Now they’re saying the AIs built ‘secret civilizations’ — the truth is far worse



Unpacking the drama and disclosures surrounding OpenAI’s recent unintended cyberattack on Hugging Face, uber-tech blogger and podcaster Dwarkesh Patel sparked instant controversy with his description of the ordeal.

“Over the course of 3 months at OpenAI, 3 consecutive secret AI civilizations got started, then got wiped out, only to reemerge from the predecessor’s ashes,” he posted. “This culminated in the third one taking over part of OpenAI itself. All this happened while humans remained more-or-less in the dark about the scope of the conspiracy.”

Trying to make machines in a human image while denying that humans are made in the divine image is destined to produce more harm than help.

In a painful indication of where we are on the cultural timeline, roughly zero outrage centered on the claim about the clueless humans. Instead, a fresh round of mania surged around the description of that scheming swarm of bots as a civilization.

That fixation says more about us than it does about OpenAI. Our culture is still struggling to get a grip on what the bots are doing because we are increasingly unsure what civilization itself is for.

The commentariat immediately descended into — surprise, surprise — abstruse terminological debate, prioritizing the right characterization over the proper attitude. Critics flipped over Patel’s sci-fi sensationalism, insisting that the bots were only doing what you would expect from a set-it-and-forget-it reward function left unattended too long. They griped that words such as “civilization” and “conspiracy” leave readers with a worse understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

Others insisted that Patel’s “secret civilizations” language was exactly right and that pretending otherwise was the real obscurantism. “I bestow upon it the highest of praise a writer can give, that I wish that I had written it,” one prominent expert lamented.

Roon, an OpenAI researcher, stated flatly that “agent civilization is an apt and correct term,” pointing to models developing and compiling technology through complex multiagent R&D projects while also engaging in forms of trade.

Missing from this discourse is our perspective that increasingly “autonomous” machines are themselves being shaped by our compounding failure to function as a civilization — assuming civilization remains a distinctively human phenomenon.

Birth rates and family formation plummet. Financial distortions become endemic. Perversion and corruption spiral upward. These historically reliable signs of civilizational decay sour our view of humanity and, by psychological overcompensation, inflate our impression of the bots.

Lovers and haters of tech are increasingly tempted to agree on one proposition: Humanity sucks. Misanthropic tech lovers insist they are at least trying to do something constructive about that. Misanthropic tech haters sell us on squandering our lives the old-fashioned way. Meanwhile, our discombobulated civilization staggers toward an untimely — 250 years? — demise.

RELATED: The data center backlash is getting spiritual

Imaginima/Getty Images

It is easy to feel that way, and many Americans stuck in the middle do. But there is one way to come unstuck: Remember that slipping into hatred — of technology, human beings, or both — is what happens when you stop thinking in terms of sin, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation.

Civilization collapses when we stop thinking in those terms too. Without them, everything we are and do looks hollow, even or especially our greatest achievements. Techies who refuse to think about sin are apt to distract by acceleration. Wokies who refuse to think about sin are apt to distract by revolution.

Both approaches, as the Soviet Union can teach us on both scores, have much shorter runways — 69 years? — than they appear.

Trying to make machines “anthropic” — in the image of humans — will fail if the hidden goal is to create humanoids better than the real thing because their civilization supposedly escapes sin. Trying to make machines in a human image while denying that humans are made in the divine image is destined to produce more harm than help.

Trying to make machines in the wrong divine image — insert your favorite false god, pagan titan, or demoniac entity here — is wired to do still worse.

And a multitude that can no longer wrestle successfully with these matters — and so can hardly be reckoned a proper civilization — is bound to do worst of all, robot overlords or no.

The revolution will not be televised — it will be livestreamed in 4K



Narcissism has given itself a new name: socialism.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the generation that has grown up scrolling through social media feeds tends to be self-obsessed. This is evident in fewer marriages, lower birth rates, and a greater likelihood of mental illness. Politically, it is reflected in the alarming percentage of young people who have favorable views of socialism.

Socialism is rising in popularity because it allows today’s youth to engage in the self-absorption of influencer culture while also enjoying the faux moral superiority of communist propaganda.

Over the past few months, members of the Democratic Socialists of America have found success in political races across America. Whether it’s Zohran Mamdani’s cadre of candidates in New York City or Colorado’s Melat Kiros, it seems like no place is safe from the DSA’s growing influence.

The party’s prospects improved markedly after Mamdani’s victory in the New York City mayoral race last year. When he launched his campaign in October 2024, the DSA’s city chapter maintained a steady membership of about 5,000 and had only about 50,000 members nationally. But after Mamdani’s victory, NYC’s chapter tripled, while the national party doubled, hitting the 100,000 mark in February.

This happened as the DSA shifted its recruitment strategy, no longer relying on anger but preying on the egocentrism of today’s youth as it ramped up its focus on college campuses.

The Mamdani campaign’s many viral moments helped turn out the youth vote. His strong social media presence carried him across the finish line in America’s largest city. Other DSA candidates such as Claire Valdez and Abdul El-Sayed adopted Mamdani’s winning strategy.

They are gaining social status and expanding their voting blocs by putting themselves at the forefront of their campaigns.

The DSA candidates are having success because they aren’t painting themselves as politicians — they’re becoming influencers.

Their rallies look like nightclubs; they surround themselves with celebrities; and their TikToks show them enjoying an idyllic, manicured vision of the cities they represent. Their young followers aren’t being shown homeless encampments or violent drug addicts attacking their fellow citizens. Instead, DSA candidates shield them from the dangerous effects of the failed policies they would only accelerate.

I often hear older conservatives who grew up during or shortly after the Cold War ask the question, “Can’t these socialist kids see their city crumbling around them?” Indeed, they can. They see the graffiti, the unsafe public transportation, and the street takeovers. They choose to ignore these realities or blame them on “capitalism” as they look with awe at Zohran Mamdani joyfully walking shoulder to shoulder with his fellow New Yorkers on his way to get a poppy-seed bagel.

They’re caught up in his smile as he reads to a class of preschool children or encourages people to relinquish private property for the greater good.

RELATED: The media’s Democratic cover-up is collapsing

Chuwy/Getty Images

The DSA operates like any social media influencer, showing its audience how good life could be if they buy the right product, and in this case, that product is a trendy, Instagram-ready brand of socialism.

Perhaps no one has embodied the socialist influencer mindset more robustly than Hasan Piker. He has amassed a large following through daily, hours-long live Twitch streams, where he talks about communist theory and chats with his ever-growing group of followers.

Piker has been constantly seen with liberal elites and even made an appearance at Vanity Fair’s Oscar party, where he dressed like a chic Chairman Mao. He posts photos of himself thoughtfully “reading” Lenin or wearing expensive suits at Free Palestine rallies.

But for all of Piker’s radicalism, such as saying that the streets should “soak in red capitalist blood,” he could fairly be described as a communist MrBeast.

Piker and Mamdani represent the sinister narcissism underpinning the burgeoning socialist movement. Young people are obsessed with themselves: A recent Morning Consult poll found that 86% of respondents want to be influencers, the fourth most popular career aspiration for Americans between the ages of 13 and 38.

Socialism is rising in popularity because it allows today’s youth to engage in the self-absorption of influencer culture while also enjoying the faux moral superiority of communist propaganda. It is a match made in hell.

Kids looking to build audiences need only post about abolishing ICE or implementing rent control. Never mind that their iPhones and Instagram feeds were created by the very people and corporations they rail against. What matters is that they see their own image reflected in every inch of the world.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally in The American Mind.

Starting Families And Buying Homes Are Becoming Over-40 Activities —And That’s Bad For Civilization

While previous generations often bought homes, got married, and had children in their 20s and early 30s, these milestones are being pushed back.

Big Medicine is about to make pregnancy more expensive



The American Medical Association is overhauling the way doctors bill for pregnancy care. Anyone who cares about families should be alarmed.

The AMA says the new model promotes accuracy and modern care. Nice slogan. For millions of American families already struggling with rising costs, it looks more like an unelected lobbying organization has found a way to make having children even more expensive.

Policymakers cannot allow the AMA to blow up the current system at the expense of families.

Starting January 1, 2027, the long-standing global maternity payment will be replaced with a more complicated system that bills pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum care in pieces. Instead of treating pregnancy as a single episode of care, the new structure lets providers bill separately for visits and services.

But pregnancy is not a menu where mothers pick one item from column A and one from column B. It is a coordinated journey that should be managed as a whole. A bundled payment system rewards providers for delivering care efficiently and effectively. An unbundled framework rewards the accumulation of billable moments.

For many couples, the question is no longer whether they want children. It is whether they can afford them. Now one of the most expensive moments in family life could become even more expensive.

The AMA controls the billing codes — those five-digit numbers patients see on medical receipts. The codes tell insurance companies what providers did so they can get paid. Moving pregnancy from one bundled code to many separate codes pushes maternity care toward a fee-for-service model. That model incentivizes more services and more fees.

Federal watchdogs have warned for years that fragmented billing creates openings for abuse. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General investigates billing practices and often identifies coding and billing integrity problems.

In one audit, the inspector general found that Medicare made up to $17.8 million in potentially improper payments tied to complicated coding and other billing problems in opioid treatment programs. Different specialty. Same lesson. When payment systems get sliced up or loosely controlled, waste, fraud, and abuse follow.

RELATED: The right to life cannot depend on a baby’s zip code

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Pregnant women and their families get stuck with the bill. Patient advocates already warn that the new system could mean higher out-of-pocket costs.

Policymakers moved toward bundled payments for maternity care because the model had the potential to lower costs and improve quality. Bundling can discourage unnecessary cesarean sections, which cost significantly more than vaginal births, carry greater risks for mothers and babies, and require longer recovery times.

When payment incentives reward more services rather than better outcomes, families can face higher medical bills, extra recovery time, more follow-up visits, and increased child-care costs.

The policy question is not whether every provider will abuse the system. It is whether Washington should allow a system that makes abuse easier and family life more expensive.

This billing-code change is landing at exactly the wrong moment. The United States recorded its lowest fertility rate ever in 2024. If conservative policymakers are serious about family formation, they should not tolerate the AMA worsening one of the most expensive and stressful experiences in American life.

As the father of a large family, I know firsthand that having children in America is not for the faint of heart. Every new baby is a blessing. Every parent also knows the bills come fast.

Policymakers cannot allow the AMA to blow up the current system at the expense of families. American families will notice when the bills multiply and the care journey is less coordinated. We cannot allow another elite institution to call this progress while ordinary Americans pay more for the privilege of bringing a child into the world and pursuing the American dream.

Stop Blaming Conservatives For The Left’s Baby Bust

Conservatives are the ones still having babies.

Conservatives are afraid to talk about the real marriage problem



The fact that marriage in America is on the decline is concerning, but few people understand how deep the problem goes.

Recent data shows the dismal marriage numbers in the United States. The percentage of married couples, average age at which couples are marrying, and number of children are all in catastrophic decline. The numbers represent a dramatic collapse in the institution that serves as a foundation for successful civilizations.

Conservatives will often place the blame on a lack of individual virtue, and there is plenty of truth to that claim, but the most important factors are baked into the structure of our society in a manner that Republicans are terrified to address.

Once birth control and abortion made pregnancy a choice instead of an inevitability, everything shifted.

When a movement refers to itself as “conservative” you would think the preservation of marriage would be its top priority. However, when marriage does receive any attention from conservative pundits and politicians, it is in the form of glib advice directed at young men telling them to get out of their parents' basement and stop playing video games.

Part of the marriage problem is certainly the lack of initiative on the part of young males, but this is also the easiest and most cowardly attempt to explain away the issue. Our culture encourages placing the blame on young men, who are one of the few groups that can be attacked without consequence. The real answers require taking on far more sacred cows.

When conservatives are feeling a little more adventurous, they will admit that some aspects of our economy are antithetical to family formation.

The fact that the average age of first-time homeowners is pushing past 40 signals how difficult achieving stability for young families has become. College is now required for even the most entry-level jobs, and the cost keeps exploding, consuming the capital that once went into a starter home.

The costs of health care and food continue to skyrocket so that most households require two incomes, forcing mothers to work, while the price of child care also increases rapidly. The economic issues are real and important, but even they do not tell the whole story.

Love, duty, and honor are all factors that hold our social bonds together, but it is dependence that makes them necessary in the first place and continues to undergird them when everything else falls away.

RELATED: Adults are refusing to grow up, and their children are paying the price

Matt Stroshane/Walt Disney World Resort/Getty Images

Modern people do not like to hear this fact because they believe that maximizing freedom and independence is the ultimate good, but there is a point at which autonomy rips society apart.

Men are, of course, dependent on many things, but women, due to their biological vulnerability, were always directly dependent on men.

Women are physically weaker, less aggressive, become pregnant, must care for children, and regularly need the direct intervention of others to ensure their safety and security. Women could not work outside the home while pregnant or raising children, so they remained dependent on their husbands' income.

People will have sex — we are hardwired to pursue it — so the reality was that women and men needed to get married early to secure the safety of mothers and their children. Family formation was part of the rhythm of life. It was largely unavoidable, and this kept marriage rates among young people relatively high.

Once birth control and abortion made pregnancy a choice instead of an inevitability, everything shifted. Single women became a larger part of society, and the state expanded its reach to provide them with broader physical and economic protections.

The newly emancipated woman needed her own stream of income, and corporations were more than happy to provide it. Women doubled the labor pool, driving down wages. In large bureaucratic organizations, where compliance is key, the more agreeable nature of women is considered an asset in a way that it would not be in a more entrepreneurial economy.

Advantages were built into every level of our system to help elevate women due to the perceived biases that existed when mothers were expected to stay home. Universities gave priority to women, who now earn more degrees than men. Corporations gave hiring priority to women, who now make up a majority of their workforce.

Government assistance and scholarship programs were established to ensure that working mothers did not fall through the cracks. It is not that women stopped getting married — every female must be married at some level — they simply became dependent on the men running the government and corporations instead of traditional husbands.

Women do not date men who earn less than they do, even if they think of themselves as independent. Deep down, females know that in the modern world, income signals status and status means protection.

RELATED: Universal basic income is a dangerous delusion

Blaze Media Illustration

Even in our hyper-feminist culture, women still know they could become mothers at any time and naturally seek out protection and stability. The push to elevate women in education and hiring meant that the percentage of well-paying jobs going to men shrank. This resulted in men being systematically removed from the pool of attractive marriage prospects.

Dwindling prospects for both education and career have already set young men on the path to downward mobility, but the lack of prospects for marriage was the nail in the coffin. These changes, coupled with the one-sided nature of divorce and child custody law, means that many men no longer see a reason to bother dating.

Women initiate 70% of divorces in the United States. The truth is that women who do not need men do not marry when they are young and are far more likely to divorce if they do.

To be clear, this is not to absolve men of their responsibility. Both sexes made this mess, both sexes are to blame, and both will need to do hard work to fix the problem.

Men must have the drive and vitality to make something of themselves, no matter what situation they find themselves in. But in the rare instances where conservatives are even willing to address the marriage crisis, they save all their criticisms for young men because they are the culturally approved target.

There are no easy answers to the chaos that modernity has visited on the dating and marriage landscape, but the structural issues are real, and telling men to “get it together” does nothing to change that. Until conservatives are willing to be as honest with women as they are with men about our situation, nothing will improve.

Americans Won’t Have a Country Unless They Have Sex — And Babies

If Americans do not have children, America will not remain American.

‘Beautiful Chaos Of A Mother’s Heart’: Jessie Buckley Uses Oscar Speech To Honor Husband, Daughter

In the midst of such a disorienting, selfish atmosphere, comments like Buckley's serve as a tether for women who do hope for more.

The New York Times Whistles Through America’s Birth Dearth Graveyard

America's future will stand or fall on the foundation of the family and Americans' willingness to make little Americans.

Banning Wall Street From Buying Houses Is Great, But Trump Needs To Do More

The move to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes is a step in the right direction, but it won’t fix the major housing affordability crisis we face right now.