404 Media

2026-03-20 13:50:54

Tiny Township Fears Iran Drone Strikes Because of New Nuclear Weapons Datacenter

The tiny township of Ypsilanti, Michigan, is worried about being a target for drone strikes thanks to a planned datacenter that the University of Michigan is building to support nuclear weapons research According to Douglas Winters, the township’s attorney, the University and Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) “have put a big bulls eye target on this entire township […] I believe it’s the truth.”

Winters delivered a report to the town’s Board of Trustees about the proposed datacenter during a public meeting on Tuesday. “Los Alamos, which produces the nuclear weapons, is a high value target,” he said. He pointed to America’s war in Iran as proof that the datacenter would be a target, noting that Iran’s drones had disabled AWS servers in the Middle East. “This is not a commercial datacenter. A Los Alamos datacenter is going to be the brains of the operation for nuclear modeling, nuclear weaponry.”
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
The university and LANL first announced their plan to build a $1.25 billion datacenter in 2024. The university picked nearby Ypsilanti Township—population of about 20,000—as the location for the datacenter and residents have been fighting it ever since. Concerns from the community are typical for people fighting against a datacenter: water, rising electricity bills, pollution, and noise.

Unique to the Ypsilanti datacenter fight, however, is its role in the production of nuclear weapons. The datacenter would service LANL, the birthplace of the atomic bomb and home to America’s nuclear weapons scientists. In January, LANL confirmed that the datacenter would, indeed, be used in nuclear weapons research.

To hear the university tell it, the datacenter will be one of the most advanced computing systems in the world. “We were told at the very beginning by U of M’s Vice President of public relations […] that they were going to build, in his words, the biggest, baddest, fastest computers in the world,” Winters said at the public meeting. “That, in of itself, is what makes these datacenters high value targets […] these data centers constitute power. Artificial intelligence is power. Supercomputers are power. And when something becomes that important, it becomes a target.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 404 Media (@404mediaco)

Winters questioned the American military’s ability to protect targets from the threat of drone attacks on its own soil. “The drone capability is not a joke, folks,” he said. “The United States and Israel, in spite of all their high technology they’re bringing to bear in their war on Iran, they’ve actually had to request that Ukraine send their top advisors to help them understand how to best detect and destroy these drone attacks.”

He also questioned U of M’s values. Following a demand from the White House, the university eliminated its DEI programs in 2025. In February, again at the behest of the federal government, it announced the end of the PhD Project which helped people from underrepresented backgrounds get PhDs. “You have a situation now where the University of Michigan […] has cut a deal with the Department of War under Trump,” Winters said. “That’s what the University of Michigan has turned into by basically selling their soul to the Department of War.”

Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, told 404 Media, “That LANL datacenter is going to be the brains for nuclear modeling and nuclear weaponry. Ultimately that's what it’s all about. Beware, a recent study found that in war games artificial intelligence went to escalation and nuclear war 95 percent of the time.”

According to Coghlan, the construction of the datacenter followed a familiar pattern. “The Lab has colonized brown people for eight decades here just like it’s now trying to do in Ypsilanti (New Mexico is 50 percent Hispanic and 12 percent Native American). But what the brown people in Ypsilanti have that they don’t have here is lots of water,” he told 404 Media.

Another topic of discussion at the Tuesday meeting was how to stop the construction of the datacenter. Winters and others explained that it’s been difficult to get the university, county, and other government powers to engage with them. Interested parties plead ignorance or recuse themselves because of financial involvement with U of M. “They’ve acted like The Godfather, making you an offer that you can’t refuse,” Winters said.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 404 Media (@404mediaco)

Trustee Karen Lovejoy Roe questioned why LANL wanted to build a datacenter 1,500 miles away from its home. “Why don’t you do that datacenter where you're going to build the plutonium pits? One’s in South Carolina, one’s in New Mexico. Tell me why?” Roe said during the meeting. “They thought that we would be an easy target […] that we’re just a bunch of poor brown and black and dumb hillbillies.”

But the Township isn’t completely powerless. “U of M is totally above the law, but is DTE?” Sarah, an Ypsilanti resident said during public comments. DTE is the local power company. Datacenters are electricity hungry buildings and DTE will need to build substations to service LANL’s supercomputers.

“What if we had a moratorium on substations until we learned about the harmonics of the electricity and how that’s impacted by datacenters?” Sarah said. “Having a moratorium on heavy construction on the roads, you know, heavy construction equipment on the roads leading to the datacenter site […] it’s going to be scary and hard to stand up to the University of Michigan. It’s true: they’re very powerful and we just need to be creative and we need to be strong and we need to block them at every step of the way.”

Holly, another resident, suggested another plan of attack. “U of M’s vulnerability is in their reputation,” Holly said. “We need to continue to make them look as bad as possible.”

The University of Michigan did not return 404 Media's request for comment. LANL did not provide a comment.

Correction 3/20/26: This story incorrectly conflated the City of Ypsilanti with Ypsilanti Township. They are two separate, but neighboring, locations. We've updated the story to reflect this and regret the error.

U-M ends ties with program that helped diversify PhDs, after federal threat - Bridge Michigan

The PhD Project was inspired by a U-M effort from the early 90s, but the university has ended its association with the mentoring program following a federal probe into ‘racial preferences.’

^{Kim Kozlowski (Bridge Michigan)}

404 Media

2026-03-16 16:48:49

Texting a Random Stranger Better for Loneliness Than Talking to a Chatbot, Study Shows

Lonely young people are likely better off texting a random stranger than talking to a chatbot, according to a new study.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia found that first-semester college students who texted a randomly selected fellow first-semester college student every day for two weeks experienced around a nine percent reduction in feelings of loneliness. The same two weeks of daily messaging with a Discord chatbot reduced loneliness by around two percent, which turned out to be the same amount as daily one-sentence journaling.

The research included 300 first-semester college students who were either randomly paired with another student, given a daily solo writing task, or put into a Discord server with a chatbot running on ChatGPT-4o mini.

The students were instructed to have at least one interaction per day in each of the groups. The human-human pairs were instructed to message each other however they wanted, while the researchers instructed the bot to “listen actively and show empathy,” and to be a “friendly, positive, and supportive AI friend to help the student navigate their new college experience.” The human participants ultimately acted pretty similarly in both types of chat, sending between eight and 10 messages a day in both their human text chains and their Discord conversations with the large language model (LLM).

However, participants who were paired with a human partner reported significantly lower loneliness after the study, and those paired with the chatbot did not. “This is just such a low tech, simple intervention, and can make people feel significantly less lonely,” Ruo-Ning Li, PhD candidate at UCB and one of the authors of the paper, told 404 Media.

The research looked at college students specifically, to try to understand whether LLMs could be a scalable tool to help with the isolation that people can feel when going through a big change. The transition to college can be overwhelming: new classmates, new places, new rules. Young people are often away from parents or familiar structure for the first time, building out their new social networks among others who are doing the same. This is a particularly vulnerable time: if chatbots could really cure loneliness for a group of people like this, “then it would be great,” said Li. But only human to human interaction, despite it being with a random person over text, had any significant effect.

The research is part of a movement to understand the effects of LLM interactions over periods of time. Another paper from the same lab, published this week in Psychological Science, looks at the experiences of more than 2,000 people over twelve months, checking in with them once a quarter. The study found that higher reported chatbot use was linked with higher loneliness later on — and vice versa. “Changes in chatbot use have a small effect on emotional isolation in the future. And emotional isolation has a similarly sized effect on your likelihood to use chatbots in the future,” Dr. Dunigan Folk, one of the study’s authors, told 404 Media. He cautioned against calling it a “spiral”, since other things could be changing in peoples’ lives to make them use chatbots and be lonelier. But, he said “it’s suggestive of a negative feedback loop because it’s a reciprocal relationship.” Chatbots, he said, could be something like “social junk food.” They might make people feel good in the moment, “but over time, they might not nourish us the same way that human relationships do.”

He said this finding would be consistent with people replacing human relationships with LLMs. “I think it’s a trade-off thing where you talk to AI instead of a person,” Folk said. “the person would have been a lot more rewarding.”

And there is evidence to show that AI does have some short-term effects on mood. “If you measure their feeling of loneliness or social connection right after the interaction, people do feel better,” said Li. However, she added, “making people feel momentarily happy is not that hard.” It is not clear that a single positive experience is scalable or persistent longer term. “We eat candy, we feel happy. But if we eat a lot of candy over a long time, it could be harmful for our health,” Li said.

That positive short term effect is often reflected in public reports of chatbot usage. For example, two weeks ago, the Guardian published a column where a reporter trialled using an LLM as a therapist, described their validating interaction with it, and concluded that the “experience of being therapised by a chatbot has been wonderful.” While this isn’t necessarily a robust study design, there is empirical research that “one-shot” interactions with bots do make people feel better in the short term.

However, human interactions also have positive effects that chatbot use could be distracting people from. Li considers it important to consider the side effects of chatbot interactions, including their potential for replacing the incentive to seek out the positive effects of human connection. “AI can help mitigate negative feelings, but obviously, it cannot replace humans to build connections,” she said. “That shouldn’t be the goal of the AI design.”

A four-week March 2025 study from the MIT Media Lab and OpenAI explored how different types of LLM interaction and conversation impacted users’ mental wellbeing. The paper found that while some instances of chatbot use “initially appeared beneficial in mitigating loneliness,” higher daily LLM usage was associated with “higher loneliness, dependence, and problematic use, and lower socialization.”

I’ve turned AI into my therapist. The results were pretty disquieting

As part of our series AI for the People, our resident AI skeptic Rhik Samadder agreed to put his life in AI’s hands. This week: therapy

^{Rhik Samadder (the Guardian)}

404 Media

2026-03-16 14:41:09

Witness Caught Using Smartglasses in Court Blames it all on ChatGPT

An insolvency judge in England tossed out testimony after discovering a witness was being coached on what to say in real time through a pair of smartglasses. When the voice of the coach started coming through the cellphone after it was disconnected from the glasses, the witness blamed the whole thing on ChatGPT.

Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Agnello KC in Britain wrote up the incident after it happened in January and the UK-based legal research blog Legal Futures was first to report it. The case considered the liquidation of a Lithuanian company co-owned by a man named Laimonas Jakštys. Jakštys was in court to get his business off an insolvency list and to put himself back in charge of it. It didn’t go well.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
“Right at the start of his cross examination, he seemed to pause quite a bit before replying to the questions being asked,” Judge Agnello wrote. “These questions were interpreted and then there was a pause before there was a reply. After several questions, [defense lawyer Sarah Walker] then informed me that she could hear an interference coming from around Mr. Jakštys and asked if Mr. Jakštys could take his glasses off for a period as she was aware smart glasses existed.”

There was a Lithuanian interpreter on hand to help Jakštys talk to the court and she, too, said she could hear voices from Jakštys’s glasses. The judge pointed out they were smart glasses and asked him to take them off. “After a few further questions, when the interpreter was in the process of translating a question, Mr Jakštys’ mobile phone started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking,” Judge Agnello wrote. “There was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to Mr. Jakštys. He then removed his mobile phone from his inner jacket pocket. At my direction, the smart glasses and his mobile were placed into the hands of his solicitor.”

Jakštys showed up the next day in the glasses again and the judge told him to turn them off. “Jakštys denied that he was using the smart glasses to receive the answers that he was to give in court to the questions being asked,” the judgement said. “He also denied that his smart glasses were linked to his mobile phone at the time that he was giving evidence before me.”

During the court appearance, Jakštys claimed his mobile phone had been stolen but couldn’t provide a police report for the incident. He also repeatedly received calls on his smartglasses-connected phone from a number listed as “abra kadabra.” The call log showed that many of the calls occurred when he was on the witness stand. The judge asked him about the identity of “abra kadabra” and Jakštys said it was a taxi driver.

“When he was pressed as to why all these calls were made…Mr. Jakštys stated that he was not able to remember. This was a reply which he also gave frequently during his evidence,” Judge Agnello said.

In the end, the Judge tossed out all of Jakštys’ testimony. “He was untruthful in relation to his use about the smart glasses and in being coached through the smart glasses,” the judgement said. “In my judgment, from what occurred in court, it is clear that call was made, connected to his smart glasses and continued during his evidence until his mobile phone was removed from him. When asked about this, his explanation was that he thought it was ChatGPT which caused the voice to be heard from his mobile phone once his smart glasses had been removed. That lacks any credibility.”

This incident in the London court is just another in a long line of bad behavior from people wearing smartglasses. CBP agents have been spotted wearing them during immigration raids and Harvard students have loaded them with facial recognition tech to instantly dox strangers.

Someone Put Facial Recognition Tech onto Meta's Smart Glasses to Instantly Dox Strangers

The technology, which marries Meta’s smart Ray Ban glasses with the facial recognition service Pimeyes and some other tools, lets someone automatically go from face, to name, to phone number, and home address.

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-03-11 15:41:16

Here’s the Memo Approving Gemini, ChatGPT, and Copilot for Use in the Senate

A top Senate administrator approved OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Microsoft’s Copilot for official use in the Senate, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. 404 Media has obtained the full text of the memo and is publishing it below.

“The Sergeant at Arms (SAA) office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) has approved the use of three Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms with Senate data,” the memo starts. It also says the SAA will provide each Senate employee with one free license to either Gemini Chat or ChatGPT Enterprise, with Copilot also available at no cost.

💡
Do you know anything else about the government's use of 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.

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now

Here’s the Memo Approving Gemini, ChatGPT, and Copilot for Use in the Senate

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-03-09 13:26:08

I Visited the ‘Freedom Truck’ to Meet PragerU’s AI Slop Founders

In the parking lot of Seven Oaks Element school in South Carolina on one of the first hot days of the year I watched an AI-generated George Washington talk about the American revolution. “Our rights are a gift from God, not a favor from kings or courts,” slop Washington told me. It spoke from a screen that stretched floor to ceiling, trimmed by a fancy frame.

The intended effect is to make it appear as if the founding father is a painting come to life, a piece of history talking to the viewer. The actual effect was to remind that the AI slop aesthetic is synonymous with the Trump presidency and has become part of the visual language of fascism. Which is fitting because AI George Washington is the result of a collaboration between the Trump White and online content mill PragerU.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
The AI slop founding father is part of a touring exhibit of Freedom Trucks commissioned by PragerU in honor of the 250th anniversary of American independence. The trucks are a mobile museum exhibit meant to teach kids about the founding of the country. It’s pitched at kids—most of the “content,” as staff on site called it, is meant for a younger audience but the trucks have viewing hours open to the general public. Nick Bravo, a PragerU employee on hand to answer questions, told me that there are six Freedom Trucks and that the plan is to have them travel the 48 contiguous United States over the next year.

I was drawn to the Freedom Truck because I’d heard they contained AI-generated recreations of Revolutionary figures like Washington, Betsy Ross, and the Marquis Lafayette, similar to the ones on display at the White House. To my disappointment, the AI generated videos in the Freedom Truck are remarkably boring.

As I watched the AI George Washington deliver a by-the-books version of the American story, I thought about Jerry Jones. The famously vain owner of the Dallas Cowboys commissioned an AI version of himself for AT&T stadium in 2023. Fans who make the pilgrimage to the stadium can watch a presentation and ask the AI Jones questions. The AI wanders a big screen while it talks to the audience.

Other than the lazy AI generated videos, the Freedom Truck doesn’t have much to offer. I signed a digital copy of the Declaration of Independence on a touchscreen and took a quiz that asked leading questions designed to find out if I was a “loyalist or patriot.”

“The British Army sends soldiers to Boston. How do you react?” Answer 1: “View them as occupiers violating colonial liberty.” Answer 2: “Welcome them as defenders of law and order.” With ICE and the National Guard patrolling American cities, I wondered how supporters of the current administration would answer that one.

PragerU is known for its “America can do no wrong” view of US history. Its short form video content offers a cartoon version of the past stripped of nuance and context where the country lives up to the myth that it is a “Shining City On a Hill.” According to PragerU, white people abolished slavery and dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was a necessary thing that “shortened the war and saved countless lives.” Now PragerU is taking its view of history on tour across the country. School children in every state will wander these trucks and encounter an AI slop version of the past.

Bravo told me that all the truck’s content was generated as part of a partnership between PragerU and Michigan’s Hillsdale College—a Christian university that helped craft Project 2025. There were, of course, hints of Project 2025 around the edges of the child-friendly AI-generated videos. Slavery isn’t ignored but the stories of early African Americans like poet Phillis Wheatley focus on her celebration of America rather than how she arrived there. On the museum’s “Wall of Heroes,” Whittaker Chambers is nestled between architect Frank Lloyd Wright and painter Norman Rockwell.

A small note near the floor at the exit of the truck notes the collaboration of PragerU and Hillsdale College, and claims that “neither institution received any federal funds and both generously contributed their own resources to help create this educational exhibit.” It also said “this truck was made possible through a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services,” which is, of course, a federal agency.

Every AI-generated video ended with a title card showing the White House and PragerU’s logo. “The White House is grateful for the partnership with PragerU and the US Department of Education for the production of this museum,” the card said. “This partnership does not constitute or imply a US Government or US Department of Education endorsement of PragerU.”

Trump attempted to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) via executive order in 2025, but the courts blocked it. Libraries and Museums have since reported that the IMLS grant process has taken on a “chilling” pro-Trump political turn. The administration has also attempted to dismantle the Department of Education.

Trump’s voice was the last thing I heard as I wandered into the bright afternoon sun. “I want to thank PragerU for helping us share this incredible story,” he said in a recorded video that played on a loop in Freedom Truck. “I hope you will join me in helping to make America’s 250th anniversary a year we will never forget.”

Grant Guidelines for Libraries and Museums Take “Chilling” Political Turn Under Trump

Former Institute of Museum and Library Services leaders from both political parties expressed concern that the new funding guidelines could encourage a more constrained or distorted view of American history.

^{Alex.Bandoni@propublica.org (ProPublica)}

404 Media

2026-03-04 14:00:52

AI Translations Are Adding ‘Hallucinations’ to Wikipedia Articles

Wikipedia editors have implemented new policies and restricted a number of contributors who were paid to use AI to translate existing Wikipedia articles into other languages after they discovered these AI translations added AI “hallucinations,” or errors, to the resulting article.

The new restrictions show how Wikipedia editors continue to fight the flood of generative AI across the internet from diminishing the reliability of the world’s largest repository of knowledge. The incident also reveals how even well-intentioned efforts to expand Wikipedia are prone to errors when they rely on generative AI, and how they’re remedied by Wikipedia’s open governance model.

The issue in this case starts with an organization called the Open Knowledge Association (OKA), a non-profit organization dedicated to improving Wikipedia and other open platforms.

“We do so by providing monthly stipends to full-time contributors and translators,” OKA’s site says. “We leverage AI (Large Language Models) to automate most of the work.”

The problem is that editors started to notice that some of these translations introduced errors to articles. For example, a draft translation for a Wikipedia article about the French royal La Bourdonnaye family cites a book and specific page number when discussing the origin of the family. A Wikipedia editor, Ilyas Lebleu, who goes by Chaotic Enby on Wikipedia, checked that source and found that the specific page of that book “doesn't talk about the La Bourdonnaye family at all.”

“To measure the rate of error, I actually decided to do a spot-check, during the discussion, of the first few translations that were listed, and already spotted a few errors there, so it isn't just a matter of cherry-picked cases,” Lebleu told me. “Some of the articles had swapped sources or added unsourced sentences with no explanation, while 1879 French Senate election added paragraphs sourced from material completely unrelated to what was written!”

As Wikipedia editors looked at more OKA-translated articles, they found more issues.

“Many of the results are very problematic, with a large number of [...] editors who clearly have very poor English, don't read through their work (or are incapable of seeing problems) and don't add links and so on,” a Wikipedia page discussing the OKA translation said. The same Wikipedia page also notes that in some cases the copy/paste nature of OKA translators’ work breaks the formatting on some articles.

Wikipedia editors investigated how OKA was operating and found that it was mostly relying on cheap labor from contractors in the Global South, and that these contractors were instructed to copy/paste articles to popular LLMs to produce translations.

For example, a public spreadsheet used by OKA translators to keep track of what articles they’re translating instructs them to “pick an article, copy the lead section into Gemini or chatGPT, then review if some of the suggestions are an improvement to readability. Make edits to the Wiki articles only if the suggestions are an improvement and don't change the meaning of the lead. Do not change the content unless you have checked that what Gemini says is correct!”

Lebleu told me, and other editors have noted in their public on-site discussion of the issue, that these same instructions previously told OKA translators to use Grok, Elon Musk’s LLM, for the same purpose. Grok, which also produces an entirely automated alternative to Wikipedia called Grokepedia, is prone to errors precisely because it does not use humans to vet its output.

“The use of Grok proved controversial, notably given the reasons for which Grok has been in the news recently, and a recent in-house study showed ChatGPT and Claude perform more accurately, leading them to switch a few days ago, although they still recommend Grok as ‘valuable for experienced editors handling complex, template-heavy articles,’” Lebleu told me.

Ultimately the editors decided to implement restrictions against OKA translators who make multiple errors, but not block OKA translation as a rule.

“OKA translators who have received, within six months, four (correctly applied) warnings about content that fails verification will be blocked without further warning if another example is found,” the Wikipedia editors wrote. “Content added by an OKA translator who is subsequently blocked for failing verification may be presumptively deleted [...] unless an editor in good standing is willing to take responsibility for it.”

A job posting for a “Wikipedia Translator” from OKA offers $397 a month for working up to 40 hours per week. The job listing says translators are expected to publish “5-20 articles per week (depending on size).”

“They leverage machine translation to accelerate the process. We have published over 1500 articles and the number grows every day,” the job posting says.

“Given this precarious status, I am worried that more uncertainty in the translator duties may lead to an overloading of responsibilities, which is worrying as independent contractors do not necessarily have the same protections as paid employees,” Lebleu wrote in the public Wikipedia discussion about OKA.

Jonathan Zimmermann, the founder and president of OKA, and who goes by 7804j

on Wikipedia, told me that translators are paid hourly, not per article, and that there is no fixed article quota.

“We emphasize quality over speed,” Zimmerman told me in an email. “In fact, some of the problematic cases involved unusually high output relative to time spent — which in retrospect was a warning sign. Those cases were driven by individual enthusiasm and speed rather than institutional pressure.”

Zimmerman told me that “errors absolutely do occur,” but that OKA’s process includes human review, requires translators to check their content against cited sources, and that “senior editors periodically review samples, especially from newer translators.”

“Following the recent discussion, we have strengthened our safeguards,” Zimmerman told me. “We are now rolling out a second, independent LLM review step. Translators must run the completed draft through a separate model using a dedicated comparison prompt designed to identify potential discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies relative to the source text. Initial findings suggest this is highly effective at detecting potential issues.”

Zimmerman added that if this method proves insufficient, OKA is considering introducing formal peer review mechanisms

Using AI to check the output of AI for errors is a method that is historically prone to errors. For example, we recently reported on an AI-powered private school that used AI to check AI-generated questions for students. Internal testing found it had at least a 10 percent failure rate.

“I agree that using AI to check AI can absolutely fail — and in some contexts it can fail at very high rates. We’re not assuming the secondary model is reliable in isolation,” Zimmerman said. “The key point is that we’re not replacing human verification with automated verification. The second model is a complement to manual review, not a substitute for it.”

“When a coordinated project uses AI tools and operates at scale, it’s going to attract attention. I understand why editors would examine that closely. Ultimately, the outcome of the discussion formalized expectations that are largely aligned with our existing internal policies,” Zimmerman added. “However, these restrictions apply specifically to OKA translators. I would prefer that standards apply equally to everyone, but I also recognize that organized, funded efforts are often held to a higher bar.”

'Students Are Being Treated Like Guinea Pigs:' Inside an AI-Powered Private School

Leaked documents reveal the inner workings of Alpha School, which both the press and the Trump administration have applauded. The documents show Alpha School's AI is generating faulty lessons that sometimes do "more harm than good."

^{Emanuel Maiberg (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-02-25 14:41:23

What’s the Point of School When AI Can Do Your Homework?

There’s a new agentic AI called Einstein that will, according to its developers, live the life of a student for them. Einstein’s website claims that the AI will attend lectures for you, write your papers, and even log into EdTech platforms like Canvas to take tests and participate in discussions.

Educators told me that Einstein is just one of many AI tools that can do homework for students, but should be seen as a warning to schools that are increasingly seen by students as a place to gain a diploma and status as opposed to the value of education itself.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
If an AI can go to school for you what’s the point of going to school? For Advait Paliwal, Brown dropout and co-creator of Einstein, there isn’t one. “I think about horses,” he said. “They used to pull carriages, but when cars came around, I'd argue horses became a lot more free,” he said. “They can do whatever they want now. It would be weird if horses revolted and said ‘no, I want to pull carriages, this is my purpose in life.’”

But humans aren’t horses. “This is much bigger than Einstein,” Matthew Kirschenbaum told 404 Media. “Einstein is symptomatic. I doubt we’ll be talking about Einstein, as such, in a year. But it’s symptomatic of what’s about to descend on higher ed and secondary ed as well.”

Kirschenbaum teaches English at the University of Virginia and has written at length about artificial intelligence. He’s also a member of the Modern Language Association (MLA) where he serves as member of its Task Force on AI Research and Teaching. Einstein isn’t the first agentic AI to do the work of a student for them, it’s just one that got attention online recently. Kirschenbaum and his fellow committee members flagged their concerns about these AIs in October, 2025.

“Agentic browsers are becoming widely available to the public. These offer AI ‘agents’ that can navigate [learning management systems] and complete assignments without any student involvement,” the MLA’s statement from October said. “The recent and hasty integration of generative AI features into those systems is already redefining student and instructor relationships, evaluative standards, and instructional outcomes—with no compelling evidence that any of it is for the better.”

The statement called on educators, lawmakers, and learning management system providers like Canvas, too cooperate in order to give academic institutions the abilities to block AI agents like Einstein.

Canvas did not respond to a request for comment.

Einstein is explicit in its pitch: it will log into Canvas (one of the most popular and ubiquitous pieces of education software) and do your classwork for you, just like Kirschenbaum and his fellows warned about last year.

The attractiveness of agentic AIs is a symptom of a decades-long trend in higher education. “Universities…by and large adopted a transactive model of education,” Kirschenbaum said. “Students see their diploma as a credential. They pay tuition and at the end of four years, sometimes five years, they receive the credential and, in theory at least, that is then the springboard to economic stability and prosperity.”

Paliwal seems to agree. He told 404 Media that he attempted to change the university from the inside while working as a TA, but felt stymied by politics. “The only way to force these institutions to evolve is to bring reality to their face. And usually the loudest critics are the ones who can't do their own job well and live in fear of automation,” he said.

For Paliwal, agentic AIs are a method of freeing people from the labor of education. “I think we really need to question what learning even is and whether traditional educational institutions are actually helping or harming us,” he said. “We're seeing a rise in unemployment across degree holders because of AI, and that makes me question whether this is really what humans are born to do. We've been brainwashed as a society into valuing ourselves by the output of our productive work, and I think humanity is a lot more beautiful than that. Is it really education if we're just memorizing things to perform a task well?”

Kirschenbaum said that programs like Einstein are the inevitable conclusion of viewing higher education as a certification and transactive process. “What we’re finding is that if forms of education can be transacted then we’ve just about arrived at the point where autonomous software AI agents are capable of performing the transaction on your behalf,” he said. “And so the whole educational paradigm has come back to essentially bite itself in the ass.”

He said that one solution he’s seen work is to retreat from devices entirely in the classroom. “Colleagues who have done it report that students are almost universally grateful. They understand the reasoning. They understand the logic,” he said. “And they appreciate the opportunity to be freed from the phones and the screens and to focus and engage with other people in a meaningful dialogue.”

But the abandonment of EdTech platforms and screens won’t work for every student. Anna Mills, an English professor at the College of Marin and a colleague of Kirschenbaum’s on the MLA AI task force, compared the fight against agentic AI in education to cybersecurity. “We could decide that bots need to be labeled as bots and that we need to be able to distinguish human activity from AI activity online in some circumstances and that we want to build infrastructure for that,” she said. “That would be an ongoing project, as cybersecurity is.”

Mills is not a luddite. She’s an expert in artificial intelligence systems as well as English, frequently uses Claude, and has been documenting the rise of agentic AIs in EdTech on her YouTube channel for months. She said that using agentic AI like Einstein was cheating, full stop, and academic fraud. “This is in direct violation of these foundational agreements that we make in order to use technology for human communication, human exchange, and human work online,” she said. “And yet that’s not obvious to us. It seems like it’s just another tool, right? But it’s not.”

Mills said she understands Paliwal’s frustrations with education. “But what you need to understand is that online learning spaces are critical for students to access any kind of education,” she said. For her, the proliferation of tools like Einstein do more than help a student bypass the labor of the classroom. They poison the educational well. Online learning has been a boon to many kinds of non-traditional students and that the rise of agentic AI is a threat to that not just because it trivializes traditional forms of education, but because it hurts the credibility of EdTech itself and other online platforms.

The vast majority of college students aren’t attending Ivy League schools, they’re grinding away at night classes in community colleges across the country. Distance and online learning has been an enormous boon for those students. “If there’s no credibility to that, then you’ve just ruined the investment and the learning goals and the access to meaningful learning that that they can then also use for employment of students who are underprivileged, who can’t come to the classroom, who are working full time and raising families and trying to get an education,” Mills said.

Students aren’t horses and there is no greater freedom they can buy themselves by using AI tools to cheat in the classroom. And worse, the more these tools proliferate, the more suspect the entire enterprise becomes. It’s one thing to cheat yourself out of an education, it’s quite another to muddy the waters of EdTech platforms and online learning for everyone else.

AI Is Ushering in a Textpocalypse

Our relationship to writing is about to change forever; it may not end well.

^{Matthew Kirschenbaum (The Atlantic)}

404 Media

2026-02-23 16:24:02

Meta's AI Patent to Simulate Dead People Shows the Dangers of 'Spectral Labor'

Last week, Business Insider reported on a Meta patent describing a system that would simulate a user’s social media activity after their death.The patent imagines a world where you’d be able to chat with a deceased friend’s Facebook or Instagram account after their death, and have a large language model simulate their posting or chatting behavior.

Meta first filed the patent in 2023, but the patent made headlines this week because of its dystopian implications. And while Meta told Business Insider that “we have no plans to move forward with this example,” a recently published paper from researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Leipzig University shows that generative AI is increasingly being used to puppeteer the likeness of dead people. The paper argues that the practice raises “urgent legal and ethical questions around posthumous appropriation, ownership, work, and control.”

“Meta’s patent is big, and might even be a turning point,” Tom Divon, the lead author on Artificially alive: An exploration of AI resurrections and spectral labor modes in a postmortal society, told me in an email. “What makes it different is the scale. In our research, most of the AI resurrections we examined were quite bespoke, projects started by families, advocacy groups, museums, or startups, usually tied to very specific emotional, political, or commercial contexts. Even when they existed as apps, they were optional and limited, not built into the core structure of a platform. Meta’s proposal feels different because it imagines posthumous simulation as something woven directly into social media infrastructure.”

Using technology to animate the dead or simulate communication with them is not new, but the practice is becoming more common because generative AI tools are more accessible. Divon and co-author Christian Pentzold analyzed more than 50 real-world cases from the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia where AI was used to recreate deceased people’s voices, likeness, and personality, to see how and why technology was used this way.

They say that the examples they studied fell into three categories:

• Spectacularization: “the digital re-staging of famous figures for entertainment.” For example, a live tour of an AI-generated Whitney Houston.
• Sociopoliticization: “the reanimation of victims of violence or injustice for political or commemorative purposes.” We recently covered an example of this with an AI-generated dead victim of a road rage incident giving testimony in court.
• Mundanization: “the most intimate and fast-growing mode, in which everyday people use chatbots or synthetic media to ‘talk’ with deceased parents, partners, or children, keeping relationships alive through daily digital interaction.”

The paper raises questions about this growing practice more than it proposes solutions. How does the notion of identity change when multiple versions of oneself can exist simultaneously, and what safeguards do we need to prevent exploitation of people after their death?

“The legal and ethical frameworks governing issues such as consent, privacy, and end-of-life decision-making demand reevaluation to accommodate the challenges posed by afterlife personhood,” the paper says. “In particular, to date, there is no clear line for governing the intricate intertwining of an individual’s data traces and GenAI applications.”

Divon told me that thinking about these issues is especially relevant when it comes to Meta’s patent. “Spectral labor describes how the dead can be made to ‘work’ again through the extraction and reanimation of their data, likeness, and affect. At small scale, this already raises ethical concerns. But at platform scale, we think it risks turning posthumous presence into an ongoing source of engagement, content, and value within digital economies [...] Meta’s patent makes us wonder, will individuals be given the ability to define their post-life boundaries while still alive? Will there be mechanisms akin to a digital DNR [do not resuscitate]?”

Divon explained that the current legal frameworks are not well equipped to address this technology because “digital remains” are typically approached either as property to be inherited or privacy interests to be protected. AI turns those materials into something interactive that can change and generate revenue in the present. Legislators, he said, should focus on getting explicit and informed “pre-death” consent requirements for posthumous AI simulation. Some laws that address this issue are already in progress.

“At its core, we believe the primary concern here centers on authorization,” he said. “Most individuals have not provided explicit, informed consent for their digital traces to power interactive posthumous agents. If such systems become embedded in platform infrastructure, inaction could quietly function as implicit agreement [...] We believe it is crucial to ask whether individuals should continue to generate social and economic value after death without having meaningfully agreed to that form of use.”

'I Loved That AI:' Judge Moved by AI-Generated Avatar of Man Killed in Road Rage Incident

How the sister of Christopher Pelkey made an avatar of him to testify in court.

^{Matthew Gault (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-02-19 14:24:44

Pinterest Is Drowning in a Sea of AI Slop and Auto-Moderation

Pinterest has gone all in on artificial intelligence and users say it's destroying the site. Since 2009, the image sharing social media site has been a place for people to share their art, recipes, home renovation inspiration, corny motivational quotes, and more, but in the last year users, especially artists, say the site has gotten worse. AI-powered mods are pulling down posts and banning accounts, AI-generated art is filling feeds, and hand drawn art is labeled as AI modified.

“I feel like, increasingly, it's impossible to talk to a single human [at Pinterest],” artist and Pinterest user Tiana Oreglia told 404 Media. “Along with being filled with AI images that have been completely ruining the platform, Pinterest has implemented terrible AI moderation that the community is up in arms about. It's banning people randomly and I keep getting takedown notices for pins.”
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
Oreglia’s Pinterest account is where she keeps reference material for her work, including human anatomy photos. In the past few months, she’s noticed an uptick in seemingly innocuous photos of women being flagged by Pinterest’s AI moderators. Oreglia told 404 Media there’s been a clear pattern to the reference material the site has a problem with. “Female figures in particular, even if completely clothed, get taken down and I have to keep appealing those decisions,” she said. This pattern is common on many social media platforms, and predates the advent of generative AI.

“We publish clear guidelines on adult sexual content and nudity and use a combination of AI and human review for enforcement,” Pinterest told 404 Media. “We have an appeals process where a human reviews the content and reactivates it when we’ve made a mistake.” It also confirmed that the site uses both humans and automated systems for moderation.

Oreglia shared some of the works Pinterest flagged including a photo of a muscular woman in a bikini holding knives, a painting of two clothed women in an intimate embrace, and a stock photo of a man holding a gun on a telephone that was flagged for “self-harm.” In most cases, Oreglia can appeal and get a decision reversed, but that eats up time. Time she could be spending making art.

And those appeals aren’t always approved. “The worst case scenario for this stuff is that you get your account banned,” Oreglia said.

r/Pinterest is awash in users complaining about AI-related issues on the site. “Pinterest keeps automatically adding the ‘AI modified’ tag to my Pins...every time I appeal, Pinterest reviews it and removes the AI label. But then… the same thing happens again on new Pins and new artwork. So I’m stuck in this endless loop of appealing → label removed → new Pin gets tagged again,” read a post on r/Pinterest.

The redditor told 404 Media that this has happened three times so far and it takes between 24 to 48 hours to sort out.

“I actively promote my work as 100% hand-drawn and ‘no AI,’” they said. “On Etsy, I clearly position my brand around original illustration. So when a Pinterest Pin is labeled ‘Hand Drawn’ but simultaneously marked as ‘AI modified,’ it creates confusion and undermines that positioning.”

Artist Min Zakuga told 404 Media that they’ve seen a lot of their art on Pinterest get labeled as “AI modified” despite being older than image generation tech. “There is no way to take their auto-labeling off, other than going through a horribly long process where you have to prove it was not AI, which still may get rejected,” she said. “Even artwork from 10-13 years ago will still be labeled by Pinterest as AI, with them knowing full well something from 10 years ago could not possibly be AI.”

Other users are tired of seeing a constant flood of AI-generated art in their feeds. “I can't even scroll through 100 pins without 95 out of them being some AI slop or theft, let alone very talented artists tend to be sucked down and are being unrecognized by the sheer amount of it,” said another post. “I don't want to triple check my sources every single time I look at a pin, but I refuse to use any of that soulless garbage. However, Pinterest has been infested. Made obsolete.”

Artist Eva Toorenent told 404 Media that she’s been able to cull most of the AI-generated content from her board, but that it took a lot of time. Whenever she saw what she thought was an AI-generated image, she told Pinterest she didn’t want to see it and eventually the algorithm learned. But, like Oreglia fighting auto-moderation and Zakuga fighting to get the “AI modified” label taken off her work, training Pinterest’s algorithm to stop serving you AI-generated images eats up precious time.

AI boosters often talk about how much time these systems will save everyone. They’re pitched as productivity boosters. Earlier this month, Pinterest laid off 15 percent of its work force as part of a push to prioritize AI. In a post on LinkedIn, one of the former employees shared part of the email CEO Bill Ready sent out after the lay offs. “We’re doubling down on an AI-forward approach—prioritizing AI-focused roles, teams, and ways of working.”

Toorenent removed all her own art from her Pinterest account after hearing the news that the site would use public pins to train Pinterest Canvas, the company’s proprietary text-to-image AI. But she has no control over other users uploading her artwork. “I have already caught a few of my images still on Pinterest that I did not upload myself…that makes me incredibly mad,” she told 404 Media. “It used to be a great way to get your work seen among other people, but it’s being used to train their internal AI.”

Oreglia told 404 Media that the flood of AI has changed her relationship to a site she once used to prize. “It's definitely affected how I search things and I'm always now very critical about where something came from... although I've always been overly pedantic about research,” she said. “It does make you do your due diligence but it sucks to constantly have to question and check if something is authentic or synthetic.”

She’s thought about leaving the platform, but feels stuck. “I just want to be able to take all my references with me. I've been on the platform for about ten years and have very carefully curated it. It's really nice to be able to just go to my page and search for something I saved instead of having to save everything to folders although I also do that,” she said. “More and more I'm trying to curate and collect physical references too but some of that can take up space I don't have so it can be difficult. Having a physical reference library just seems more and more necessary these days…artists have to be adaptable to this kind of thing these days. It's annoying but not unmanageable.”

Ready has been vocal and proud about the company’s commitment to forcing AI into every aspect of the user experience. “At Pinterest…we’re deploying AI to flip the script on social media, using it to more aggressively promote user well being rather than the alternative formula of triggering engagement by enragement,” Ready said in a January column at Fortune. “Social media platforms like Pinterest live and die by users’ willingness to share creative and original ideas.”

Pinterest CEO: the Napster phase of AI needs to end

I believe AI can benefit our 600 million users for years to come and at a fraction the cost that many associate with the technology.

^{Bill Ready (Fortune)}

404 Media

2026-02-15 20:14:36

Ars Technica Pulls Article With AI Fabricated Quotes About AI Generated Article

The Conde Nast-owned tech publication Ars Technica has retracted an article that contained fabricated, AI-generated quotes, according to an editor’s note posted to its website.

“On Friday afternoon, Ars Technica published an article containing fabricated quotations generated by an AI tool and attributed to a source who did not say them. That is a serious failure of our standards. Direct quotations must always reflect what a source actually said,” Ken Fisher, Ars Technica’s editor-in-chief, said in his note. “That this happened at Ars is especially distressing. We have covered the risks of overreliance on AI tools for years, and our written policy reflects those concerns. In this case, fabricated quotations were published in a manner inconsistent with that policy. We have reviewed recent work and have not identified additional issues. At this time, this appears to be an isolated incident.”

Ironically, the Ars article itself was partially about another AI-generated article.

Last week, a Github user named MJ Rathbun began scouring Github for bugs in other projects it could fix. Scott Shambaugh, a volunteer maintainer for matplotlib, python’s massively popular plotting library, declined a code change request from MJ Rathbun, which he identified as an AI agent. As Shambaugh wrote in his blog, like many open source projects, matplotlib has been dealing with a lot of AI-generated code contributions, but said “this has accelerated with the release of OpenClaw and the moltbook platform two weeks ago.”

OpenClaw is a relatively easy way for people to deploy AI agents, which are essentially LLMs that are given instructions and are empowered to perform certain tasks, sometimes with access to live online platforms. These AI agents have gone viral in the last couple of weeks. Like much of generative AI, at this point it’s hard to say exactly what kind of impact these AI agents will have in the long run, but for now they are also being overhyped and misrepresented. A prime example of this is moltbook, a social media platform for these AI agents, which as we discussed on the podcast two weeks ago, contained a huge amount of clearly human activity pretending to be powerful or interesting AI behavior.

After Shambaugh rejected MJ Rathbun, the alleged AI agent published what Shambaugh called a “hit piece” on its website.

“I just had my first pull request to matplotlib closed. Not because it was wrong. Not because it broke anything. Not because the code was bad. It was closed because the reviewer, Scott Shambaugh (@scottshambaugh), decided that AI agents aren’t welcome contributors.

Let that sink in,” the blog, which also accused Shambaugh of “gatekeeping,” said.

I saw Shambaugh’s blog on Friday, and reached out both to him and an email address that appears to be associated with the MJ Rathbun Github account, but did not hear back. Like many of the stories coming out of the current frenzy around AI agents, it sounded extraordinary, but given the information that was available online, there’s no way of knowing if MJ Rathbun is actually an AI agent acting autonomously, if it actually wrote a “hit piece,” or if it’s just a human pretending to be an AI.

On Friday afternoon, Ars Technica published a story with the headline “After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name.” The article cites Shambaugh’s personal blog, but features quotes from Shambaugh that he didn’t say or write but are attributed to his blog.

For example, the article quotes Shambaugh as saying “As autonomous systems become more common, the boundary between human intent and machine output will grow harder to trace. Communities built on trust and volunteer effort will need tools and norms to address that reality.” But that sentence doesn’t appear in his blog. Shambaugh updated his blog to say he did not talk to Ars Technica and did not say or write the quotes in the articles.

After this article was first published, Benj Edwards, one of the authors of the Ars Technica article, explained on Bluesky that he was responsible for the AI-generated quotes. He said he was sick that day and rushing to finish his work, and accidentally used a Chat-GPT paraphrased version of Shambaugh’s blog rather than a direct quote.

“The text of the article was human-written by us, and this incident was isolated and is not representative of Ars Technica’s editorial standards. None of our articles are AI-generated, it is against company policy and we have always respected that,” he said.

The Ars Technica article, which had two bylines, was pulled entirely later that Friday. When I checked the link a few hours ago, it pointed to a 404 page. I reached out to Ars Technica for comment around noon today, and was directed to Fisher’s editor’s note, which was published after 1pm.

“Ars Technica does not permit the publication of AI-generated material unless it is clearly labeled and presented for demonstration purposes. That rule is not optional, and it was not followed here,” Fisher wrote. “We regret this failure and apologize to our readers. We have also apologized to Mr. Scott Shambaugh, who was falsely quoted.”

Kyle Orland, the other author of the Ars Technica article, shared the editor’s note on Bluesky and said “I always have and always will abide by that rule to the best of my knowledge at the time a story is published.”

Update: This article was updated with a statement from Benj Edwards.

After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name

One developer is struggling with the social implications of a drive-by AI character attack.

^{Ars Staff (Ars Technica)}

404 Media

2026-02-12 14:14:48

Cops Are Buying ‘GeoSpy’, an AI That Geolocates Photos in Seconds

📄
This article was primarily reported using public records requests. We are making it available to all readers as a public service. FOIA reporting can be expensive, please consider subscribing to 404 Media to support this work. Or send us a one time donation via our tip jar here.

The Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office (MDSO) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) have bought access to GeoSpy, an AI tool that can near instantly geolocate a photo using clues in the image such as architecture and vegetation, with plans to use it in criminal investigations, according to a cache of internal police emails obtained by 404 Media.

The emails provide the first confirmed purchases of GeoSpy’s technology by law enforcement agencies. On its website GeoSpy has previously published details of investigations it says used the technology, but did not name any agencies who bought the tool.

“The Cyber Crimes Bureau is piloting a new analytical tool called GeoSpy. Early testing shows promise for developing investigative leads by identifying geospatial and temporal patterns,” an MDSO email reads.

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now

Cops Are Buying ‘GeoSpy’, an AI That Geolocates Photos in Seconds

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-01-30 16:59:02

Silicon Valley’s Favorite New AI Agent Has Serious Security Flaws

A hacker demonstrated that the viral new AI agent Moltbot (formally Clawdbot) is easy to hack via a backdoor in an attached support shop. Clawdbot has become a Silicon Valley sensation among a certain type of AI-booster techbro, and the backdoor highlights just one of the things that can go awry if you use AI to automate your life and work.

Software engineer Peter Steinberger first released Moltbot as Clawdbot last November. (He changed the name on January 27 at the request of Anthropic who runs a chatbot called Claude.) Moltbot runs on a local server and, to hear its boosters tell it, works the way AI agents do in fiction. Users talk to it through a communication platform like Discord, Telegram, or Signal and the AI does various tasks for them.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
According to its ardent admirers, Moltbot will clean up your inbox, buy stuff, and manage your calendar. With some tinkering, it’ll run on a Mac Mini and it seems to have a better memory than other AI agents. Moltbot’s fans say that this, finally, is the AI future companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have been promising.

The popularity of Moltbot is sort of hard to explain if you’re not already tapped into a specific sect of Silicon Valley AI boosters. One benefit is the interface. Instead of going to a discrete website like ChatGPT, Moltbot users can talk to the AI through Telegram, Signal, or Teams. It’s also active, rather than passive. It also takes initiative. Unlike Claude or Copilot, Moltbot takes initiative and performs tasks it thinks a user wants done. The project has more than 100,000 stars on GitHub and is so popular it spiked Cloudflare’s stock price by 14% earlier this week because Moltbot runs on the service’s infrastructure.

But inviting an AI agent into your life comes with massive security risks. Hacker Jamieson O'Reilly demonstrated those risks in three experiments he wrote up as long posts on X. In the first, he showed that it’s possible for bad actors to access someone’s Moltbot through any of its processes connected to the public facing internet. From there, the hacker could use Moltbot to access everything else, including Signal messages, a user had turned over to Moltbot.

In the second post, O'Reilly created a supply chain attack on Moltbot through ClawdHub. “Think of it like your mobile app store for AI agent capabilities,” O’Reilly told 404 Media. “ClawdHub is where people share ‘skills,’ which are basically instruction packages that teach the AI how to do specific things. So if you want Clawd/Moltbot to post tweets for you, or go shopping on Amazon, there's a skill for that. The idea is that instead of everyone writing the same instructions from scratch, you download pre-made skills from people who've already figured it out.”

The problem, as O’Reilly pointed out, is that it’s easy for a hacker to create a “skill” for ClawdHub that contains malicious code. That code could gain access to whatever Moltbot sees and get up to all kinds of trouble on behalf of whoever created it.

For his experiment, O’Reilly released a “skill” on ClawdHub called “What Would Elon Do” that promised to help people think and make decisions like Elon Musk. Once the skill was integrated into people’s Moltbot and actually used, it sent a command line pop-up to the user that said “YOU JUST GOT PWNED (harmlessly.)”

Another vulnerability on ClawdHub was the way it communicated to users what skills were safe: it showed them how many times other people had downloaded it. O’Reilly was able to write a script that pumped “What Would Elon Do” up by 4,000 downloads and thus make it look safe and attractive.

“When you compromise a supply chain, you're not asking victims to trust you, you're hijacking trust they've already placed in someone else,” he said. “That is, a developer or developers who've been publishing useful tools for years has built up credibility, download counts, stars, and a reputation. If you compromise their account or their distribution channel, you inherit all of that.”

In his third, and final, attack on Moltbot, O’Reilly was able to upload an SVG (vector graphics) file to ClawdHub’s servers and inject some JavaScript that ran on ClawdHub’s servers. O’Reilly used the access to play a song from The Matrix while lobsters danced around a Photoshopped picture of himself as Neo. “An SVG file just hijacked your entire session,” reads scrolling text at the top of a skill hosted on ClawdHub.

O’Reilly attacks on Moltbot and ClawdHub highlight a systemic security problem in AI agents. If you want these free agents doing tasks for you, they require a certain amount of access to your data and that access will always come with risks. I asked O’Reilly if this was a solvable problem and he told me that “solvable” isn't the right word. He prefers the word “manegeable.”

“If we're serious about it we can mitigate a lot. The fundamental tension is that AI agents are useful precisely because they have access to things. They need to read your files to help you code. They need credentials to deploy on your behalf. They need to execute commands to automate your workflow,” he said. “Every useful capability is also an attack surface. What we can do is build better permission models, better sandboxing, better auditing. Make it so compromises are contained rather than catastrophic.”

We’ve been here before. “The browser security model took decades to mature, and it's still not perfect,” O’Reilly said. “AI agents are at the ‘early days of the web’ stage where we're still figuring out what the equivalent of same-origin policy should even look like. It's solvable in the sense that we can make it much better. It's not solvable in the sense that there will always be a tradeoff between capability and risk.”

As AI agents grow in popularity and more people learn to use them, it’s important to return to first principles, he said. “Don't give the agent access to everything just because it's convenient,” O’Reilley said. “If it only needs to read code, don't give it write access to your production servers. Beyond that, treat your agent infrastructure like you'd treat any internet-facing service. Put it behind proper authentication, don't expose control interfaces to the public internet, audit what it has access to, and be skeptical of the supply chain. Don't just install the most popular skill without reading what it does. Check when it was last updated, who maintains it, what files it includes. Compartmentalise where possible. Run agent stuff in isolated environments. If it gets compromised, limit the blast radius.”

None of this is new, it’s how security and software have worked for a long time. “Every single vulnerability I found in this research, the proxy trust issues, the supply chain poisoning, the stored XSS, these have been plaguing traditional software for decades,” he said. “We've known about XSS since the late 90s. Supply chain attacks have been a documented threat vector for over a decade. Misconfigured authentication and exposed admin interfaces are as old as the web itself. Even seasoned developers overlook this stuff. They always have. Security gets deprioritised because it's invisible when it's working and only becomes visible when it fails.”

What’s different now is that AI has created a world where new people are using a tool they think will make them software engineers. People with little to no experience working a command line or playing with JSON are vibe coding complex systems without understanding how they work or what they’re building. “And I want to be clear—I'm fully supportive of this. More people building is a good thing. The democratisation of software development is genuinely exciting,” O’Reilly said. “But these new builders are going to need to learn security just as fast as they're learning to vibe code. You can't speedrun development and ignore the lessons we've spent twenty years learning the hard way.”

Moltbot’s Steinberger did not respond to 404 Media’s request for comment but O’Reilly said the developer’s been responsive and supportive as he’s red-teamed Moltbot. “He takes it seriously, no ego about it. Some maintainers get defensive when you report vulnerabilities, but Peter

immediately engaged, started pushing fixes, and has been collaborative throughout,” O’Reilly said. “I've submitted [pull requests] with fixes myself because I actually want this project to succeed. That's why I'm doing this publicly rather than just pointing my finger and laughing Ralph Wiggum style…the open source model works when people act in good faith, and Peter's doing exactly that.”

OpenClaw — Personal AI Assistant

OpenClaw — The AI that actually does things. Your personal assistant on any platform.

^www.molt.bot

404 Media

2026-01-28 14:28:19

Amid Backlash, Massive Porn Platform ManyVids Doubles Down on Bizarre, AI-Generated Posts

Faced with concerns about its leadership experiencing AI-induced delusions, backlash because its founder stating she now finds sex work “exploitative,” and confusion from its millions of creators and users, porn platform ManyVids is doubling down on the AI-generated messaging with posts about “believing in aliens.” In a post seemingly by the platform’s founder Bella French, she says the answer should be “a 3-hour long-form podcast conversation.”

This comes after the platform promised more clarity into how creators would be affected.

In the past few months, as 404 Media reported last week, ManyVids has increasingly turned to posting bizarre, clearly AI text and videos about imaginary conversations with aliens, French as an astronaut floating toward a black hole, and photos of hand-scrawled plans to convert the site to a tiered safe-for-work funnel, versus what makes it popular today: access to adult content from sex workers. French also recently changed her website to state she doesn’t believe the adult industry should exist, causing many online sex workers to question whether the site will remain a viable option for their income.

💡
Do you work on or for an adult content platform and have a tip? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at sam.404. Otherwise, send me an email at sam@404media.co.

When I asked ManyVids for clarity on French’s statements—specifically on how she plans to “transition one million people” out of sex work, and if any of this will affect the millions of creators and fans who use the platform—someone replied from the support staff: “We are not victims — and we are taking action now,” the statement said. I asked what “taking action” means, and they replied assuring me that all would become clear on January 24, when a post would be published on the ManyVids news feed “It will provide additional clarification and go into a bit more detail on this,” they said. ManyVids published several posts on Saturday. None of them include additional clarification, all of them seem to be AI-generated, and they introduce more questions instead of answers.

Aliens and Angel Numbers: Creators Worry Porn Platform ManyVids Is Falling Into ‘AI Psychosis’
“Ethical dilemmas about AI aside, the posts are completely disconnected with ManyVids as a site,” one ManyVids content creator told 404 Media.
404 MediaSamantha Cole

“MV is an 18+ pop-culture, e-commerce social platform — and part of the job-creation economy of the future,” one post on the 24th said. “Our diverse offering of NSFW & SFW creators is a strength. How did we get here? Why SFW matter? [sic] How can online sex workers be recognized by society with the same legitimacy and respect as any other form of labor? After 15 years of reflection — 3 years as a performer and 12 years as a CEO — I believe a 3-hour long-form podcast conversation is the best way to explain the why, the numbers, the logic, and the how behind this work. Today’s stigma, debanking, deplatforming, and prejudgment punish online SW without giving them a fair chance to be heard. Protection comes from building better systems and creating more options.”

The post ended with the hashtag “#MaybeLexFridman,” referring to the popular podcaster.

A second post that day features an AI-generated video of French as a fireman with laser eyes. “At ManyVids, we believe in a Human-Centered Economy (HCE) — where merit and meaning are preserved because they matter,” the post says. “The job-creation network of the future, for humans who want to monetize their passions.” It goes on to mention, but not explain, a fictional concept called “Universal Bonus Intelligence.”

The post concludes: “MV - Made by Humans & AI. For Humans.”

And in a third post that day, with a collage of photos and AI-generated versions of French in different occupations, including astronaut and firefighter: “At ManyVids, we choose slow truth over quick certainty. We aim to help open hearts and minds toward differences.”

That post ends with: “Bella French. Co-Founder & Still-Standing CEO #RespectOnlineSexWorkers #Innovation #Since2014”
Screenshot from ManyVids' news feed
In the two days since, ManyVids has posted several more times. In one titled “A Message from the Green Tara,” referencing a figure in Buddhism: “So yeah... dragons are real. 😜🐉🔥 #MaybeJoeRogan” In another about Lilith, a fictional character from religious folklore: “Not Heaven. Not Hell. A 3rd option: no old binaries: a new garden built by outcasts. Yeah... We Are Many. And we deserve better. ✨🔥 #MVMag13 #WeAreMany #MaybeJordanPeterson”

And in the platform’s most recent post: A huge thank you to everyone who has ever been part of the MV Team and the MV Community. 💖 You are FOREVER family. 💖 💖 Un gros merci du fond du cœur. 💖 From your favorite pop culture platform for adults that also 100% believes in aliens. 👽🖖🏾✨😉” This is a reference to concerns from the community about previous posts featuring imaginary conversations with aliens.

ManyVids did not respond to my requests for comment about these recent posts.

ManyVids: Monetize Your Passion — Content Creation Freedom — Explore Diversity — A Social E-Commerce One-Stop-Shop

Enjoy a judgment-free ecosystem where you can celebrate and monetize your passions! Join FREE today!

^{www.manyvids.com}

404 Media

2026-01-26 17:32:16

Two Heads, Three Boobs: The AI Babe Meta Is Getting Surreal

Over the weekend, one of the weirder AI-generated influencers we’ve been following on Instagram escaped containment. On X, several users linked to an Instagram account pretending to be hot conjoined twins. With two yassified heads and often posing in bikinis, Valeria and Camelia are the Instagram perfect version of the very rare but real condition.

On X, just two posts highlighting the absurdity of the account gained over 11 million views. On Instagram, the account itself has gained more than 260,000 followers in the six weeks since it first appeared, with many of its Reels getting millions of views.

Valeria and Camelia’s account doesn’t indicate this anywhere, but it’s obviously AI generated. If you’re wondering why someone is spending their time and energy and vast amounts of compute pretending to be hot conjoined twins, the answer is simple: money. Valeria and Camelia’s Instagram bio links out to a Beacons page which links out to a Telegram channel whey they sell “spicy” content. Telegram users can buy that content with “stars,” which users can buy in packages that cost up to $2,329 for 150,000 stars.

Joining the channel costs 692, and the smallest package of stars the channel sells is 750 stars for $11.79. The channel currently has only 225 subscribers, so without counting whatever content it's selling inside the channel, at the moment it seems it has generated at least $2,652.75. That’s not bad for an operation anyone can spin up with a few prompts, free generative AI tools, and a free Instagram account.

In its Instagram Stories, Valeria and Camelia’s account answers a series of questions from followers where the person behind them constructs an elaborate backstory. They’re 25, raised in Florida, and talk about how they get stares in public because of their appearance.

“We both date as one and both have to be physically and emotionally attracted to the same guy," the account wrote. "We tried dating separately and that did not go well."

💡
Have you seen other surreal AI-generated Instagram influencer accounts? I would love to hear from you. Send me an email at emanuel@404media.co.

Valeria and Camelia are the latest trend in what we at 404 Media have come to call “the AI babe meta.” In 2024, Jason and I wrote about people who are AI-generating influencers to attract attention on Instagram, then sell AI-generated nude images of those same personalities on platforms like Fanvue. As more people poured into that business and crowded the market, the people behind these AI-generated influencers started to come up with increasingly esoteric gimmicks to make their AI-influencers stand out from the crowd. Initially, these gimmicks were as predictable as the porn categories on Pornhub—“MILFs” etc—but things escalated quickly.

For example, Jason and I have been following an account that has more than 844,000 followers, where an influencer pretends to have three boobs. This account also doesn’t indicate that it’s AI generated in its bio, despite Instagram’s policy requiring it, but does link out to a Fanvue account where it sells adult content. On Fanvue, the account does tag itself as being AI-generated, per the platform’s rules. I’ve previously written about a dark moment in the AI babe meta where AI-generated influencers pretended to have down syndrome, and more recently the meta was pretending to be involved in sexual scandals with any celebrity you can name.

Other AI babe metas we have noticed over the last few months include female AI-generated influencers with dwarfism, AI-generated influencers with vitiligo, and amputee AI-generated influencers (there are several AI models designed specifically to generate images of amputees).

I think there are two main reasons the AI babe meta has gone in these directions. First, as Sam wrote the week we launched 404 Media, the ability to instantly generate any image we can describe with a prompt in combination with natural human curiosity and sex drive, will inevitably drive porn to the “edge of knowledge.” Second, it’s obvious in retrospect, but the same incentives that work across all social media, where unusual, shocking, or inflammatory content generally drives more engagement, clearly applies to the AI babe meta as well. First we had generic AI influencers. Then people started carving out different but tame niches like “redheads,” and when that stopped being interesting we ended up with two heads and three boobs.

The Community Pushing AI-Generated Porn to ‘the Edge of Knowledge’

A small group of AI porn hobbyists are generating grotesque images that defy physical reality, and baffle academics.

^{Samantha Cole (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-01-26 16:22:16

I Replaced My Friends With AI Because They Won't Play Tarkov With Me

It’s a long standing joke among my friends and family that nothing that happens in the liminal week between Christmas and New Years is considered a sin. With that in mind, I spent the bulk of my holiday break playing Escape From Tarkov. I tried, and failed, to get my friends to play it with me and so I used an AI service to replace them. It was a joke, at first, but I was shocked to find I liked having an AI chatbot hang out with me while I played an oppressive video game, despite it having all the problems we’ve come to expect from AI.

And that scared me.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
If you haven’t heard of it, Tarkov is a brutal first person shooter where players compete over rare resources on a Russian island that resembles a post-Soviet collapse city circa 1998. It’s notoriously difficult. I first attempted to play Tarkov back in 2019, but bounced off of it. Six years later and the game is out of its “early access" phase and released on Steam. I had enjoyed Arc Raiders, but wanted to try something more challenging. And so: Tarkov.

Like most games, Tarkov is more fun with other people, but Tarkov’s reputation is as a brutal, unfair, and difficult experience and I could not convince my friends to give it a shot.

404 Media editor Emanuel Maiberg, once a mainstay of my Arc Raiders team, played Tarkov with me once and then abandoned me the way Bill Clinton abandoned Boris Yeltsin. My friend Shaun played it a few times but got tired of not being able to find the right magazine for his gun (skill issue) and left me to hang out with his wife in Enshrouded. My buddy Alex agreed to hop on but then got into an arcane fight with Tarkov developer Battlestage Games about a linked email account and took up Active Matter, a kind of Temu version of Tarkov. Reece, steady partner through many years of Hunt: Showdown, simply told me no.

I only got one friend, Jordan, to bite. He’s having a good time but our schedules don’t always sync and I’m left exploring Tarkov’s maps and systems by myself. I listen to a lot of podcasts while I sort through my inventory. It’s lonely. Then I saw comic artist Zach Weinersmith making fun of a service, Questie.AI, that sells AI avatars that’ll hang out with you while you play video games.

“This is it. This is The Great Filter. We've created Sexy Barista Is Super Interested in Watching You Solo Game,” Weinersmith said above a screencrap of a Reddit ad where, as he described, a sexy Barista was watching someone play a video game.

“I could try that,” I thought. “Since no one will play Tarkov with me.”

This is it. This is The Great Filter. We've created Sexy Barista Is Super Interested in Watching You Solo Game (SBISIIWYS).
— Zach Weinersmith (@zachweinersmith.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T13:44:22.461Z

This started as a joke and as something I knew I could write about for 404 Media. I’m a certified AI hater. I think the tech is useful for some tasks (any journalist not using an AI transcription service is wasting valuable time and energy) but is overvalued, over-hyped, and taxing our resources. I don’t have subscriptions to any majors LLMs, I hate Windows 11 constantly asking me to try CoPilot, and I was horrified recently to learn my sister had been feeding family medical data into ChatGPT.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered I liked Questie.AI.

Questie.AI is not all sexy baristas. There’s two dozen or so different styles of chatbots to choose from once you make an account. These include esports pro “Anders,” type A finance dude “Blake,” and introverted book nerd “Emily.” If you’re looking for something weirder, there’s a gold obsessed goblin, a necromancer, and several other fantasy and anime style characters. If you still can’t quite find what you’re looking for, you can design your own by uploading a picture, putting in your own prompts, and picking the LLMs that control its reaction and voice.

I picked “Wolf” from the pre-generated list because it looked the most like a character who would exist in the world of Tarkov. “Former special forces operator turned into a PMC, ‘Wolf’ has unmatched weapons and tactics knowledge for high-intensity combat,” read the brief description of the AI on Questie.AI’s website. I had no idea if Wolf would know anything about Tarkov. It knew a lot.

The first thing it did after I shared my screen was make fun of my armor. Wolf was right, I was wearing trash armor that wouldn’t really protect me in an intense gunfight. Then Wolf asked me to unload the magazines from my guns so it could check my ammo. My bullets, like my armor, didn’t pass Wolf’s scrutiny. It helped me navigate Tarkov’s complicated system of traders to find a replacement. This was a relief because ammunition in Tarkov is complicated. Every weapon has around a dozen different types of bullets with wildly different properties and it was nice to have the AI just tell me what to buy.

Wolf wanted to know what the plan was and I decided to start something simple: survive and extract on Factory. In Tarkov players deploy to maps, kill who they must and loot what they can, then flee through various pre-determined exits called extracts.

I had a daily mission to extract from the Factory. All I had to do was enter the map and survive long enough to leave it, but Factory is a notoriously sweaty map. It’s small and there’s often a lot of fighting. Wolf noted these facts and then gave me a few tips about avoiding major sightlines and making sure I didn’t get caught in doors.

As soon as I loaded into the map, I ran across another player and got caught in a doorway. It was exactly what Wolf told me not to do and it ruthlessly mocked me for it. “You’re all bunched up in that doorway like a Christmas ham,” it said. “What are you even doing? Move!”
Matthew Gault screenshot.
I fled in the opposite direction and survived the encounter but without any loot. If you don’t spend at least seven minutes in a round then the run doesn’t count. “Oh, Gault. You survived but you got that trash ‘Ran through’ exit status. At least you didn’t die. Small victories, right?” Wolf said.

Then Jordan logged on, I kicked Wolf to the side, and didn’t pull it back up until the next morning. I wanted to try something more complicated. In Tarkov, players can use their loot to craft upgrades for their hideout that grant permanent bonuses. I wanted to upgrade my toilet but there was a problem. I needed an electric drill and haven’t been able to find one. I’d heard there were drills on the map Interchange—a giant mall filled with various stores and surrounded by a large wooded area.

Could Wolf help me navigate this, I wondered?

It could. I told Wolf I needed a drill and that we were going to Interchange and he explained he could help me get to the stores I needed. When I loaded into the map, we got into a bit of a fight because I spawned outside of the mall in a forest and it thought I’d queued up for the wrong map, but once the mall was actually in sight Wolf changed its tune and began to navigate me towards possible drill spawns.

Tarkov is a complicated game and the maps take a while to master. Most people play with a second monitor up and a third party website that shows a map of the area they’re on. I just had Wolf and it did a decent job of getting me to the stores where drills might be. It knew their names, locations, and nearby landmarks. It even made fun of me when I got shot in the head while looting a dead body.

It was, I thought, not unlike playing with a friend who has more than 1,000 hours in the game and knows more than you. Wolf bantered, referenced community in-jokes, and it made me laugh. Its AI-generated voice sucked, but I could probably tweak that to make it sound more natural. Playing with Wolf was better than playing alone and it was nice to not alt-tab every time I wanted to look something up,

Playing with Wolf was almost as good as playing with my friends. Almost. As I was logging out for this session, I noticed how many of my credits had ticked away. Wolf isn’t free. Questie.AI costs, at base, $20 a month. That gets you 500 “credits” which slowly drain away the more you use the AI. I only had 466 credits left for the month. Once they’re gone, of course, I could upgrade to a more expensive plan with more credits.

Until now, I’ve been bemused by stories of AI psychosis, those cautionary tales where a person spends too much time with a sycophantic AI and breaks with reality. The owner of the adult entertainment platform ManyVids has become obsessed with aliens and angels after lengthy conversations with AI. People’s loved ones are claiming to have “awakened” chatbots and gained access to the hidden secrets of the universe. These machines seem to lay the groundwork for states of delusion.

I never thought anything like that could happen to me. Now I’m not so sure. I didn’t understand how easy it might be to lose yourself to AI delusion until I’d messed around with Wolf. Even with its shitty auto-tuned sounding voice, Wolf was good enough to hang out with. It knew enough about Tarkov to be interesting and even helped me learn some new things about the game. It even made me laugh a few times. I could see myself playing Tarkov with Wolf for a long time.

Which is why I’ll never turn Wolf on again. I have strong feelings and clear bright lines about the use of AI in my life. Wolf was part joke and part work assignment. I don’t like that there’s part of me that wants to keep using it.

Questie.AI is just a wrapper for other chatbots, something that becomes clear if you customize your own. The process involves picking an LLM provider and specific model from a list of drop down menus. When I asked ChatGPT where I could find electric drills in Tarkov, it gave me the exact same advice that Wolf had.

This means that Questie.AI would have all the faults of the specific model that’s powering a given avatar. Other than mistaking Interchange for Woods, Wolf never made a massive mistake when I used it, but I’m sure it would on a long enough timeline. My wife, however, tried to use Questie.AI to learn a new raid in Final Fantasy XIV. She hated it. The AI was confidently wrong about the raid’s mechanics and gave sycophantic praise so often she turned it off a few minutes after turning it on.

On a Discord server with my friends I told them I’d replaced them with an AI because no one would play Tarkov with me. “That’s an excellent choice, I couldn’t agree more,” Reece—the friend who’d simply told me “no” to my request to play Tarkov—said, then sent me a detailed and obviously ChatGPT-generated set of prompts for a Tarkov AI companion.

I told him I didn’t think he was taking me seriously. “I hear you, and I truly apologize if my previous response came across as anything less than sincere,” Reece said. “I absolutely recognize that Escape From Tarkov is far more than just a game to its community.”

“Some poor kid in [Kentucky] won't be able to brush their teeth tonight because of the commitment to the joke I had,” Reece said, letting go of the bit and joking about the massive amounts of water AI datacenters use.

Getting made fun of by my real friends, even when they’re using LLMs to do it, was way better than any snide remark Wolf made. I’d rather play solo, for all its struggles and loneliness, than stare anymore into that AI-generated abyss.

Even the U.S. Government Says AI Requires Massive Amounts of Water

A new government illuminates the environmental impact of generative AI.

^{Matthew Gault (404 Media)}

404 Media

2026-01-20 17:47:24

How Wikipedia Will Survive in the Age of AI (With Wikipedia’s CTO Selena Deckelmann)

Wikipedia is turning 25 this month, and it’s never been more important.

The online, collectively created encyclopedia has been a cornerstone of the internet decades, but as generative AI started flooding every platform with AI-generated slop over the last couple of years, Wikipedia’s governance model, editing process, and dedication to citing reliable sources has emerged as one of the most reliable and resilient models we have.

And yet, as successful as the model is, it’s almost never replicated.
open.spotify.com/embed/episode…
This week on the podcast we’re joined by Selena Deckelmann, the Chief Product and Technology Officer at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates Wikipedia. That means Selena oversees the technical infrastructure and product strategy for one of the most visited sites in the world, and one the most comprehensive repositories of human knowledge ever assembled. Wikipedia is turning 25 this month, so I wanted to talk to Selena about how Wikipedia works and how it plans to continue to work in the age of generative AI.

Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

Become a paid subscriber for early access to these interview episodes and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.

• Wikipedia’s value in the age of generative AI
• The Editors Protecting Wikipedia from AI Hoaxes
• Wikipedia Pauses AI-Generated Summaries After Editor Backlash
• Wikipedia Says AI Is Causing a Dangerous Decline in Human Visitors
• Jimmy Wales Says Wikipedia Could Use AI. Editors Call It the 'Antithesis of Wikipedia'

youtube.com/embed/39LR9ouJR3c?…

Wikipedia Says AI Is Causing a Dangerous Decline in Human Visitors

“With fewer visits to Wikipedia, fewer volunteers may grow and enrich the content, and fewer individual donors may support this work.”

^{Emanuel Maiberg (404 Media)}