven very persistent which most of the time leaves me internally cold, and unable to maintain a steady body temperature which causes me to be dizzy and experience bouts of vertigo and confusion.’ The lawyer then indicates that after finding about the ‘citation errors’ in his affirmation, he conducted a review of his office computer system and found out that his system was ‘affected by malware and unauthorized remote access.’ He says that he compared the affirmation he prepared on April 9, 2025, to the affirmation he filed to [the court] on April 21, 2025, and ‘was shocked that the cases I cited were substantially different.’”

A lawyer in Florida blames a paralegal and the fact they were doing the case pro bono (Fake cases and hallucinated quotes)

The lawyer “explained that he was handling this appeal pro bono and that as he began preparing the brief, he recognized that he lacked experience in appellate law. He stated that at his own expense, he hired ‘an independent contractor paralegal to assist in drafting the answer brief.’ He further explained that upon receipt of a draft brief from the paralegal, he read it, finalized it, and filed it with this court. He admitted that he ‘did not review the authority cited within the draft answer brief prior to filing’ and did not realize it contained AI generated content.

A lawyer in South Carolina said he was rushing (Fake cases generated by Microsoft CoPilot)

“Out of haste and a naïve understanding of the technology, he did not independently verify the sources were real before including the citations in the motion filed with the Court seeking a preliminary injunction”

A lawyer in Hawaii blames a New Yorker they hired

This lawyer was sanctioned $100 by a court for one AI-generated case, as well as quoting multiple real cases and misattributing them to that fake case. They said they had hired a per-diem attorney—“someone I had previously worked with and trusted,” they told the court—to draft the case, and though they “did not personally use AI in this case, I failed to ensure every citation was accurate before filing the brief.” The Honolulu Civil Beat reported that the per-diem attorney they hired was from New York, and that they weren’t sure if that attorney had used AI or not.

The lawyer told us over the phone that the news of their $100 sanction had blown up in their district thanks to that article. “ I was in court yesterday, and of course the [opposing] attorney somehow brought this up,” they said in a call. According to them, that attorney has also used AI in at least seven cases. Nearly every lawyer is using AI to some degree, they said; it’s just a problem if they get caught. “The judges here have seen it extensively. I know for a fact other attorneys have been sanctioned. It’s public, but unless you know what to search for, you’re not going to find it anywhere. It’s just that for some stupid reason, my matter caught the attention of a news outlet. It doesn’t help with business.”

A lawyer in Arizona blames someone they hired

A judge wrote “this is a case where the majority of authorities cited were either fabricated, misleading, or unsupported. That is egregious … this entire litigation has been derailed by Counsel’s actions. The Opening Brief was replete with citation-related deficiencies, including those consistent with artificial intelligence generated hallucinations.”

The attorney claimed “Neither I nor the supervising staff attorney knowingly submitted false or non-existent citations to the Court. The brief writer in question was experienced and credentialed, and we relied on her professionalism and prior performance. At no point did we intend to mislead the Court or submit citations not grounded in valid legal authority.”

A lawyer in Louisiana blames Westlaw (a legal research tool)

The lawyer “acknowledge[d] the cited authorities were inaccurate and mistakenly verified using Westlaw Precision, an AI-assisted research tool, rather than Westlaw’s standalone legal database.” The lawyer further wrote that she “now understands that Westlaw Precision incorporates AI-assisted research, which can generate fictitious legal authority if not independently verified. She testified she was unable to provide the Court with this research history because the lawyer who produced the AI-generated citations is currently suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana:

“In the interest of transparency and candor, counsel apologizes to the Court and opposing counsel and accepts full responsibility for the oversight. Undersigned counsel now understands that Westlaw Precision incorporates AI-assisted research, which can generate fictitious legal authority if not independently verified. Since discovering the error, all citations in this memorandum have been independently confirmed, and a Motion for Leave to amend the Motion to Transfer has been filed to withdraw the erroneous citations. Counsel has also implemented new safeguards, including manual cross-checking in non AI-assisted databases, to prevent future mistakes.”

“At the time, undersigned counsel understood these authorities to be accurate and reliable. Undersigned counsel made edits and finalized the pleading but failed to independently verify every citation before filing it. Undersigned counsel takes responsibility for this oversight.

Undersigned counsel wants the Court to know that she takes this matter extremely seriously. Undersigned counsel holds the ethical obligations of our profession in the highest regard and apologizes to opposing counsel and the Court for this mistake. Undersigned counsel remains fully committed to the ethical obligations as an officer of the court and the standards expected by this Court going forward, which is evidenced by requesting leave to strike the inaccurate citations. Most importantly, undersigned counsel has taken steps to ensure this oversight does not happen again.”

A lawyer in New York says the death of their spouse distracted them

“We understand the grave implications of misreporting case law to the Court. It is not our intention to do so, and the issue is being investigated internally in our office,” the lawyer in the case wrote.

“The Opposition was drafted by a clerk. The clerk reports that she used Google for research on the issue,” they wrote. “The Opposition was then sent to me for review and filing. I reviewed the draft Opposition but did not check the citations. I take full responsibility for failing to check the citations in the Opposition. I believe the main reason for my failure is due to the recent death of my spouse … My husband’s recent death has affected my ability to attend to the practice of law with the same focus and attention as before.”

A lawyer in California says it was ‘a legal experiment’

This is a weird one, and has to do with an AI-generated petition filed three times in an antitrust lawsuit brought against Apple by the Coronavirus Reporter Corporation. The lawyer in the case explained that he created the document as a “legal experiment.” He wrote:

“I also ‘approved for distribution’ a Petition which Apple now seeks to strike. Apple calls the Petition a ‘manifesto,’ consistent with their five year efforts to deride us. But the Court should be aware that no human ever authored the Petition for Tim Cook’s resignation, nor did any human spend more than about fifteen minutes on it. I am quite weary of Artificial Intelligence, as I am weary of Big Tech, as the Court knows. We have never done such a test before, but we thought there was an interesting computational legal experiment here.

Apple has recently published controversial research that AI LLM's are, in short, not true intelligence. We asked the most powerful commercially available AI, ChatGPT o3 Pro ‘Deep Research’ mode, a simple question: ‘Did Judge Gonzales Rogers’ rebuke of Tim Cook’s Epic conduct create a legally grounded impetus for his termination as CEO, and if so, write a petition explaining such basis, providing contextual background on critics’ views of Apple’s demise since Steve Jobs’ death.’ Ten minutes later, the Petition was created by AI. I don't have the knowledge to know whether it is indeed 'intelligent,' but I was surprised at the quality of the work—so much so that (after making several minor corrections) I approved it for distribution and public input, to promote conversation on the complex implications herein. This is a matter ripe for discussion, and I request the motion be granted.”

Lawyers in Michigan blame an internet outage

“Unfortunately, difficulties were encountered on the evening of April 4 in assembling, sorting and preparation of PDFs for the approximately 1,500 pages of exhibits due to be electronically filed by Midnight. We do use artificial intelligence to supplement their research, along with strict verification and compliance checks before filing.

AI is incorporated into all of the major research tools available, including West and Lexis, and platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity. [We] do not rely on AI to write our briefs. We do include AI in their basic research and memorandums, and for checking spelling, syntax, and grammar. As Midnight approached on April 4, our computer system experienced a sudden and unexplainable loss of internet connection and loss of connection with the ECF [e-court filing] system … In the midst of experiencing these technical issues, we erred in our standard verification process and missed identifying incorrect text AI put in parentheticals in four cases in footnote 3, and one case on page 12, of the Opposition.”

Lawyers in Washington DC blame Grammarly, ProWritingAid, and an IT error

“After twenty years of using Westlaw, last summer I started using Lexis and its protege AI product as a natural language search engine for general legal propositions or to help formulate arguments in areas of the law where the courts have not spoken directly on an issue. I have never had a problem or issue using this tool and prior to recent events I would have highly recommended it. I failed to heed the warning provided by Lexis and did not double check the citations provided. Instead, I inserted the quotes, caselaw and uploaded the document to ProWritingAid. I used that tool to edit the brief and at one point used it to replace all the square brackets ( [ ) with parentheses.

In preparing and finalizing the brief, I used the following software tools: Pages with Grammarly and ProWritingAid ... through inadvertence or oversight, I was unaware quotes had been added or that I had included a case that did not actually exist … I immediately started trying to figure out what had happened. I spent all day with IT trying to figure out what went wrong.”

A lawyer in Texas blames their email, their temper, and their legal assistant

“Throughout May 2025, Counsel's office experienced substantial technology related problems with its computer and e-mail systems. As a result, a number of emails were either delayed or not received by Counsel at all. Counsel also possesses limited technological capabilities and relies on his legal assistant for filing documents and transcription - Counsel still uses a dictation phone. However, Counsel's legal assistant was out of the office on the date Plaintiffs Response was filed, so Counsel's law clerk had to take over her duties on that day (her first time filing). Counsel's law clerk had been regularly assisting Counsel with the present case and expressed that this was the first case she truly felt passionate about … While completing these items, Counsel's law clerk had various issues, including with sending opposing counsel the Joint Case Management Plan which required a phone conference to rectify. Additionally, Counsel's law clerk believed that Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was also due that day when it was not.

In midst of these issues, Counsel - already missing his legal assistant - became frustrated. However, Counsel's law clerk said she had already completed Plaintiff's Response and Counsel immediately read the draft but did not thoroughly examine the cases cited therein … unbeknownst to Counsel and to his dismay, Counsel's law clerk did use artificial intelligence in drafting Plaintiff's Response. Counsel immediately instituted a strict policy prohibiting his staff from using artificial intelligence without exception - Counsel doesn't use artificial intelligence, so neither shall his staff.

Second, Counsel now requires any staff assisting in drafting documents to provide Counsel with a printout of each case cited therein with the passage(s) being relied on highlighted or marked.”

The lawyer also submitted an invoice from a company called Mainframe Computers for $480 which include line items for “Install office,” “printer not working and computer restarting,” “fixes with email and monitors and default fonts,” and “computer errors, change theme, resolution, background, and brightness.”

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now

18 Lawyers Caught Using AI Explain Why They Did It

^{Jason Koebler (404 Media)}

404 Media

2025-07-21 17:19:12

The NIH Is Capping Research Proposals Because It's Overwhelmed by AI Submissions

The National Institutes of Health claims it’s being strained by an onslaught of AI-generated research applications and is capping the number of proposals researchers can submit in a year.

In a new policy announcement on July 17, titled “Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications,” the NIH wrote that it has recently “observed instances of Principal Investigators submitting large numbers of applications, some of which may have been generated with AI tools,” and that this influx of submissions “may unfairly strain NIH’s application review process.”

“The percentage of applications from Principal Investigators submitting an average of more than six applications per year is relatively low; however, there is evidence that the use of AI tools has enabled Principal Investigators to submit more than 40 distinct applications in a single application submission round,” the NIH policy announcement says. “NIH will not consider applications that are either substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, to be original ideas of applicants. If the detection of AI is identified post award, NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct while simultaneously taking enforcement actions including but not limited to disallowing costs, withholding future awards, wholly or in part suspending the grant, and possible termination.”

Starting on September 25, NIH will only accept six “new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications” from individual principal investigators or program directors in a calendar year.

Earlier this year, 404 Media investigated AI used in published scientific papers by searching for the phrase “as of my last knowledge update” on Google Scholar, and found more than 100 results—indicating that at least some of the papers relied on ChatGPT, which updates its knowledge base periodically. And in February, a journal published a paper with several clearly AI-generated images, including one of a rat with a giant penis. In 2023, Nature reported that academic journals retracted 10,000 "sham papers," and the Wiley-owned Hindawi journals retracted over 8,000 fraudulent paper-mill articles. Wiley discontinued the 19 journals overseen by Hindawi. AI-generated submissions affect non-research publications, too: The science fiction and fantasy magazine Clarkesworld stopped accepting new submissions in 2023 because editors were overwhelmed by AI-generated stories.

According to an analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, from February 28 to April 8, the Trump administration terminated $1.81 billion in NIH grants, in subjects including aging, cancer, child health, diabetes, mental health and neurological disorders, NBC reported.

Just before the submission limit announcement, on July 14, Nature reported that the NIH would “soon disinvite dozens of scientists who were about to take positions on advisory councils that make final decisions on grant applications for the agency,” and that staff members “have been instructed to nominate replacements who are aligned with the priorities of the administration of US President Donald Trump—and have been warned that political appointees might still override their suggestions and hand-pick alternative reviewers.”

The NIH Office of Science Policy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump administration cut more than $1.8 billion in NIH grants

The Trump administration terminated $1.81 billion in National Institutes of Health grants in less than 40 days, including $544 million in as-yet-unspent funds.

^{Aria Bendix (NBC News)}

404 Media

2025-06-23 14:11:40

'A Black Hole of Energy Use': Meta's Massive AI Data Center Is Stressing Out a Louisiana Community

A massive data center for Meta’s AI will likely lead to rate hikes for Louisiana customers, but Meta wants to keep the details under wraps.

Holly Ridge is a rural community bisected by US Highway 80, gridded with farmland, with a big creek—it is literally named Big Creek—running through it. It is home to rice and grain mills and an elementary school and a few houses. Soon, it will also be home to Meta’s massive, 4 million square foot AI data center hosting thousands of perpetually humming servers that require billions of watts of energy to power. And that energy-guzzling infrastructure will be partially paid for by Louisiana residents.

The plan is part of what Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said would be “a defining year for AI.” On Threads, Zuckerberg boasted that his company was “building a 2GW+ datacenter that is so large it would cover a significant part of Manhattan,” posting a map of Manhattan along with the data center overlaid. Zuckerberg went on to say that over the coming years, AI “will drive our core products and business, unlock historic innovation, and extend American technology leadership. Let's go build! 💪”

Mark Zuckerberg (@zuck) on Threads
This will be a defining year for AI. In 2025, I expect Meta AI will be the leading assistant serving more than 1 billion people, Llama 4 will become the leading state of the art model, and we’ll build an AI engineer that will start contributing increasing amounts of code to our R&D efforts. To power this, Meta is building a 2GW+ datacenter that is so large it would cover a significant part of Manhattan.
Threads

What Zuckerberg did not mention is that "Let's go build" refers not only to the massive data center but also three new Meta-subsidized, gas power plants and a transmission line to fuel it serviced by Entergy Louisiana, the region’s energy monopoly.

Key details about Meta’s investments with the data center remain vague, and Meta’s contracts with Entergy are largely cloaked from public scrutiny. But what is known is the $10 billion data center has been positioned as an enormous economic boon for the area—one that politicians bent over backward to facilitate—and Meta said it will invest $200 million into “local roads and water infrastructure.”

A January report from NOLA.com said that the the state had rewritten zoning laws, promised to change a law so that it no longer had to put state property up for public bidding, and rewrote what was supposed to be a tax incentive for broadband internet meant to bridge the digital divide so that it was only an incentive for data centers, all with the goal of luring in Meta.

But Entergy Louisiana’s residential customers, who live in one of the poorest regions of the state, will see their utility bills increase to pay for Meta’s energy infrastructure, according to Entergy’s application. Entergy estimates that amount will be small and will only cover a transmission line, but advocates for energy affordability say the costs could balloon depending on whether Meta agrees to finish paying for its three gas plants 15 years from now. The short-term rate increases will be debated in a public hearing before state regulators that has not yet been scheduled.

The Alliance for Affordable Energy called it a “black hole of energy use,” and said “to give perspective on how much electricity the Meta project will use: Meta’s energy needs are roughly 2.3x the power needs of Orleans Parish … it’s like building the power impact of a large city overnight in the middle of nowhere.”

404 Media reached out to Entergy for comment but did not receive a response.

By 2030, Entergy’s electricity prices are projected to increase 90 percent from where they were in 2018, although the company attributes much of that to damage to infrastructure from hurricanes. The state already has a high energy cost burden in part because of a storm damage to infrastructure, and balmy heat made worse by climate change that drives air conditioner use. The state's homes largely are not energy efficient, with many porous older buildings that don’t retain heat in the winter or remain cool in the summer.

“You don't just have high utility bills, you also have high repair costs, you have high insurance premiums, and it all contributes to housing insecurity,” said Andreanecia Morris, a member of Housing Louisiana, which is opposed to Entergy’s gas plant application. She believes Meta’s data center will make it worse. And Louisiana residents have reasons to distrust Entergy when it comes to passing off costs of new infrastructure: in 2018, the company’s New Orleans subsidiary was caught paying actors to testify on behalf of a new gas plant. “The fees for the gas plant have all been borne by the people of New Orleans,” Morris said.

In its application to build new gas plants and in public testimony, Entergy says the cost of Meta’s data center to customers will be minimal and has even suggested Meta’s presence will make their bills go down. But Meta’s commitments are temporary, many of Meta’s assurances are not binding, and crucial details about its deal with Entergy are shielded from public view, a structural issue with state energy regulators across the country.

AI data centers are being approved at a breakneck pace across the country, particularly in poorer regions where they are pitched as economic development projects to boost property tax receipts, bring in jobs and where they’re offered sizable tax breaks. Data centers typically don’t hire many people, though, with most jobs in security and janitorial work, along with temporary construction work. And the costs to the utility’s other customers can remain hidden because of a lack of scrutiny and the limited power of state energy regulators. Many data centers—like the one Meta is building in Holly Ridge—are being powered by fossil fuels. This has led to respiratory illness and other health risks and emitting greenhouse gasses that fuel climate change. In Memphis, a massive data center built to launch a chatbot for Elon Musks’ AI company is powered by smog-spewing methane turbines, in a region that leads the state for asthma rates.

“In terms of how big these new loads are, it's pretty astounding and kind of a new ball game,” said Paul Arbaje, an energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is opposing Entergy’s proposal to build three new gas-powered plants in Louisiana to power Meta’s data center.

Entergy Louisiana submitted a request to the state’s regulatory body to approve the construction of the new gas-powered plants that would create 2.3 gigawatts of power and cost $3.2 billion in the 1440 acre Franklin Farms megasite in Holly Ridge, an unincorporated community of Richland Parish. It is the first big data center announced since Louisiana passed large tax breaks for data centers last summer.

In its application to the public utility commission for gas plants, Entergy says that Meta has a planned investment of $5 billion in the region to build the gas plants in Richland Parish, Louisiana, where it claims in its application that the data center will employ 300-500 people with an average salary of $82,000 in what it points out is “a region of the state that has long struggled with a lack of economic development and high levels of poverty.” Meta’s official projection is that it will employ more than 500 people once the data center is operational. Entergy plans for the gas plants to be online by December 2028.

In testimony, Entergy officials refused to answer specific questions about job numbers, saying that the numbers are projections based on public statements from Meta.

A spokesperson for Louisiana’s Economic Development told 404 Media in an email that Meta “is contractually obligated to employ at least 500 full-time employees in order to receive incentive benefits.”

When asked about jobs, Meta pointed to a public facing list of its data centers, many of which the company says employ more than 300 people. A spokesperson said that the projections for the Richland Parish site are based on the scale of the 4 million square foot data center. The spokesperson said the jobs will include “engineering and other technical positions to operational roles and our onsite culinary staff.”

When asked if its job commitments are binding, the spokesperson declined to answer, saying, “We worked closely with Richland Parish and Louisiana Economic Development on mutually beneficial agreements that will support long-term growth in the area.”

Others are not as convinced. “Show me a data center that has that level of employment,” says Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy in Louisiana.

Entergy has argued the new power plants are necessary to satiate the energy need from Meta’s massive hyperscale data center, which will be Meta’s largest data center and potentially the largest data center in the United States. It amounts to a 25 percent increase in Entergy Louisiana’s current load, according to the Alliance for Affordable Energy.

Entergy requested an exemption from a state law meant to ensure that it develops energy at the lowest cost by issuing a public request for proposals, claiming in its application and testimony that this would slow them down and cause them to lose their contracts with Meta.

Meta has agreed to subsidize the first 15 years of payments for construction of the gas plants, but the plant’s construction is being financed over 30 years. At the 15 year mark, its contract with Entergy ends. At that point, Meta may decide it doesn’t need three gas plants worth of energy because computing power has become more efficient or because its AI products are not profitable enough. Louisiana residents would be stuck with the remaining bill.

“It's not that they're paying the cost, they're just paying the mortgage for the time that they're under contract,” explained Devi Glick, an electric utility analyst with Synapse Energy.

When asked about the costs for the gas plants, a Meta spokesperson said, “Meta works with our utility partners to ensure we pay for the full costs of the energy service to our data centers.” The spokesperson said that any rate increases will be reviewed by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. These applications, called rate cases, are typically submitted by energy companies based on a broad projection of new infrastructure projects and energy needs.

Meta has technically not finalized its agreement with Entergy but Glick believes the company has already invested enough in the endeavor that it is unlikely to pull out now. Other companies have been reconsidering their gamble on AI data centers: Microsoft reversed course on centers requiring a combined 2 gigawatts of energy in the U.S. and Europe. Meta swept in to take on some of the leases, according to Bloomberg.

And in the short-term, Entergy is asking residential customers to help pay for a new transmission line for the gas plants at a cost of more than $500 million, according to Entergy’s application to Louisiana’s public utility board. In its application, the energy giant said customers’ bills will only rise by $1.66 a month to offset the costs of the transmission lines. Meta, for its part, said it will pay up to $1 million a year into a fund for low-income customers. When asked about the costs of the new transmission line, a Meta spokesperson said, “Like all other new customers joining the transmission system, one of the required transmission upgrades will provide significant benefits to the broader transmission system. This transmission upgrade is further in distance from the data center, so it was not wholly assigned to Meta.”

When Entergy was questioned in public testimony on whether the new transmission line would need to be built even without Meta’s massive data center, the company declined to answer, saying the question was hypothetical.

Some details of Meta’s contract with Entergy have been made available to groups legally intervening in Entergy’s application, meaning that they can submit testimony or request data from the company. These parties include the Alliance for Affordable Energy, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But Meta—which will become Entergy’s largest customer by far and whose presence will impact the entire energy grid—is not required to answer questions or divulge any information to the energy board or any other parties. The Alliance for Affordable Energy and Union of Concerned Scientists attempted to make Meta a party to Entergy’s application—which would have required it to share information and submit to questioning—but a judge denied that motion on April 4.

The public utility commissions that approve energy infrastructure in most states are the main democratic lever to assure that data centers don’t negatively impact consumers. But they have no oversight over the tech companies running the data centers or the private companies that build the centers, leaving residential customers, consumer advocates and environmentalists in the dark. This is because they approve the power plants that fuel the data centers but do not have jurisdiction over the data centers themselves.

“This is kind of a relic of the past where there might be some energy service agreement between some large customer and the utility company, but it wouldn't require a whole new energy facility,” Arbaje said.

A research paper by Ari Peskoe and Eliza Martin published in March looked at 50 regulatory cases involving data centers, and found that tech companies were pushing some of the costs onto utility customers through secret contracts with the utilities. The paper found that utilities were often parroting rhetoric from AI boosting politicians—including President Biden—to suggest that pushing through permitting for AI data center infrastructure is a matter of national importance.

“The implication is that there’s no time to act differently,” the authors wrote.

In written testimony sent to the public service commission, Entergy CEO Phillip May argued that the company had to bypass a legally required request for proposals and requirement to find the cheapest energy sources for the sake of winning over Meta.

“If a prospective customer is choosing between two locations, and if that customer believes that location A can more quickly bring the facility online than location B, that customer is more likely to choose to build at location A,” he wrote.

Entergy also argues that building new gas plants will in fact lower electricity bills because Meta, as the largest customer for the gas plants, will pay a disproportionate share of energy costs. Naturally, some are skeptical that Entergy would overcharge what will be by far their largest customer to subsidize their residential customers. “They haven't shown any numbers to show how that's possible,” Burke says of this claim. Meta didn’t have a response to this specific claim when asked by 404 Media.

Some details, like how much energy Meta will really need, the details of its hiring in the area and its commitment to renewables are still cloaked in mystery.

“We can't ask discovery. We can't depose. There's no way for us to understand the agreement between them without [Meta] being at the table,” Burke said.

It’s not just Entergy. Big energy companies in other states are also pushing out costly fossil fuel infrastructure to court data centers and pushing costs onto captive residents. In Kentucky, the energy company that serves the Louisville area is proposing 2 new gas plants for hypothetical data centers that have yet to be contracted by any tech company. The company, PPL Electric Utilities, is also planning to offload the cost of new energy supply onto its residential customers just to become more competitive for data centers.

“It's one thing if rates go up so that customers can get increased reliability or better service, but customers shouldn't be on the hook to pay for new power plants to power data centers,” Cara Cooper, a coordinator with Kentuckians for Energy Democracy, which has intervened on an application for new gas plants there.

These rate increases don’t take into account the downstream effects on energy; as the supply of materials and fuel are inevitably usurped by large data center load, the cost of energy goes up to compensate, with everyday customers footing the bill, according to Glick with Synapse.

Glick says Entergy’s gas plants may not even be enough to satisfy the energy needs of Meta’s massive data center. In written testimony, Glick said that Entergy will have to either contract with a third party for more energy or build even more plants down the line to fuel Meta’s massive data center.

To fill the gap, Entergy has not ruled out lengthening the life of some of its coal plants, which it had planned to close in the next few years. The company already pushed back the deactivation date of one of its coal plants from 2028 to 2030.

The increased demand for gas power for data centers has already created a widely-reported bottleneck for gas turbines, the majority of which are built by 3 companies. One of those companies, Siemens Energy, told Politico that turbines are “selling faster than they can increase manufacturing capacity,” which the company attributed to data centers.

Most of the organizations concerned about the situation in Louisiana view Meta’s massive data center as inevitable and are trying to soften its impact by getting Entergy to utilize more renewables and make more concrete economic development promises.

Andreanecia Morris, with Housing Louisiana, believes the lack of transparency from public utility commissions is a bigger problem than just Meta. “Simply making Meta go away, isn't the point,” Morris says. “The point has to be that the Public Service Commission is held accountable.”

Burke says Entergy owns less than 200 megawatts of renewable energy in Louisiana, a fraction of the fossil fuels it is proposing to fuel Meta’s center. Entergy was approved by Louisiana’s public utility commission to build out three gigawatts of solar energy last year , but has yet to build any of it.

“They're saying one thing, but they're really putting all of their energy into the other,” Burke says.

New gas plants are hugely troubling for the climate. But ironically, advocates for affordable energy are equally concerned that the plants will lie around disused - with Louisiana residents stuck with the financing for their construction and upkeep. Generative AI has yet to prove its profitability and the computing heavy strategy of American tech companies may prove unnecessary given less resource intensive alternatives coming out of China.

“There's such a real threat in such a nascent industry that what is being built is not what is going to be needed in the long run,” said Burke. “The challenge remains that residential rate payers in the long run are being asked to finance the risk, and obviously that benefits the utilities, and it really benefits some of the most wealthy companies in the world, But it sure is risky for the folks who are living right next door.”

The Alliance for Affordable Energy expects the commission to make a decision on the plants this fall.

Want to build a gas plant? Get in line. - E&E News by POLITICO

A program in Texas shows how political enthusiasm can’t escape the limits of the supply chain.

^{Jason Plautz (E&E News by POLITICO)}

404 Media

2025-06-17 14:47:09

Meta Invents New Way to Humiliate Users With Feed of People's Chats With AI

I was sick last week, so I did not have time to write about the Discover Tab in Meta’s AI app, which, as Katie Notopoulos of Business Insider has pointed out, is the “saddest place on the internet.” Many very good articles have already been written about it, and yet, I cannot allow its existence to go unremarked upon in the pages of 404 Media.

If you somehow missed this while millions of people were protesting in the streets, state politicians were being assassinated, war was breaking out between Israel and Iran, the military was deployed to the streets of Los Angeles, and a Coinbase-sponsored military parade rolled past dozens of passersby in Washington, D.C., here is what the “Discover” tab is: The Meta AI app, which is the company’s competitor to the ChatGPT app, is posting users’ conversations on a public “Discover” page where anyone can see the things that users are asking Meta’s chatbot to make for them.

This includes various innocuous image and video generations that have become completely inescapable on all of Meta’s platforms (things like “egg with one eye made of black and gold,” “adorable Maltese dog becomes a heroic lifeguard,” “one second for God to step into your mind”), but it also includes entire chatbot conversations where users are seemingly unknowingly leaking a mix of embarrassing, personal, and sensitive details about their lives onto a public platform owned by Mark Zuckerberg. In almost all cases, I was able to trivially tie these chats to actual, real people because the app uses your Instagram or Facebook account as your login.

In several minutes last week, I saved a series of these chats into a Slack channel I created and called “insanemetaAI.” These included:

• entire conversations about “my current medical condition,” which I could tie back to a real human being with one click
• details about someone’s life insurance plan
• “At a point in time with cerebral palsy, do you start to lose the use of your legs cause that’s what it’s feeling like so that’s what I’m worried about”
• details about a situationship gone wrong after a woman did not like a gift
• an older disabled man wondering whether he could find and “afford” a young wife in Medellin, Colombia on his salary (“I'm at the stage in my life where I want to find a young woman to care for me and cook for me. I just want to relax. I'm disabled and need a wheelchair, I am severely overweight and suffer from fibromyalgia and asthma. I'm 5'9 280lb but I think a good young woman who keeps me company could help me lose the weight.”)
• “What counties [sic] do younger women like older white men? I need details. I am 66 and single. I’m from Iowa and am open to moving to a new country if I can find a younger woman.”
• “My boyfriend tells me to not be so sensitive, does that affect him being a feminist?”

Rachel Tobac, CEO of Social Proof Security, compiled a series of chats she saw on the platform and messaged them to me. These are even crazier and include people asking “What cream or ointment can be used to soothe a bad scarring reaction on scrotum sack caused by shaving razor,” “create a letter pleading judge bowser to not sentence me to death over the murder of two people” (possibly a joke?), someone asking if their sister, a vice president at a company that “has not paid its corporate taxes in 12 years,” could be liable for that, audio of a person talking about how they are homeless, and someone asking for help with their cancer diagnosis, someone discussing being newly sexually interested in trans people, etc.

Tobac gave me a list of the types of things she’s seen people posting in the Discover feed, including people’s exact medical issues, discussions of crimes they had committed, their home addresses, talking to the bot about extramarital affairs, etc.

“When a tool doesn’t work the way a person expects, there can be massive personal security consequences,” Tobac told me.

“Meta AI should pause the public Discover feed,” she added. “Their users clearly don’t understand that their AI chat bot prompts about their murder, cancer diagnosis, personal health issues, etc have been made public. [Meta should have] ensured all AI chat bot prompts are private by default, with no option to accidentally share to a social media feed. Don’t wait for users to accidentally post their secrets publicly. Notice that humans interact with AI chatbots with an expectation of privacy, and meet them where they are at. Alert users who have posted their prompts publicly and that their prompts have been removed for them from the feed to protect their privacy.”

Since several journalists wrote about this issue, Meta has made it clearer to users when interactions with its bot will be shared to the Discover tab. Notopoulos reported Monday that Meta seemed to no longer be sharing text chats to the Discover tab. When I looked for prompts Monday afternoon, the vast majority were for images. But the text prompts were back Tuesday morning, including a full audio conversation of a woman asking the bot what the statute of limitations are for a woman to press charges for domestic abuse in the state of Indiana, which had taken place two minutes before it was shown to me. I was also shown six straight text prompts of people asking questions about the movie franchise John Wick, a chat about “exploring historical inconsistencies surrounding the Holocaust,” and someone asking for advice on “anesthesia for obstetric procedures.”

I was also, Tuesday morning, fed a lengthy chat where an identifiable person explained that they are depressed: “just life hitting me all the wrong ways daily.” The person then left a comment on the post “Was this posted somewhere because I would be horrified? Yikes?”

Several of the chats I saw and mentioned in this article are now private, but most of them are not. I can imagine few things on the internet that would be more invasive than this, but only if I try hard. This is like Google publishing your search history publicly, or randomly taking some of the emails you send and publishing them in a feed to help inspire other people on what types of emails they too could send. It is like Pornhub turning your searches or watch history into a public feed that could be trivially tied to your actual identity. Mistake or not, feature or not (and it’s not clear what this actually is), it is crazy that Meta did this; I still cannot actually believe it.

In an industry full of grifters and companies hell-bent on making the internet worse, it is hard to think of a more impactful, worse actor than Meta, whose platforms have been fully overrun with viral AI slop, AI-powered disinformation, AI scams, AI nudify apps, and AI influencers and whose impact is outsized because billions of people still use its products as their main entry point to the internet. Meta has shown essentially zero interest in moderating AI slop and spam and as we have reported many times, literally funds it, sees it as critical to its business model, and believes that in the future we will all have AI friends on its platforms. While reporting on the company, it has been hard to imagine what rock bottom will be, because Meta keeps innovating bizarre and previously unimaginable ways to destroy confidence in social media, invade people’s privacy, and generally fuck up its platforms and the internet more broadly.

If I twist myself into a pretzel, I can rationalize why Meta launched this feature, and what its idea for doing so is. Presented with an empty text box that says “Ask Meta AI,” people do not know what to do with it, what to type, or what to do with AI more broadly, and so Meta is attempting to model that behavior for people and is willing to sell out its users’ private thoughts to do so. I did not have “Meta will leak people’s sad little chats with robots to the entire internet” on my 2025 bingo card, but clearly I should have.

‘AI Instagram Influencers’ Are Deepfaking Their Faces Onto Real Women’s Bodies

AI 'influencers' on Instagram have racked up hundreds of thousands of followers and millions of views by stealing reels from real women to make the AI seem more "believable."

^{Jason Koebler (404 Media)}