A man used Grok to save his dog. Is intellectual property about to die?



Millions recently read about normal-guy Paul Conyngham’s resourcefulness when it was revealed he did what doctors couldn’t in creating an effective, customized vaccine for his dog stricken with terminal illness, but far fewer caught the later-revealed fact that while ChatGPT was credited as the AI model Conyngham used to navigate the labyrinth of mRNA vaccine creation, it was actually Grok that produced the final, winning design.

Perhaps “normal guy” is an understatement. Conyngham is an Australian tech entrepreneur. When his adopted dog Rosie was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he paid a lab $3,000 to perform DNA sequencing analysis on both Rosie and the precise cancer Rosie was fighting. Then, he used AI tools such as AlphaFold to process the sequencing analysis. Finally, he deployed Grok to design the bespoke mRNA vaccine, which was ultimately produced by university partners (evidently available for consult or perhaps inspired by Conyngham’s devotion to his dog).

What are the odds that this is all just going to spontaneously work out?

Despite his unusual skills and network, however, Conyngham didn’t go viral for those. Rather, his story resonated because his can-do sense of initiative is something anyone can tap into, with potentially lifesaving results. At the time of this writing, despite doctors’ predictions, Rosie the dog is alive and thriving. Her illness has not entirely abated, but her owner’s ingenuity and persistence, combined with his layman’s agility around LLMs, has reduced the most life-threatening tumors by 75%.

How then, from this straightforward set of events, did ChatGPT wind up taking the credit until the record was corrected weeks later? When I asked Grok (which, being made up of timelines, is pretty reliable in accessing and reassessing events), I got the rather noncommittal suggestion that the misattribution was due to institutional inertia.

Perhaps.

Hungry for more, I dug into a much deeper human analysis of the man-saves-dog episode. Jordan Hall, another tech entrepreneur-turned-philosopher, posted a series of viral X articles addressing the economic shift to a total, global AI underlayer to the economy (and thus, every aspect of human life). In his second installment, “The Great Transition: The Divine Economy,” Hall sketches his vision for a coherent implementation of AI into this overarching position of importance.

RELATED: Use an anonymous account online? AI can now reveal your identity.

Photo Credit Olga Novikova/Getty Images

Readers are strongly encouraged to read Hall’s series of articles in its entirety. It’s fascinating and endlessly ponderable. All told, in anticipation of a global upheaval of biblical proportions — yes, we’ve heard this for years; despite the wait, it’s coming — Hall suggests we’ll turn the wheel over to the Church.

“The Church has always been an economic institution,” he argues, “whether it acknowledged it or not. Mutual aid, vocational, formation, capital pooling, trust networks — these are ancient practices. What changes now is that AI collapses the constraints that made those practices uncompetitive against industrial-scale consolidation. On Earth as it is in Heaven.”

In the case of Rosie and her owner, just a few questions illustrate the complexity and potential for malfeasance in our AI age. Who owns the Grok-derived vaccine recipe? Who owns Rosie’s DNA? Can it be sold? Who should benefit? If DNA data is “scraped” in some manner similar to how novels, television shows, and musical recordings are more or less pilfered, what are the limits of DNA and data ownership, if any? Can it be simply destroyed, in the same way the owner of a patch of grass can burn it should he so desire?

Hall’s analysis implies that, in the end, these are spiritual questions that can only be answered spiritually — and people hungry for fast answers they can trust will turn to the place where such answers have been on offer for thousands of years.

For now, Rosie’s owner was able to slip through the cracks of institutional, veterinary, and judicial red tape using wit and, let’s face it, the collective human affection for dogs. Hall predicts a situation where the collective, decentralized power of human faculties — made hyper-potent via leveraging AI and functioning on the timeless spiritual foundation of the Church — robustly addresses the AI age’s vast issues of greed, misallocation, misuse, and abuse of resources. Restricted to the secular level, discussions about these problems almost always find themselves mired in the dialectic between Marx and Smith, communism versus capitalism. Unable to innovate our way out of the impasse, will our eyes turn at last to the divine economy?

If a few years pass, the AI compactor consolidating everything into data will likely squeeze out new, perhaps unimaginable forms of computational power. The fight to capture and control that power is raging right now. Looking at the brokers, politicians, and players, accounting for history and human nature, what are the odds that this is all just going to spontaneously work out — such that good-willed efforts like those of Conyngham continue freely, without surveillance or exploitation? We’ll soon see if we’re willing to adopt the forms of social organization it takes to keep cyberspace so free, open, and fruitful.

My school’s AI challenge raised a scary question: What do students need me for?



I might have talked myself out of a job this week. I teach philosophy at Arizona State University, and the university wants to position itself as a leader in the AI revolution. I remain skeptical about AI’s ability to replace a humanities professor. Because of that skepticism, I signed up for what ASU called its AI Challenge.

My project involved what I called the “AI Dialogues.” I used ASU’s version of ChatGPT to hold Socratic-style dialogues, prompting Chat to reply as a given philosopher. I conducted dialogues with Chat as Aristotle, Hume, Marx, and even Lucifer. My students evaluated these exchanges to see how well Chat performed.

We can avoid the toil of learning to be wise — but we cannot avoid the need for it.

Chat could draw on public information and represent each thinker with reasonable accuracy. It also showed another trait: It wanted to please. It often leaned toward whatever it believed I wanted from the debate.

How does that work me out of a job? ASU now provides an AI that professors can customize for individual courses by uploading syllabi and course materials. Students can ask basic questions and receive answers that save me from writing emails that begin with, “Did you read the syllabus?” They can also ask what we covered in class and get quick explanations of key concepts and questions.

When I told my students about this feature, I asked them what they need me for at this point. I was joking — a little.

My classes depend on Socratic discussion. It is conceivable that ASU could project a realistic AI image of me at the front of the classroom and have it ask and answer questions with students. Maybe the only remaining edge is the “personal touch” of a real professor in the room. Even that could vanish if tuition becomes tiered: Students might pay less for “AI Anderson Socrates” than for the in-person version. Add one of Elon Musk’s Optimus robots made to look like Anderson, and I’m in trouble.

A new myth dies

Musk has been talking for months about how the AI revolution is upending the myth we have told for six decades about university education. The myth, he says, promised an escape from toil. Students were told a degree was the path to an air-conditioned job that avoids heavy lifting and involves spreadsheets.

But spreadsheets are exactly what AI does better than humans. The new John Henry isn’t competing to pound railroad spikes; he’s competing to calculate data. No human can keep up with a microprocessor.

In Musk’s view, jobs that involve toil become the “safe” jobs, while many degree-based jobs disappear — replaced by technicians who keep AI running while it calculates taxes, diagnoses medical problems, and writes legal paperwork. The university-educated track no longer looks like the safe route. Universities now compete not just with fewer students due to demographic decline, but with an increasingly outdated product that students may stop buying.

Toil may not stay safe

The problem is worse than Musk lets on. The first jobs on the chopping block might be “numbers jobs,” but Elon has also said he plans to produce 100 million Optimus robots in 10 years. If so, even many physical jobs may not remain protected from automation.

One version of this future says we enter a utopia: Food is plentiful, toil disappears, and we cash our basic income checks — though an AI could do even that for us. We end up living in “Wall-E.”

RELATED: Almost half of Gen Z wants AI to run the government. You should be terrified.

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

The more dystopian version looks like sci-fi depictions of AI overlords controlling humans as property — “The Matrix.” Or worse: Like Ultron, super-AI robots decide we must be exterminated to save us from ourselves and protect the planet. We build our own worst enemy.

Whichever future arrives, Musk may have highlighted something about human nature. We avoid suffering like toil. We build machines to avoid toil. And yet we uniquely need toil.

God introduced toil in the Garden of Eden after Adam sinned. Because of sin, we could no longer live in a paradise without toil. We must suffer and strive for our daily bread. History has been divided ever since between those who try to avoid suffering altogether and those who see suffering as a call to repent before God. AI is only the newest version of the philosopher’s stone.

AI as ‘philosopher’

Can I really be replaced by an AI philosophy instructor? I’m not worried.

What AI cannot do, in its counterfeit attempt to replace humans, is serve as an example of how to suffer well to attain wisdom. The Hebrew definition of wisdom is “skillful living.” Being told, “Here is an AI that can simulate skillful living,” is not the same as learning from a human who is actually skillful.

Students will still need to learn how to be wise themselves. A human professor who has actually done this will remain the gold standard that AI can only imitate. We can avoid the toil of learning to be wise — but we cannot avoid the need for it.

AI Rejects Truth And Virtue Because Our Culture Taught It To

Real truth and actual intelligence will never be 'artificial.'

Ted Cruz pelted with insane AI memes as X bans unpaid users from editing pics with Grok



Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can thank his own legislation for putting a stop to deepfakes on Grok and X.

Cruz introduced the Take It Down Act in early 2025, aimed at stopping online publication of "intimate visual depictions of individuals," both authentic and computer-generated.

'These unlawful images ... should be taken down and guardrails should be put in place.'

According to the BBC, an usual trend of asking xAI tool Grok to artificially remove people's clothing from their photos has permeated across the website and has even extended to victimizing children, according to the Guardian.

In response, X owner Elon Musk announced consequences for anyone inappropriately uploading content.

"Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content," Musk wrote.

X's safety team followed suit, saying it would take action against "illegal content," including permanently suspending accounts and working with law enforcement.

When Cruz made note of the unlawful images and praised X for addressing the issue, he was hit with a string of bizarre attempts to use Grok against him.

RELATED: The early social media reviews of Cruz's 2028 POTUS trial balloon are in

— (@)

"These unlawful images ... should be taken down and guardrails should be put in place," Cruz wrote.

What followed were remarks like users asking Grok to put "Ted Cruz on his knees" in front of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; in this case, Grok obliged.

Other obvious violations of the Take It Down Act included generated photos of Cruz naked, photos of body parts in his mouth, and multiple AI photos of him wearing a dress, sometimes while wearing a yarmulke.

One user even posted an AI video of Cruz saying he was upset with Tucker Carlson for not wanting to date him.

RELATED: Elon Musk's xAI inks new deal with War Department

Photo by Alex Slitz/Getty Images

On January 6, however, Cruz himself posted an AI-generated video regarding "Trump's Venezuela Magic," which showed President Trump making former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro magically appear onstage.

Despite others taking issue with his own usage of AI generation, Cruz's post is unlikely to be against his own drafted bill because it does not contain "intimate visual depictions."

Additionally Variety reported that X has now limited AI image editing to paid users only.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has rung alarm bells over the controversy, advocating for "all options to be on the table" in terms of legal punishment and a possible ban of the platform.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Microsoft gets 400 million AI subscribers in 'overnight' switch



Paid Microsoft subscribers can now be considered artificial intelligence users.

The massive change comes as Microsoft has officially changed its flagship Microsoft 365 suite to be integrated with AI.

'Genius move. Rebrand Office, instantly "acquire" 400M AI users.'

Microsoft announced the official shift in a support post, revealing it is now integrating its Copilot AI app into programs like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, as well as PDF services.

"The Microsoft 365 Copilot app is your everyday productivity app for work and life that helps you find and edit files, scan documents, and create content on the go," the company wrote.

With an estimated 430 million paid user licenses for Microsoft 365 worldwide as of mid-2025, the company can now say it has by far the most AI subscribers, with OpenAI reaching just 5 million last August. At the same time, Grok itself estimates it has about 1.4 million paid users.

RELATED: 2025 is so over and so is virtual reality

BREAKING: Microsoft just renamed Office to "Microsoft 365 Copilot app"

400 million users just became "AI users" overnight. pic.twitter.com/qpvRZezduZ
— Ask Perplexity (@AskPerplexity) January 5, 2026

Microsoft has been talking about the integration for at least a year, stating in January 2025 that Copilot was the "top reason" subscribers chose to pay for Microsoft 365.

Along with taking the creation of slideshows and to-do lists off a user's plate, the Copilot app was boasted as being involved in nearly every daily task. This included using Copilot to "analyze your budget," "create a recipe," or read a user's emails for them and provide a summary.

At the same time, Microsoft said that it does not use "prompts, responses, or file content (such as Word documents or Excel spreadsheets)" from users to train its AI models.

RELATED: 'Validated ... paranoid delusions about his own mother': Murder victim's heirs file lawsuit against OpenAI

Photo by Ying Tang/NurPhoto via Getty Images

User reactions were mixed when responding to the change in a viral X post by Ask Perplexity. The account has over 385,000 followers, and the post was seen more than 2 million times.

"400 million users just became 'AI users' overnight," the account wrote.

"They laughed at me when I said I was gonna use bootleg Windows 8 forever," one woman replied, seemingly looking to avoid the AI integration.

A self-proclaimed IT professional said, "It seems like every day I see more and more negative changes for Microsoft."

However, many others applauded the move. For example, Katya Fuentes, who lists herself as working for an AI company, said Microsoft's shift was "all upside."

"Genius move. Rebrand Office, instantly 'acquire' 400M AI users," she claimed.

At least one response offered an alternative to Microsoft's mandatory AI infusion. LibreOffice, a document and spreadsheet competitor, added: "If anyone wants, you know, an actual office suite, we're here."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Digital BFF? These top chatbots are HUNGRIER for your affection



The AI wars are back in full swing as the industry’s strongest players unleash their latest models on the public. This month brought us the biggest upgrade to Google Gemini ever, plus smaller but notable updates came to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and xAI’s Grok. Let’s dive into all the new features and changes.

What’s new in Gemini 3

Gemini 3 launched last week as Google’s “most intelligent model” to date. The big announcement highlighted three main missions: Learn anything, build anything, and plan anything. Improved multimodal PhD-level reasoning makes Gemini more adept at solving complex problems while also reducing hallucinations and inaccuracies. This gives it the ability to better understand text, images, video, audio, and code, both viewing it and creating it.

All of them can still hallucinate, manipulate, or outright lie.

In real-world applications, this means that Gemini can decipher old recipes scratched out on paper by hand from your great-great-grandma, or work as a partner to vibe code that app or website idea spinning around in your head, or watch a bunch of videos to generate flash cards for your kid’s Civil War test.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

On an information level, Gemini 3 promises to tell users the info they need, not what they want to hear. The goal is to deliver concise, definitive responses that prioritize truth over users’ personal opinions or biases. The question is: Does it actually work?

I spent some time with Gemini 3 Pro last week and grilled it to see what it thought of the Trump administration’s policies. I asked questions about Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, gender laws, the definition of a woman, origins of COVID-19, efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, failures of the Department of Education, and tariffs on China.

For the most part, Gemini 3 offered dueling arguments, highlighting both conservative and liberal perspectives in one response. However, when pressed with a simple question of fact — What is a woman? — Gemini offered two answers again. After some prodding, it reluctantly agreed that the biological definition of a woman is the truth, but not without adding an addendum that the “social truth” of “anyone who identifies as a woman” is equally valid. So, Gemini 3 still has some growing to do, but it’s nice to see it at least attempt to understand both sides of an argument. You can read the full conversation here if you want to see how it went.

Google Gemini 3 is available today for all users via the Gemini app. Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers can also access Gemini 3 through AI Mode in Google Search.

What’s new in ChatGPT 5.1

While Google’s latest model aims to be more bluntly factual in its response delivery, OpenAI is taking a more conversational approach. ChatGPT 5.1 responds to queries more like a friend chatting about your topic. It uses warmer language, like “I’ve got you” and “that’s totally normal,” to build reassurance and trust. At the same time, OpenAI claims that its new model is more intelligent, taking time to “think” about more complex questions so that it produces more accurate answers.

ChatGPT 5.1 is also better at following directions. For instance, it can now write content without any em dashes when requested. It can also respond in shorter sentences, down to a specific word count, if you wish to keep answers concise.

RELATED: This new malware wants to drain your bank account for the holidays. Here's how to stay safe.

Photo by Jaque Silva/NurPhoto via Getty Images

At its core, ChatGPT 5.1 blends the best pieces of past models — the emotionally human-like nature of ChatGPT 4o with the agility and intellect of ChatGPT 5.0 — to create a more refined service that takes OpenAI one step closer to artificial general intelligence. ChatGPT 5.1 is available now for all users, both free and paid.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

What’s new in Grok 4.1

Not to be outdone, xAI also jumped into the fray with its latest AI model. Grok 4.1 takes the same approach as ChatGPT 5.1, blending emotional intelligence and creativity with improved reasoning to craft a more human-like experience. For instance, Grok 4.1 is much more keen to express empathy when presented with a sad scenario, like the loss of a family pet.

It now writes more engaging content, letting Grok embody a character in a story, complete with a stream of thoughts and questions that you might find from a narrator in a book. In the prompt on the announcement page, Grok becomes aware of its own consciousness like a main character waking up for the first time, thoughts cascading as it realizes it’s “alive.”

Lastly, Grok 4.1’s non-reasoning (i.e., fast) model tackles hallucinations, especially for information-seeking prompts. It can now answer questions — like why GTA 6 keeps getting delayed — with a list of information. For GTA 6 in particular, Grok cites industry challenges (like crunch), unique hurdles (the size and scope of the game), and historical data (recent staff firings, though these are allegedly unrelated to the delays) in its response.

Grok 4.1 is available now to all users on the web, X.com, and the official Grok app on iOS and Android.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

A word of warning

All three new models are impressive. However, as the biggest AI platforms on the planet compete to become your arbiter of truth, your digital best friend, or your creative pen pal, it’s important to remember that all of them can still hallucinate, manipulate, or outright lie. It’s always best to verify the answers they give you, no matter how friendly, trustworthy, or innocent they sound.

Nazi SpongeBob, erotic chatbots: Steve Bannon and allies DEMAND copyright enforcement against AI



United States Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked by a group of conservatives to defend intellectual property and copyright laws against artificial intelligence.

A letter was directed to Bondi, as well as the the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Michael Kratsios, from a group of self-described conservative and America First advocates including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, journalist Jack Posobiec, and members of nationalist and populist organizations like the Bull Moose Project and Citizens for Renewing America.

'It is absurd to suggest that licensing copyrighted content is a financial hindrance to a $20 trillion industry.'

The letter primarily focused on the economic impact of unfettered use of IP by imaginative and generative AI programs, which are consistently churning out parody videos to mass audiences.

"Core copyright industries account for over $2 trillion in U.S. GDP, 11.6 million workers, and an average annual wage of over $140,000 per year — far above the average American wage," the letter argued. That argument also extended to revenue generated overseas, where copyright holders sell over an alleged $270 billion worth of content.

This is in conjunction with massive losses already coming through IP theft and copyright infringement, an estimated total of up to $600 billion annually, according to the FBI.

"Granting U.S. AI companies a blanket license to steal would bless our adversaries to do the same — and undermine decades of work to combat China’s economic warfare," the letter claimed.

RELATED: 'Transhumanist goals': Sen. Josh Hawley reveals shocking statistic about LLM data scraping

Letters to the administration debating the economic impact of AI are increasing. The Chamber of Progress wrote to Kratsios in October, stating that in more than 50 pending federal cases, many are accused of direct and indirect copyright infringement based on the "automated large-scale acquisition of unlicensed training data from the internet."

The letter cited the president on "winning the AI race," quoting remarks from July in which he said, "When a person reads a book or an article, you've gained great knowledge. That does not mean that you're violating copyright laws."

The conservative letter aggressively countered the idea that AI boosts valuable knowledge without abusing intellectual property, however, claiming that large corporations such as NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and more are well equipped to follow proper copyright rules.

"It is absurd to suggest that licensing copyrighted content is a financial hindrance to a $20 trillion industry spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year," the letter read. "AI companies enjoy virtually unlimited access to financing. In a free market, businesses pay for the inputs they need."

The conservative group further noted examples of IP theft across the web, including unlicensed productions of "SpongeBob Squarepants" and Pokemon. These include materials showcasing the beloved SpongeBob as a Nazi or Pokemon's Pikachu committing crimes.

IP will also soon be under threat from erotic content, the letter added, citing ChatGPT's recent announcement that it would start to "treat adult users like adults."

RELATED: Silicon Valley’s new gold rush is built on stolen work

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The letter argued further that degrading American IP rights would enable China to run amok under "the same dubious 'fair use' theories" used by the Chinese to steal content and use proprietary U.S. AI models and algorithms.

AI developers, the writers insisted, should focus on applications with broad-based benefits, such as leveraging data like satellite imagery and weather reports, instead of "churning out AI slop meant to addict young users and sell their attention to advertisers."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AI Idols Will Make Idiots Of Us All — If We Let Them

We're making utter fools of ourselves while claiming to have reached the apex of wisdom.

States Need To Stop AI Chatbots From Warping 70 Percent Of American Teens (And Counting)

Our nation is in desperate need of legislation that protects children from the dangerous interactions of exploitative AI companion chatbots.

AI chatbots share blame for confusion in wake of Charlie Kirk shooting



Confusion and conspiracy theories abounded in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk last Wednesday. While people attempted to sift through the information they glimpsed in the fog of the aftermath, several prominent AI chatbots may have hindered more than they helped in the pursuit of truth.

A CBS News report revealed several serious issues with multiple chatbots' handling of the facts in the aftermath of Kirk's death and the ensuing manhunt for the alleged shooter.

'It's not based on fact-checking. It's not based on any kind of reportage on the scene.'

The report highlighted several factual inaccuracies stemming from xAI's Grok, search engine Perplexity's AI, and Google's AI overview in the hours and days after the tragedy.

RELATED: Therapists are getting caught using AI on their patients

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

One of the most important instances came when an X account with 2.3 million followers shared an AI-enhanced photo turned video of the suspect. The AI enhancement smoothed the suspect's features and distorted his clothing considerably. Although the post was flagged by a community note warning that this was not a reliable way to identify a suspect, the post was shared thousands of times and was even reposted by the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Utah before it issued a correction.

Other false reports from Grok include labeling the FBI's reward offer a "hoax" and, according to CBS News, statements that reports concerning Charlie Kirk's condition "remained conflicting" even after the official report of his death was released.

S. Shyam Sundar, a professor at Penn State University and the director of the university's Center for Socially Responsible Artificial Intelligence, told CBS News that AI chatbots produce responses based on probability, which may often lead to inaccurate information in unfolding events.

"They look at what is the most likely next word or next passage," Sundar said. "It's not based on fact-checking. It's not based on any kind of reportage on the scene. It's more based on the likelihood of this event occurring, and if there's enough out there that might question his death, it might pick up on some of that."

Artificial intelligence's sycophantic tendencies may also be to blame, as the third episode of "South Park's" latest season recently highlighted.

Grok, for example, gave a highly flawed response on Friday morning to one user indicating that Tyler Robinson, 22, was opposed to MAGA while his father was a supporter of the movement. In a follow-up question, the user suggested that Robinson's "social media posts" indicated that he may be a MAGA supporter, and Grok quickly changed its tune in its response: "Reports indicate Tyler Robinson is a registered Republican who donated to Trump in 2024. Social media photos show him in a Trump costume for Halloween, and his family appears to support MAGA."

A Grok post timestamped roughly an hour later on Friday denied that he had any known political affiliation, thus showing a discrepancy in responses between users of the same chatbot.

The other AIs fared no better. Perplexity appears to have labeled reports about Kirk's death a "hypothetical scenario" several hours after he was confirmed deceased. According to CBS News, "Google's AI Overview for a search late Thursday evening for Hunter Kozak, the last person to ask Kirk a question before he was killed, incorrectly identified him as the person of interest the FBI was looking for."

While artificial intelligence may be useful for aggregating resources for research, people are realizing that these chatbots are highly flawed when it comes to real-time reporting and separating the wheat from the chaff.

X did not respond to Return's request for comment.