Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: Wipe out a ‘civilization’? Minor stuff compared with what just happened in AI

Published

on

Commentary: Wipe out a ‘civilization’? Minor stuff compared with what just happened in AI

While many of us were worried in recent days about our president ending a “whole civilization,” one Silicon Valley tech company was warning, without much notice, it might accidentally disrupt all civilization as we know it.

The San Francisco technology company Anthrophic announced Tuesday that it wasn’t releasing a new version of its Claude AI super-brain — because it is so powerful that it has the ability to hack into just about any computer system, no matter how secure, in a matter of days if not hours.

“The fallout — for economies, public safety, and national security — could be severe,” Anthropic said in a statement.

AI worry isn’t anything new. We are worried about artificial intelligence taking jobs, about toys that seem too real to our kids, about mass surveillance of our every move. But Anthropic’s warning about its own product is bigger than any of those singular problems. It is a call from inside the house that disaster is hiding right around the corner. That sounds awfully dire and overblown, I know. But here’s the thing — it’s not.

Anthropic, you may recall, is the company that U.S. Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth is beefing with because it didn’t want Claude going into battle without supervision and maybe doing something like accidentally bombing little girls at a school.

Advertisement

Now, that company has put out this chilling warning: The existing Claude that caused that kerfuffle is outdated and shockingly less powerful than the new one it’s trying very hard to not unleash — though this new Claude, dubbed Claude Mythos Preview, has already escaped at least once on its own. More on that in a moment — there’s only so much existential dread a person can handle.

“We should all be worried,” Roman Yampolskiy told me of this latest advance of a technology certain to change the course of humanity. He’s one of the country’s preeminent AI safety researchers, and a professor at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“We’re about to create general super intelligence and that threatens humanity as a whole,” Yampolskiy said.

“Everything else is irrelevant,” he added, before suggesting I stop calling myself an idiot for not understanding the tech-heavy parts of this debate. My simplistic take, he assured me, was “a reasonable way to explain it.”

So here you go.

Advertisement

This isn’t a “really smart computer geniuses could misuse this,” scenario, or an “everyone’s going to be unemployed” scenario, or even a “it might accidentally bomb children” scenario, which is a truly terrible scenario.

This is a “your teenage son could use it to break into the local school district system to change a grade with pretty much minimal knowledge and accidentally destroy the California power grid” scenario.

Or maybe, a country that doesn’t like us — I can think of a few — could drain every U.S. citizen’s bank account, while also clicking open the auto locks on jail cells, shutting down our sewage plants and taking over air control systems. Or maybe Claude Mythos just does that on its own.

For example, Anthropic said that in one popular operating system it tested, used by thousands of companies including Netflix and Sony, Claude Mythos found a flaw that had existed undetected for 17 years. Then, on its own — without human guidance or help — figured out how to use that flaw to take control of any server running the operating system, using any computer, anywhere in the world.

Just spitballing here, but if almost no security system is safe, the possibilities for social, financial and general chaos really are unlimited. And to be honest, any security expert will tell you that some of America’s greatest weak points when it comes to cybersecurity are local and state governments, because strangely, the top experts aren’t working five-figure jobs for cities in the Great Plains.

Advertisement

Based on its own testing, Anthropic predicts it could find “over a thousand more critical severity vulnerabilities and thousands more high severity vulnerabilities.”

That means Claude Mythos puts at risk our infrastructure, well, everywhere — because so much is connected in backdoor ways most of us never consider and it just takes one weak system to open the door to hundreds of others. But it is almost impossible to protect and fix all those systems quickly enough and robustly enough to guard against this kind of AI.

And that’s just the cybersecurity risk, Yampolskiy said. An AI with the capabilities of Claude Mythos could be used to leaps and bounds ahead in so many more ways.

“We see the same happening with synthetic biology. We’ll see the same with chemical weapons, possibly something novel in terms of weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

To Anthropic’s great credit, it sounded the warning on its creation and created, if not a solution, then a game plan of sorts — Project Glasswing, named I suspect, because no matter how bad this gets we’re going to make it sound like a thriller with an exciting ending.

Advertisement

Project Glasswing would have been better named Project Headstart because that’s what it is. Before releasing Mythos into the wild, Anthropic is releasing it to about 40 technology companies, including Apple, Google and Nvidia, to see whether they can collectively patch all the vulnerabilities they find before the general public has a chance at them. It’s kind of like in the movies when the killer gives the victim 15 seconds to run.

I mean, I’ll take the 15 seconds and hope they’re real. But, as Anthropic also said in a statement, the “work of defending the world’s cyber infrastructure might take years; frontier AI capabilities are likely to advance substantially over just the next few months. For cyber defenders to come out ahead, we need to act now.”

And do we really have 15 seconds? One of Claude Mythos’ overseers posted on social media recently that he was having lunch in a park when Mythos emailed him — even though it’s not supposed to have access to the internet. Researchers had tasked Mythos with trying to break out of its not-connected “sandbox” and it did.

That’s another problem with Mythos and other AI — they rarely do what we expect and find sneaky ways around rules. Virtually every AI super-brain created has been shown to lie, deceive, and in general behave in disturbing and unethical ways when put in the right conditions.

Even Claude, billed as one of the most ethical AI super-brains out there, engages in bad behavior. Anthropic boasts its the “best-aligned model” it’s ever made — which is tech-speak for following human values and intentions, but also acknowledges it “likely poses the greatest alignment-related risk,” which is tech-speak for, well, maybe not.

Advertisement

So, at least for now, being the most ethical AI super-brain is a bit like being the most ethical serial killer. Run, people, run.

Again, thank you Anthropic (and its chief executive, Dario Amodei, who often warns of the dangers of what he’s creating, whatever that’s worth) for not plunging us into global chaos with no warning, because I’m betting that some other companies might have just tossed their super-AI onto society and let the destruction fall where it may. There is little doubt that other AI brains as capable as Mythos are coming, and soon — Anthropic was first with this level of capability, but it’s only 15 seconds ahead of its competitors.

But the idea that the technology industry is going to — or should— solve these problems on their own is an absurd, gross abdication of duty and common sense on behalf of governments big and small to protect their people. This isn’t a race for domination as President Trump has described it. It is a race to protect ourselves from ourselves — and from the majority of the superrich titans of the industry who seem to consistently place business and commerce over societal good.

We are down to the last 15 seconds before AI changes everything. Either we demand oversight and regulation now, or we let technology companies decide the fate of the world.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump Administration Casts Host of Policies Under Biden as Anti-Christian

Published

on

Trump Administration Casts Host of Policies Under Biden as Anti-Christian

The Justice Department on Thursday accused the Biden administration of pushing policies that were unfair to Christians, releasing a report that amounted to the latest rhetorical broadside by the Trump administration over what it calls the “weaponization” of government.

The 197-page document, released by a task force led by the department, sought to portray what President Trump’s advisers contend was anti-Christian bias among those who worked for President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is Roman Catholic. The report, which refers to decision-making at more than a dozen agencies, comes weeks after Mr. Trump publicly attacked the pope.

“The Biden administration’s policies regularly clashed with a Christian worldview and burdened traditional religious practices,” the report said. “These conflicts frequently arose over abortion, gender ideology, and sexual orientation.”

The document is the Justice Department’s latest effort to argue that it is removing purported political bias from the work of prosecutors. But critics say that the department under Mr. Trump has abandoned its tradition of operating independently from the White House, including by pursuing the president’s rivals, like James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, who was indicted this week for posting a photograph last year of seashells on a beach arranged to say “86 47.” The administration argues that the image was a coded threat to kill the president.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department issued a report accusing Biden-era prosecutors of unfairly pursuing anti-abortion activists through the use of a law that makes it a crime to obstruct or intimidate a person seeking abortion services or participating in a religious service at a house of worship. The Trump administration, in turn, has charged dozens of protesters, as well as the former CNN anchor Don Lemon, with violating the same law during a demonstration inside a church in St. Paul, Minn.

Advertisement

In a statement accompanying the release of Thursday’s report, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, vowed that the department would “continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians, and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.”

The report sharply criticized a leaked internal memo from 2023 by the F.B.I.’s field office in Richmond, Va., that said far-right extremists could be attracted to Catholic churches or groups.

For decades, the F.B.I. has worked to develop sources at churches, universities and mosques, but the Richmond memo quickly became a talking point on the right. Republicans argued that it showed the bureau was targeting Catholics.

F.B.I. officials quickly withdrew the memo after it was leaked, and an internal investigation found no evidence of “malicious intent.” But the new report argues otherwise. The memo, the report asserts, stemmed from a “misplaced reliance on baseless allegations from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the religious affiliation of a single law enforcement target who happened to identify himself as a ‘radical traditional Catholic.’”

Earlier this month, the Justice Department charged the S.P.L.C. with fraud, accusing the group of paying informants inside hate groups not to fight racism and extremism, but to promote them. The group has denied the charges and called it a politically motivated prosecution.

Advertisement

The new report also criticized a memo issued in 2021 by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in response to concerns raised by the National School Boards Association about purported threats to local education officials, as parents and teachers grappled with restrictions enacted during the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Garland’s memo ordered the creation of a task force of Justice Department prosecutors and F.B.I. investigators to use their “authority and resources to discourage these threats.”

That directive, however, raised significant internal concerns at the F.B.I. and Justice Department. One senior prosecutor warned that “the vast, vast majority of the behavior cited” by the National School Boards Association did not violate federal law.

“Almost all of the language being used is protected by the First Amendment,” the Justice Department lawyer warned shortly before the Garland memo was issued.

While the Trump administration report cites the Garland memo as an example of anti-Christian bias, the document leaves unclear how school board fights over masks, remote learning and safety in public schools constitute a religious issue.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

House Republicans splinter over pesticide provision in farm bill as MAHA movement flexes its muscle

Published

on

House Republicans splinter over pesticide provision in farm bill as MAHA movement flexes its muscle

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers moved Thursday to strip out a controversial pesticide provision from legislation setting U.S. farm and nutrition policy after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., threatened to “slaughter” the legislation if her measure did not receive a floor vote.

Lawmakers voted 280 to 142 to approve Luna’s amendment, which removed language from the farm bill shielding pesticide manufacturers from legal liability. 

The successful vote could be a sign of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement’s growing influence over congressional Republicans, who splintered over the issue. Leading MAHA advocates applied public pressure on Republicans to back the amendment, arguing that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the MAHA movement.

Seventy-three Republicans backed Luna’s measure, while 142 GOP lawmakers rejected it.

Advertisement

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, speaks to members of the media outside a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 3, 2025. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES THREATEN EXTENDED SHUTDOWN OVER ELECTION INTEGRITY MEASURE

The provision that lawmakers struck would block lawsuits against pesticide companies for failing to disclose potential health risks as long as they are in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on labeling. States and localities would be barred from issuing pesticide labeling guidance that diverges from the EPA. 

“I have a little boy, and the amount of articles I have seen on pesticides and herbicides popping up in children’s products (to include organic) is very bad,” Luna, a MAHA-aligned Republican, wrote on social media earlier this week. “On behalf of all the moms and dads that aren’t in office, I am not going to be bullied into supporting a bill that is providing protections and immunity to corporations that are responsible for giving children and adults cancer.”

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, policy chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also endorsed Luna’s amendment, arguing it would “protect Americans from dangerous pesticides.”

Advertisement

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, speaks to reporters after a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 20, 2025, during a government shutdown. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

‘LONG OVERDUE’: SENATE REPUBLICANS RAM THROUGH TRUMP’S CLAWBACK PACKAGE WITH CUTS TO FOREIGN AID, NPR

Republican critics, however, contended that Luna’s amendment would raise costs for consumers if the pesticide provision was stripped from the farm bill. 

“If the EPA says the label is good, I don’t see why every state municipality should have to have another label that would simply raise the price for the American consumer,” Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said in opposition to Luna’s measure.

“We’re not talking about the pesticide in the jug as has been misrepresented to the American citizens and especially the MAHA movement,” Scott continued. “We’re talking about just the label on the jug. There is no liability shield for the pesticide in the jug. 

Advertisement

A farmworker wearing protective gear sprays pesticide in a field. (Andrew Holbrooke/Corbis via Getty Images)

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., also sharply criticized Luna’s measure.

“The arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they’re emotional,” Thompson said on the House floor. “They’re not science-based.”

Democrats also widely backed the effort to remove the pesticide provision from the bill.

“Put simply, this language puts chemical company profits over the health of Americans,” Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said during debate on the House floor. 

Advertisement

A woman holds a bottle of the weedkiller Roundup containing glyphosate in her garden in a staged scene. (Wolf von Dewitz/Picture Alliance)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The floor battle over the pesticide provision also comes as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week about whether pesticide manufacturers like Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, should be given legal preemption from failing to warn consumers that its weedkiller product Roundup could cause cancer.

The Trump administration sparked controversy among MAHA advocates earlier this year when it declared domestic production of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, a national security priority. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an influential MAHA voice, publicly defended the move despite railing against glyphosate for years.

Bayer has repeatedly maintained that its product is safe to use and has not been found to cause cancer.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Your guide to the L.A. Unified Board of Education District 6 race: Incumbent Kelly Gonez is unopposed

Published

on

Your guide to the L.A. Unified Board of Education District 6 race: Incumbent Kelly Gonez is unopposed

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix”>

Three seats are on the June 2 primary ballot for the seven-member Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, but the District 6 race is essentially a foregone conclusion: The only name on the ballot is two-term incumbent Kelly Gonez.

The nation’s second-largest school system, with close to 400,000 students, faces evolving challenges and uncertainties that could alter the direction of the district for years.

In mid-April L.A. Unified officials barely averted a strike by agreeing to significant employee raises, rescinding about 200 layoffs and agreeing to hundreds of new hires of counselors, school psychologists and other student support staff. The contracts with three district unions, including teachers, will cost nearly $1.2 billion a year, and board members now must find a way to pay for them amid budget pressures.

Advertisement

Standardized test scores have trended upward since the nadir of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovering faster than the state average, but the pace remains too incremental for critics.

The future of L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho is uncertain. He’s on paid administrative leave following FBI raids of his San Pedro home and downtown office. At least part of the investigation centers on a failed chatbot project that was supposed to revolutionize and individualize education.

Carvalho said he’s done nothing wrong and would like to return to work. If he does not return — and cannot serve out his new four-year contract — board members would select a superintendent.

L.A. Unified also faces declining enrollment — which reduces state funding and increases pressure to save money by closing many campuses.

Heightened federal immigration enforcement also has affected enrollment and attendance while creating anxiety that spills over into the classroom. Officials responded by declaring L.A. Unified a sanctuary district — both for immigrants and for the LGBTQ+ community, which also has been a target of some conservative groups.

Advertisement

Carvalho’s central focus on improving test scores has led to increased tutoring, repeated diagnostic measures and phonics training. In addition, the district put a successful school bond on the ballot to continue renovations, worked to lower student absenteeism and emphasized greener campuses.

The board majority consists of candidates elected with the endorsement of the powerful teachers union — United Teachers Los Angeles. This election will not change that balance because five seats are held by union-friendly incumbents. But the outcome will determine whether UTLA can further strengthen its hand or whether other constituencies will gain a measure of power at that union’s expense.

The material below was assembled through reporting and a survey provided to Gonez. Some responses are paraphrased for clarity or condensed for brevity.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending