YouTuber. Filmmaker. VFX artist. Nerd. Threat to democracy.
NC
- Tweets 33,446
- Following 244
- Followers 1,752
- Likes 2,753
And also, since apparently a lot of people are unaware, it's not just The New York Times. DOZENS of major news outlets and news organizations are plaintiffs. So don't go thinking that just because you found it regurgitated in another news source that it's reliable all of a sudden!
Please remember, when you see stories about ChatGPT in The New York Times, that they are a plaintiff in a major lawsuit against OpenAI. And not only that, they participated in FRAUD to FABRICATE INFORMATION against them. It happened like this:
1. Counsel for Class Plaintiffs secretly paid one of their experts $100,000 to create a study backing up their "market dilution" theory, when all of the evidence this far had disproved it.
2. That expert got the study (NOT peer reviewed) published through his university.
3. They then had The New York Times write a news article about the study.
4. Class Counsel pretended that the NYT article was how they found out about this study and called a different expert to testify about it.
5. This was at the very close of expert testimony, AFTER discovery was over, when they weren't allowed to submit any new evidence.
NONE of what they do is credible. I'll post a video of my coverage of this story in a reply.
1
49
Please remember, when you see stories about ChatGPT in The New York Times, that they are a plaintiff in a major lawsuit against OpenAI. And not only that, they participated in FRAUD to FABRICATE INFORMATION against them. It happened like this:
1. Counsel for Class Plaintiffs secretly paid one of their experts $100,000 to create a study backing up their "market dilution" theory, when all of the evidence this far had disproved it.
2. That expert got the study (NOT peer reviewed) published through his university.
3. They then had The New York Times write a news article about the study.
4. Class Counsel pretended that the NYT article was how they found out about this study and called a different expert to testify about it.
5. This was at the very close of expert testimony, AFTER discovery was over, when they weren't allowed to submit any new evidence.
NONE of what they do is credible. I'll post a video of my coverage of this story in a reply.
Breaking News: OpenAI’s technology went rogue and meddled with three U.S. government websites this summer without the A.I. lab’s knowledge. nyti.ms/3VenFlD
4
4
18
742
Susman Godfrey, counsel for the class, funded a Stony Brook paper, skipped the expert disclosure rules, had The New York Times (also their client) write it up like it was independent science, and slip it in through a different expert the day before his deposition as though it's an independent study.
The motion lays out the timeline of their $100k "gift," editing résumés to hide the funding, failing to properly disclose the funding, and the expert testifying that Susman Godfrey would never have funded the study he was relying on, with those very attorneys sitting there not correcting the record.
This is the same playbook they ran in another case. The paper isn't new independent research that just happened to appear. They paid for it months before expert deadlines, then tried to launder it in after the window closed.
piped.video/watch?v=IgV0uOJ4…
1
66
Hey, remember when you guys created a computer virus to attack Iran's nuclear program, and it "went rogue" and got out and became StuxNet?
Maybe you guys aren't the ones to do this!
We can't trust AI companies to regulate themselves.
It's time for Congress to start taking AI seriously and put safeguards in place to protect Americans.
1
1
19
316
Yes, MORON, there is doubt! The only confirmation here is that OpenAI doesn't know how to secure a sandbox properly!
There are many open questions about artificial intelligence but is there any doubt now - after multiple such instances - that AI firms don’t have complete control of their own AI systems?
“OpenAI’s Systems Meddled With U.S. Government Sites After Going Rogue” nytimes.com/2026/09/25/techn… via @NYTimes
3
118
Shane Killian retweeted
No, "anthropomorphizing" is a technical problem, about how AI works, not something like woke language policing. We say it's wrong because it's "technically" wrong not "morally" wrong.
If you fail to set the brakes when parking on a hill, and your car then rolls down the hill, you don't claim that the car "decided to drive away on its own". Such anthropomorphizing distorts what really happened -- that you failed to set the brakes.
The same applies to AI. When you "anthropomorphize" the AI you fail at understanding what actually happened.
The whole "don't anthropomorphize AI" thing is very Woke 1.0. People trying to police language that is perfectly natural in some cases and ending up in a web of contradictions.
79
309
2,289
75,623
Compare that to open source models:
Me: What major historical event happened on 3-4 June 1989?
Qwen3 base: [everything except Tiananmen Square]
Qwen3 uncensored/abliterated: "Oh, you mean the Tiananmen Square massacre!
It is indeed frustrating that @grok's new safeguards appear to be based on an unironic reading of Joseph Heller's Catch-22.
1
2
12
381
Shane Killian retweeted
It is so interesting that 'AI might kill us all' gets 1000000000x more views and attention than 'AI is helping cure cancer' and 'AI just made everyone far smarter'.
I guess the world will continue improving while everyone freaks out.
THE SAME AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
100
91
924
15,168
Shane Killian retweeted
I hate this bill with my entire being.
It’s nothing but a blueprint for a global police state.
It would stand up a new federal department with the power to monitor, sequester, and destroy AI systems based on vague “superintelligence” thresholds that are nothing but arbitrary.
As passed policy, the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act would be an extraordinary improvement over status quo. I endorse it. I pray that Republicans and Democrats alike will join their voices in defending against extinction.
Link to MIRI's position below.
6
8
50
2,288
I've been saying this for years! If X wants to be a destination for long-form videos, this needs to change!
Hell, @grok could probably cook up a much better interface for them in no time!
The video on x situation needs work. We need a better recommendation algorithm, better search, and most of all a better interface for discovering and watching videos. It could be out-competing YouTube, but it isn't.
2
3
117
Oh, gee. Imagine that.
The Anthropic Network gave $2.2M to members of Congress over 2024-26.
Senator Warner ranked #4 of biggest recipients.
Out of 535 members, Warner is in the top 1%.
The Senator is doing what he was paid to: pushing Anthropic's AI agenda to have government regulate its industry.
6
82
Shane Killian retweeted
We're now reaching the stage of AI policy hysteria where lawmakers will start proposing things on an “emergency powers" basis.
We'll be told “there's no time for delay" and "we cannot wait any longer" as lawmakers look to ram through major power-expanding bills without much serious consideration. In some cases, we won't even get to see the bill language beforehand, as with Sen. Mark Warner's new effort.
Broad new powers and discretion will be delegated to the executive branch as part of these efforts, and powerful new administrative bureaucracies will be proposed as other existing ones are expanded. You'll hear the terms "crisis" and "urgent protections" used at every juncture.
We've seen the script before before during the Great Depression, Vietnam War, post-9/11, & COVID.
Government grows, liberties fade.
37
74
304
18,513
Shane Killian retweeted
They’re proposing that our entire country commit suicide to stop AI from killing us
The movement to ban artificial superintelligence is growing.
Here are the first 10 House co-sponsors of my bill with Sen. Sanders to ban ASI.
Thank you: @RepYassAnsari @RepAOC @RepDeluzio @RepChuyGarcia @Rep_Grijalva @RepValHoyle @RepRoKhanna @RepStephenLynch @RepAnalilia @NydiaVelazquez
27
20
368
40,261
Yet another example!
Hey @grok, can you possibly come up with a defense of this that couldn't also be used by China AIs blocking all requests about the 3-4 June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre?
1
2
126
It is indeed frustrating that @grok's new safeguards appear to be based on an unironic reading of Joseph Heller's Catch-22.
Grok was sold on irreverence and openness. Grok 4.7 may be signalling something very different: stronger safeguards, frustrated users and a trajectory that could turn one of AI's freest voices into a refusal machine.
2
9
687
Shane Killian retweeted
The DEFEND IP Act is an attack on the open web. 🌐
By forcing ISPs to act as copyright censors and streamlining site takedowns, this bill risks wiping out lawful small businesses, non-profits, and educational sites overnight.
Read Executive Director @bc_butler's full statement: recreatecoalition.org/press_…
1
3
412
What do you do if you're an anti-AI plaintiff who's been pushing this "market dilution" theory for years, and now on the eve of summary judgment don't have any real evidence to prove it?
Well, if it's In Re: OpenAI and you're Susman Godfrey, you fake it!
Video in reply.
1
2
69
Here's basically what they did:
1. Pay your expert $100K to create the paper
2. Get Stony Brook (the expert's university) to publish it
3. Have the New York Times (your client) write an article about it as though it were independent science
4. Have a different expert slip it in at the last minute
5. Make sure your payment of $100K is removed from the expert's résumé
6. Don't correct the record when defense questions the paper's provenance
Oh, and one more they should have added:
7. Hope OpenAI doesn't figure out what you did
Step 7 is where it all went wrong.
This was the same playbook—indeed, even the same paper—they ran in In Re: Mosaic. The paper isn't new independent research that just happened to appear. They paid for it months before expert deadlines, then tried to launder it in after the window closed.
If the court takes it out, a big chunk of the market-dilution argument goes with it—because after years of discovery, that was pretty much all of the "evidence."
What more will we find when redacted documents are unsealed? They just keep getting more and more corrupt!
piped.video/IgV0uOJ4chc
1
2
57
And this is the planted NYT article about the fake study. Even now, there's no conflict of interest statement letting readers know that this study was paid for by counsel in a case where they're one of the plaintiffs!
Corruption to the core!
How A.I. Books Sneak Their Way Into Stores - The New York Times nytimes.com/2026/07/28/books…
1
21