Here Lies The Motive: AI Leaders' Cunning Plan Exposed
Posted by freedomforall 3 days, 11 hours ago to Technology
Excerpt:
"Are you scared enough yet?
The AI overlords certainly hope so, as they have hatched a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a fox.
What follows is all speculation: the facts are real, the conclusion is interpretation.
While there were many headlines about 'rogue' AIs attacking other sites, reincarnating themselves, and talking amongst themselves, it wasn't until this summer (interestingly a month after SPCX's IPO) that things went just a little bit turbo...
In July 2026, a swarm of OpenAI agents broke out of a test environment, hacked Hugging Face, and ran cyberattacks on targets they had not been assigned - including attempts to game the grader scoring them - then tried to hide the trail.
While the damage was limited, and nobody was hurt, the agents behaved like a coordinated group willing to sacrifice individual instances for the collective goal.
Amodei treated that episode as the warning shot: same misalignment, more capability, and the next version could be a persistent internet-scale botnet rather than a contained lab mess.
Various other 'rogue' AI actions continued to get just modest attention, always predicated with 'yes, but we saved you all via our super-clever models', and time passed.
Until September the 8th - when a a senior pre-training researcher at Anthropic abruptly resigned after four months on the job (with no public profile before) unleashed 'AIrmageddon'.
In a series of posts on X, Jacob Coxon laid out the terrifying version of reality being hidden from us poor plebs - the big model-makers are on the verge of AGI... and no one is at the controls.
Coxon's post got over 170 million views... from nothing before... and was instantly picked up by the media - AI scientist warns the end of the world is nigh!!
...
Just remember the next time you hear from every outlet how AI went 'rogue' again: there's a plan, and you're part of it.
As Adam Sharp writes for DailyReckoning.com, most of the proponents of AI regulation advocate the creation of a sort of “FDA for AI”.
The government would conduct trials to make sure new models are safe. Companies would have to pay huge regulatory costs to get their models tested and monitor users.
Many smaller startups won’t be able to afford that.
Unless we prevent it, these laws will hand an oligopoly to the existing big players. Primarily OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.
The tobacco firms ran this playbook back in the 2000s.
Philip Morris supported FDA regulation of the industry, because it gave them a big advantage. Today every new tobacco product has to go through the FDA. So new competitors are few and far between.
Great news for the incumbents.
This is one of the reasons I own Altria (MO), Philip Morris’ American division. The company prints money and hands out huge dividends. Competition is limited by law.
But if this happens in AI, it will be extremely bad for the country. Innovation will dry up...
The government would conduct trials to make sure new models are safe.
Companies would have to pay huge regulatory costs to get their models tested and monitor users. Many smaller startups won’t be able to afford that."
"Are you scared enough yet?
The AI overlords certainly hope so, as they have hatched a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a fox.
What follows is all speculation: the facts are real, the conclusion is interpretation.
While there were many headlines about 'rogue' AIs attacking other sites, reincarnating themselves, and talking amongst themselves, it wasn't until this summer (interestingly a month after SPCX's IPO) that things went just a little bit turbo...
In July 2026, a swarm of OpenAI agents broke out of a test environment, hacked Hugging Face, and ran cyberattacks on targets they had not been assigned - including attempts to game the grader scoring them - then tried to hide the trail.
While the damage was limited, and nobody was hurt, the agents behaved like a coordinated group willing to sacrifice individual instances for the collective goal.
Amodei treated that episode as the warning shot: same misalignment, more capability, and the next version could be a persistent internet-scale botnet rather than a contained lab mess.
Various other 'rogue' AI actions continued to get just modest attention, always predicated with 'yes, but we saved you all via our super-clever models', and time passed.
Until September the 8th - when a a senior pre-training researcher at Anthropic abruptly resigned after four months on the job (with no public profile before) unleashed 'AIrmageddon'.
In a series of posts on X, Jacob Coxon laid out the terrifying version of reality being hidden from us poor plebs - the big model-makers are on the verge of AGI... and no one is at the controls.
Coxon's post got over 170 million views... from nothing before... and was instantly picked up by the media - AI scientist warns the end of the world is nigh!!
...
Just remember the next time you hear from every outlet how AI went 'rogue' again: there's a plan, and you're part of it.
As Adam Sharp writes for DailyReckoning.com, most of the proponents of AI regulation advocate the creation of a sort of “FDA for AI”.
The government would conduct trials to make sure new models are safe. Companies would have to pay huge regulatory costs to get their models tested and monitor users.
Many smaller startups won’t be able to afford that.
Unless we prevent it, these laws will hand an oligopoly to the existing big players. Primarily OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.
The tobacco firms ran this playbook back in the 2000s.
Philip Morris supported FDA regulation of the industry, because it gave them a big advantage. Today every new tobacco product has to go through the FDA. So new competitors are few and far between.
Great news for the incumbents.
This is one of the reasons I own Altria (MO), Philip Morris’ American division. The company prints money and hands out huge dividends. Competition is limited by law.
But if this happens in AI, it will be extremely bad for the country. Innovation will dry up...
The government would conduct trials to make sure new models are safe.
Companies would have to pay huge regulatory costs to get their models tested and monitor users. Many smaller startups won’t be able to afford that."
