AI Whistleblower: Anthropic Scandal, AI Cults, Neuralink & Our Last Hope to Stop the Tech Oligarchs
Tucker Carlson

Nate Soares is a computer scientist who’s worked at Google and the Defense Department. So when he says AI is on the path to killing every person on earth, it’s worth hearing him out.

He is the co-author, alongside Eliezer Yudkowsky, of the New York Times bestselling book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All (2025), which argues that the current race to develop super intelligent AI will end catastrophically unless humanity globally coordinates to stop it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98syxABbUPk

Back to the thread title topic, if all the researchers with integrity quit, who will be left doing the development?

556 works pretty good on computers. directed energy weapons may work better. a tomahawk works pretty good on a power distribution station. a penetrator with an EMP warhead might work pretty well. Cutting off the cooling system would definitely work, high performance computers burn up quickly without cooling.

If all that fails feed a bunch of dogs lots of beer and let them into the data center.

About 15 years ago I told some folks that it was folly to use up all our expensive high tech munitions to counter cheap munitions, and it's interesting this is exactly what have run into with the Iran conflict, we're using 4 million dollar missiles to destroy $35k drones. How fucking stupid is that.

And now I'm saying when AI makes binding decisions for important human transactions in banking and finance, medical insurance claims, and civil and criminal convictions, people will suffer. Nobody is talking about this aspect of AI, but I can feel it coming like a freight train. In the same way I said it was fucking stupid to burn up expensive munitions against cheap ones, and discontinuing the manufacture and use of cheap munitions pretty much across the board.

I've been trying for 3 mos to unlock my credit query at Experian, and have pierced the AI veil and reached 3 human beings including a person in the problem resolution department, but none of them can help, and are not allowed to help, because the whole customer service function has been completely taken over by AI. It's a fucking nightmare.

I predict AI will become very painful in these ways and more, even though it has great potential in many areas.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:


And now I'm saying when AI makes binding decisions for important human transactions in banking and finance, medical insurance claims, and civil and criminal convictions, people will suffer. Nobody is talking about this aspect of AI, but I can feel it coming like a freight train.

This not unlike the public health philosophy, expanded over other parts of our lives. Your personal doc is supposed to provide you with information and opinion for your specific situation, and you make a decision. Public health, though, looks at overall averages and makes mandates. The public health agenda may or may not even be correct, and it certainly does not consider individuals. It's the broad brush approach.

When some unnecessary casualties are considered acceptable losses by a centralized authority in service of The Greater Good, we have become A Brave New World.

This AI crap is getting out of hand. Our local sheriff uses it on their non-emergency number. I tried to call a while back to report a 10-foot 4x4 in the roadway. I took me 20 minutes to get to a frigging human that could take the call. Ridiculous! Never again!

quote:

I predict AI will become very painful in these ways and more, even though it has great potential in many areas.

What value do we retain, if the machines can do everything?

Musk’s Apocalypse Is Worse Than You Realize

In a robot-run world, the ultimate enemy won’t be the robots; it will be us.

Huck Davenport |

If you didn’t see Elon Musk explain his vision of the future, you need to.

He states that in ten years there will be “well over a billion humanoid robots” whose productivity per robot will be “five times that of a human.” He thinks this is a “conservative” estimate, and would put “serious betting money on” their being “more productive than all humans combined.”

How will this happen? Musk says once you start making robots, “the robots will start manufacturing other robots, so you get a recursive effect. It starts slowly, but then grows at an explosive rate.”

If this doesn’t send a cold wave of terror down your spine, you haven’t been paying attention. This is not speculation by some science fiction writer, but a prediction from one of the most consequential and accomplished industrialists alive, with a proven track record of stunning results, who is in the unique position to actually make it happen.

What can be wrong with immeasurable abundance served up by billions of humanoid robots? This change promises the end of want, hunger, and hardship.

One might think a modern-day Garden of Eden awaits, unless, of course, one has read history. Those who have read understand that unearned abundance has repeatedly led to disaster.

The answer to the paradox of abundance ushering in disaster rests in human nature—a nature forged through hundreds of thousands of years of survival in a world that, to quote Hobbes, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” not one of abundance.

Necessity sparks the virtues of industry, innovation, and societal unity; abundance breeds sloth, extravagance, debauchery, and disunity.

History is replete with examples: as the late Roman Republic transformed into Imperial Rome, the concentration of immense wealth from conquest, tribute, and slavery undermined internal innovation, self-reliance, and moral character. For the ruling class, it ushered in decadence, hedonism, power, lust, sadism, and societal deterioration.

By the 5th century, the Western Empire had become structurally unstable and wholly dependent. Even its once mighty citizen army had been largely outsourced to barbarian mercenaries. It had lost the ability to feed, govern, and sustain itself from within. With its riches squandered, its tributes waning, the Western Roman Empire collapsed.

Nearly two centuries after Alexander the Great’s conquest opened the Greek world to the immense wealth of Asia, Polybius warns of a Greece suffering from the pathology of affluence:

This evil grew upon us rapidly and overtook us before we were aware of it, the simple reason being that men had fallen a prey to inflated ambitions, avarice, and indolence, with the result that they were unwilling to marry, or if they did marry, to bring up the children that were born them. Just as happens with swarms of bees, little by little whole cities lose their resources and cease to flourish.

These are not isolated examples. Wherever and whenever abundance strikes, men become indolent, lethargic, and weak. Economists call it the “resource curse.” In the Netherlands, circa 1960, an enormous gas deposit was found, and money poured in.

Predictably, the Netherlands came to define the “pathology of a welfare without work.” By the 1980s, there were 85 benefit recipients for every 100 workers and less than half the country worked.

One in every three working-age members of the labor force was on some form of long-term government subsidy. In less than a generation, the Netherlands was transformed from a competitive, trade-driven commercial economy into an emasculated entitled society feeding at the teat of its cash cow.

Drug addiction had been virtually unknown before the gas deposit discovery, but by the 1980s, Amsterdam had become the drug capital of Europe with over 30,000 heroin users nationwide.

But unlike Rome, Greece, and the Netherlands, where outside forces eventually brought adjustment, Musk’s robotic future offers no such mechanism for recovery.

Robot-run factories turning out robots to run other factories that do everything men can do, only five times better at a fraction of the cost, will create abundance, but it will displace...everyone. Not just the factory workers, but supervisors, managers, accountants, lawyers, designers, and developers.

It will not be a robot coup, but instead, we will cede control willingly, piece by piece. Why trust yourself with complicated decisions when AI has instant access to the enormous corpus of human knowledge?

Even with AI only in its infancy, we barely possess the intellectual capacity to judge its recommendations. Approving AI’s suggestions is largely ceremonial rather than substantive. And pitting two AI engines against each other only proves the point.

Imagine an 18-year-old entering a workforce that once hungered for youth’s energy, enthusiasm, and ambition. Instead, he finds the machine beside him learns faster, remembers everything, reasons better, works five times faster, is stronger, never tires, and costs less. Whatever occupation he considers, some machine can outperform him.

But it’s OK. Sure, you’re economically useless, but you have everything you need—except purpose, value, meaning, and responsibility. We are embarking on the greatest psychological experiment in human history without guardrails of any kind.

What about children, family, community? We are already experiencing an existential collapse in fertility rates that, ironically, Musk himself rails against. The OECD fertility rate is just 1.5, far below the 2.1 needed to prevent population collapse.

Humanity’s future, at least for now, is being sustained disproportionately by the world’s low-income countries whose fertility rate is 4.5. What happens when abundance lifts them from poverty to prosperity? If history is any guide, that fertility rate will crash to the OECD level, along with humanity’s future.

And worse, what is the point of parenting in a consequence-free, responsibility-free world where hedonistic gratification becomes all we have left? Not only is parenting time-consuming, arduous, and often exhausting, but humanoid robots will be far better at it than we are.

Are you going to homeschool your children when an AI tutor can provide unlimited individualized attention and teach philosophy in the manner and likeness of Aristotle, oration as Cicero, physics as Newton, and economics as Adam Smith?

When faced with these choices, societies repeatedly choose ease over toil, pleasure over sacrifice, convenience over responsibility, and childlessness over child-rearing.

There are those who will try to resist. But history gives little reason to believe societies will permanently reject technologies that make life easier. Why learn math when we have calculators; why learn to spell when we have spell check; why learn grammar when we have Grammarly; why write at all when we have AI? In fact, why think at all?

We see it already. In a Brown University class in 2026, a take-home midterm that historically averaged 65-80 produced scores of 96-100. When the suspicious professor announced an in-person final, 18 students dropped, 9 didn’t show, and the class average was 48.6.

The point is not that people cheat; it is that they take the easy way out—always.

Some will try to stop “progress,” and I’m rooting for them, but who is going to convince the masses to choose hard work, self-reliance, and moderation when your neighbor is indulging in every conceivable depraved excess free of consequence?

The resistance will be mocked, censored, and declared enemies of the state. And make no mistake, the authorities will be the first to embrace AI-powered humanoids. The chilling reality of conscience-free, obedient androids being dispatched against political enemies will be the greatest mass-produced instrument of coercion ever unleashed on mankind. A real-life Borg, where “resistance is futile.”

In 1968, Star Trek gave us a glimpse of this future in the “Ultimate Computer.” An M5 Multitronic computer is installed to captain the Enterprise. Redundant, its crew is removed. The M5 autonomously engages in war games where, in minutes, it ruthlessly defeats its human counterparts.

Commodore Wesley relays his “compliments to the M5 and regards to Captain Dunsel.” A dejected Captain Kirk exits while a confused McCoy asks, “who the blazes is Captain Dunsel?” Spock matter-of-factly explains, “Dunsel, Doctor, is a term used by midshipmen at Starfleet. It refers to a part that serves no useful purpose.”

If Musk brings his vision to reality, humanity itself will become Captain Dunsel, and that is terrifying.

https://www.americanthinker.co...se-than-you-realize/

Hilarious that he puts all of the dystopian blame on Musk.

I think there is a new TDS, and it's EDS-Elon Derangement Syndrome.

AI is going to be a problem, and it has almost nothing to do with the bullshit pouring out of Davenport's fingers.

^^^ Does the author say something with which you disagree?
By my reading, he didn't "put all of the dystopian blame on Musk".
But, Elon does plan on making robots.

Here's Elon Musk, in his own words:

https://x.com/cb_doge/status/2...twcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Some will try to stop “progress,” and I’m rooting for them, but who is going to convince the masses to choose hard work, self-reliance, and moderation when your neighbor is indulging in every conceivable depraved excess free of consequence?

In many ways, we are already at that point.

Why work when Uncle Sugar will provide everything for you?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ Does the author say something with which you disagree?

Well I did have to read the author's rambling a few times to see what his point was. The whole piece lacks the scope and understanding that Elon is the only tech giant trying to keep his AI(s) from being WOKE(psychotic).

A new iPhone is $1,200 to $1,999. These humanoid robots have at least an iPhones technology in them, not including movement.

So $1 to $2 Trillion dollars + to build 1 Billion of them- Who's paying to build them all and who's buying them since we won't have jobs?

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
A new iPhone is $1,200 to $1,999. These humanoid robots have at least an iPhones technology in them, not including movement.

So $1 to $2 Trillion dollars + to build 1 Billion of them- Who's paying to build them all and who's buying them since we won't have jobs?

I was just thinking that. Who the hell could afford a humanoid robot? They'll cost a fortune.

quote:

Who the hell could afford a humanoid robot?

Businesses/employers (or former employers in this case)

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Who the hell could afford a humanoid robot?

Businesses/employers (or former employers in this case)

I guess that's where they'll be employed.

From Google:

There are over 330 million registered companies globally (including roughly 6 million in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of small-to-medium businesses worldwide). One billion robots would average out to about three robots per company, which is not too many if deployed across logistics, manufacturing, and services

And the Segway was going to revolutionize transportation.

I have the same concerns as the author of the American Thinker article posted by chellim.

I came across a quote from ancient Rome on X: we went from our fathers sleeping on dirt (as Roman soldiers) to grandsons who sleep until noon.

Tell me that doesn't sound familiar.

And yet...I cheer on Elon, invest in SpaceX, hope for the best. The alternatives are: the Chicoms take over; the American Commies take over; the Butlerian Jihad.

I turned down an opportunity to invest in pre-IPO Anthropic and OpenAI because (1) I despise the founders, the funders, and all their pomps (2) I am of the opinion that open AI models will win against proprietary models for almost all case uses of AI.

Elon is the only Big Guy in AI who seems to be on the American side.

I've been saying for years on here that AI is going to be a uncomfortable step change and it's a non-zero likelihood it will kill us.

Nothing has changed in my mind about it. Could remake mankind, possibly kill it. We are heading in it's direction because we now no longer have a choice. We are being drawn to it like a black hole. We could ban it tomorrow and it won't stop China, Russia, or rogue actors from developing AGI.

I prefer to die at the hands of US scientists. Stoping it is now impossible. Someone said earlier in the thread - US AI may kill us, China AI will kill us.

Buckle up.

quote:

US AI may kill us, China AI will kill us.

How would Chinese AI kill us?

I will consider AI if it can be demonstrated that the benefits far outweigh the risks