After fierce debate, Trump opts for federal controls in AI development



AI companies have largely developed their chatbots with very little government regulation, all in an effort to beat China to artificial general intelligence. However, as these services exploit users’ mental health, enable new devastating cybersecurity threats, and arm the U.S. military with advanced capabilities, the Trump administration recently proposed federal regulation to keep the bots in check. Now, President Donald Trump wants to take government oversight a step further by invoking the power to review AI models before they’re released to the public through an executive order that was signed this week.

President Trump has mostly maintained a hands-off approach to AI regulation, bucking attempts at state-level bills to curb development in favor of a centralized federal mandate. There are clear pros and cons to Trump’s National AI Legislative Framework, but it provides a starting point for standardizing an industry where Trump has dragged his feet.

This is why the latest reports of added AI oversight, directly from the U.S. government, come as a surprise, given Trump’s previous stance. If signed, the executive order would mark a sea change within the Trump administration, signaling that AI needs direct government intervention to protect the public from potentially dangerous models.

The question is, why?

This move raises the question: How much AI regulation is too much regulation?

Trump’s decision came after Anthropic — the same company that landed on the military’s supply chain risk list — unveiled a new AI model that was purportedly too dangerous to release to the public. Labeled as Mythos under Project Glasswing, the new model excels at leveraging computer hacking and cybersecurity exploits. In other words, it’s really good at breaking the security measures of critical digital products and services, including operating systems and internet browsers.

If left in the wrong hands, Mythos could pose a huge risk to anything and everything connected to the internet — personal devices, school computers, government systems, banking platforms, and even critical infrastructure like power grids, traffic systems, and more.

Instead of allowing the public to access Mythos outright, Anthropic opted to provide the model strictly to Big Tech companies to help them find security holes in their products before a competing AI platform on the same level as Mythos reaches public status. The goal is to patch these bugs before they are exploitable by hackers using other AI platforms. So far, Mythos has poked holes in Apple’s highly secure MacOS platform and Mozilla’s privacy-focused Firefox browser. Unfortunately, while Mythos is good at finding problems, it’s bad at patching them, with recent reports noting that Mythos can further break software, even when trying to fix it.

Not to be outdone, OpenAI also claims to have a model — GPT-Rosalind — that’s too powerful for public release, this time in the sector of life sciences and molecular biology. Instead of launching Rosalind broadly, the company is offering it to researchers and scientists only.

So far, Anthropic and OpenAI have been socially responsible with their models by self-limiting access, but there’s no mandate to enforce these restrictions. President Trump’s executive order aims to eliminate any leeway and prevent truly dangerous AI models from leaking into the mainstream.

RELATED: The Trump phone is here — and so is the controversy. Is it any good?

BasSlabbers/Getty Images

This move raises the question: How much AI regulation is too much regulation, and what are the ramifications of government overreach on access to the most advanced technology known to mankind? Some view these bills and mandates as a danger to free speech. Others see it as a government power grab meant to control device, internet, and AI access. I’m somewhere in the middle — the government should prevent AI companies from outright harming the people while also keeping the people’s rights and freedoms intact.

Unfortunately, even if the Trump administration has the best intentions with its AI executive order, who’s to say that the next administration will be so benevolent? Direct government intervention over AI models gives the left the precedent they need to overtly regulate and even manipulate AI the next time they take power. Imagine a future where the left blocks AI models on the grounds of “misinformation” and “disinformation” for sharing facts that don’t align with their political views. It’s not like they didn’t try to wipe dissent from the internet before, and if given the chance, they’ll do it again.

Luckily, the left might not get that opportunity. President Trump’s AI executive order was put on hold the day it was meant to be signed, though the unsigned version was leaked online for your viewing pleasure. Still, even with the order paused at the eleventh hour, its albatross looms as a possibility for future AI regulation that could either save the people from certain chatbot destruction or steal away our rights to access “unapproved” versions of these models that don’t comply with the party in power.

Outrage After Zohran Mamdani Secretly Changes Definition of Rich to Widen the Tax Net
play icon

Outrage After Zohran Mamdani Secretly Changes Definition of Rich to Widen the Tax Net

The AI bubble is about to pop. Here's how to prepare yourself.



OpenAI confirmed it is doing roughly $2 billion a month in revenue as of April 2026, a $24 billion annualized run rate that would have been unthinkable just two years ago. Leaked internal projections suggest the company may burn as much as $17 billion in cash this year. Separate projections show it will still lose somewhere around $14 billion in 2026, even with revenue projected to climb past $28 billion.

The most valuable AI company on the planet, backed by Microsoft and basically every venture capitalist on earth, is running a cash burn rate that swallows most of what it brings in.

Here is what happens when the subsidy ends.

Anthropic is in the same boat. By early 2026, it hit a $30 billion annualized revenue run rate. And one analyst estimated the company is losing 200% to 3,000% of each customer's subscription fee on power users of its Claude Code tool.

But the money keeps flowing anyway. Big Tech is on track to spend $700 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, up from about $400 billion the year before. Nvidia became the most valuable company in the world for a hot minute in June 2024. AI startups are raising at valuations that assume revenue will materialize out of thin air.

It will not. The gap between what is being spent and what is being earned was already $600 billion as of mid-2024, according to Sequoia Capital's David Cahn, who started asking this question back in 2023. That was before capex roughly doubled. The actual gap today is almost certainly larger.

Something has to give.

The subscription lie

Anthropic wants $200 a month for the highest tier of Claude Max. That sounds absurd until you look at what a power user actually costs them.

The Decoder reported that Anthropic's $200 Claude Code Max subscription can consume as much as $5,000 in compute per power user. Some analysts dispute the methodology and put the real cost closer to $500. Either way, Anthropic is subsidizing power users at scale.

OpenAI follows the same playbook with ChatGPT Plus at $20 a month and the $200 Pro plan, both priced to grab market share rather than make money on individual users.

This is the subscription lie. You are not paying for the product. You are getting a subsidized demo.

RELATED: A new phone hack can drain your bank account. Here's the fix.

NanoStockk/Getty Images

The playbook itself is not new. Amazon lost money for nine years after its 1994 founding, and Bezos called it his "famously unprofitable company" in a 2000 BBC interview while the stock kept climbing. Uber racked up close to $30 billion in operating losses before its first annual profit in 2023 by subsidizing cheap rides with investor cash and then jacking up prices once it owned the market.

The playbook works until the funding dries up, and when it does, the bill always lands on the customer.

The corporate firing spree

Tech companies have shed tens of thousands of jobs in 2026, with Oracle cutting thousands, Amazon laying off 16,000, and Meta cutting about 8,000 roles in April, all to fund AI infrastructure. Salesforce's CEO said AI agents replaced 4,000 customer support roles. Coinbase just announced that it is laying off 14% of its workforce to make way for AI "hubs."

But will these companies actually save money in the long haul? Nvidia is one of the leading suppliers of AI-capable computing hardware, and Bryan Catanzaro, Nvidia’s vice president of applied deep learning, told Axios that for his own team, "The cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees."

Not only can compute cost more than a human being, but the AI’s outputs have to be checked.

Amazon just learned it the hard way. The company laid off tens of thousands of engineers, triggering WARN filings across four states as Amazon shifted resources to AI. Then in March 2026, the company's own AI coding tool, Q, contributed to a production change that caused millions of lost orders.

Amazon SVP Dave Treadwell convened an emergency engineering meeting and instituted a 90-day code safety reset. Under the new rules, junior engineers must get senior sign-off on any AI-assisted changes, and internal memos called the problem "high blast radius changes" where AI-generated updates propagated too broadly.

You're already paying for it

AI is more than just software. It is steel, copper, and megawatts. AI models take massive quantities of computing power and electricity to operate. The tokens you rent for $20 per month are cooked in billion-dollar data centers that did not exist five years ago, and the power bill is not being paid by venture capital alone.

The scale is enormous. The International Energy Agency estimates U.S. data centers consumed 415 terawatt-hours in 2024, tripling by 2035. And you’re eating the cost.

Residential electricity prices have jumped roughly 30% since 2020, rising at twice the rate of inflation, and the increases are worse in areas where data centers are going up. Near those data centers, wholesale electricity prices have climbed as much as 267% over the past five years, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

In Virginia, regulators approved a 2026 rate increase that will add roughly $16 per month to typical residential bills while assigning more grid upgrade costs to data center operators. The company projects that average residential bills could rise by roughly 50% by 2039. In Columbus, Ohio, residential rates have risen by about $7.90 per month in 2026.

In most places, you are paying for the power plants and transmission lines that feed the data centers, not the tech companies.

A few states are trying to fix this. Ohio regulators approved a landmark tariff for AEP Ohio that forces large data centers to pay minimum demand charges instead of dumping costs on all ratepayers. Texas passed legislation requiring large data centers to cover their own infrastructure costs or pay equitably. Virginia is looking at similar measures. Most states have not caught up.

In March, President Trump secured volunteer pledges from tech companies to pay their own electricity costs and build their own power plants, but it remains to be seen if those pledges will be honored.

The dependency trap

Here is what happens when the subsidy ends.

Your company fired the customer support team and rebuilt the workflow around AI agents. The headcount budget became the API credits budget. Junior developers who used to review code got replaced by Claude. Senior engineers who could catch the mistakes are gone.

Then OpenAI and Anthropic have to raise prices to actual cost. Maybe they triple the API rate. Maybe the $200 Pro plan becomes $800. Maybe the free tier vanishes overnight.

You cannot rehire the workers. They found other jobs, retired, or left the industry, and the knowledge walked out the door. Meanwhile, your CRM, your code pipeline, your customer onboarding flow, and your reporting dashboards are all built around API calls to someone else's model.

Inside a Fortune 500, admitting the AI replacement was a mistake is politically impossible. The CTO who signed the deal is not standing up in a board meeting to say we should rehire 4,000 people because the math stopped working. The budget officer who cut the department and moved the money to AI subscriptions is not reversing that call. They will pay the tax forever.

Goldman Sachs' Jim Covello put the question bluntly in mid-2024: "Generative AI: Too Much Spend, Too Little Benefit?"

Covello's case was simple. AI is not built for the complicated problems that would justify the price tag. The cost is too high for the value delivered, and the payback is not coming soon.

He was right about the spend. What he underestimated was the dependency, because companies are not just buying AI but rebuilding their operations around it, firing the people who knew how work got done, and trapping themselves in a vendor relationship with suppliers losing billions every year.

That is the trap. AI has plenty of value, but the gap between spending and earning keeps widening, and the companies downstream are cutting off their own ability to walk away.

What survives

When the bubble pops, and it will, some things survive.

Local models running on consumer hardware are the hedge against the API tax. A single RTX 4090 can run large language models that required much more expensive hardware just a few years ago, and open source models from Alibaba, Google, and others give you a real alternative to renting access by the token.

Companies that bought their own hardware instead of renting from OpenAI will be in the strongest position.

Own your tools, your data, and your compute. If your entire business is an API call wrapped in someone else's model, you do not own anything. You are a middleman with a logo, and the model providers can change pricing, terms, or availability whenever they want while you cannot do a thing about it.

The AI companies burning billions right now will need to recoup those losses eventually, which means higher prices and tighter terms for everyone downstream.

The real winners are not the model builders. Nvidia sells picks and shovels no matter who finds gold. Chipmakers and infrastructure providers come out ahead and so do the cloud giants with multiple revenue streams. They are selling to both sides of every bet.

The dot-com bubble wiped out trillions in investor wealth, and the telecom bust that followed destroyed even more. But the internet survived, and so did the fiber in the ground.

AI will survive too. The question is whether the companies currently valued at hundreds of billions of dollars will be the ones standing when the dust settles.

History suggests they will not. This time, the victims will not just be the VCs who placed the bets. It will be every company that traded payroll for a loss-leader API, fired the people who knew how work got done, and discovered too late that the exit ramp had been bulldozed behind them.

Chinese Propaganda Outlets Jump Into Crusade Against Data Centers as Beijing Races To Achieve AI Supremacy

Propaganda outlets controlled by China—as well as Russia and Iran—are promoting campaigns in the United States to oppose the construction of new data centers, indicating that Beijing and Moscow are looking to impede artificial intelligence innovation in the United States. The campaign appears to have made inroads with at least one American lawmaker, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), who is participating in a discussion Wednesday with two Chinese academics on "the existential threat of AI."

The post Chinese Propaganda Outlets Jump Into Crusade Against Data Centers as Beijing Races To Achieve AI Supremacy appeared first on .

The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From China

Kind words and accolades poured in after this week’s announcement that Tim Cook is stepping down as Apple’s CEO. The tech magnate has been at the helm since 2011, and Apple has enjoyed a remarkable run during that time. At the personal level, Cook’s success is a wonderful reminder of the many blessings Americans enjoy thanks to capitalism and free enterprise. But those blessings will only endure if the United States dissuades other countries from following Apple’s path.

The post The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From China appeared first on .

Republicans must reject Big Tech land grabs or start losing elections



Republicans are continuing their uninterrupted streak of woefully underperforming in elections. However, in the first of its kind referendum on Big Tech data centers, voters are showing that a party that embraces land sovereignty over Big Tech dystopian land grabs will win the day.

Sadly, Republicans have chosen to be on the losing side of the issue.

The public is being asked to shoulder a burden to facilitate a supposed technology whose benefits are very unclear and dubious.

In a first of its kind local referendum, voters in Port Washington, Wisconsin, voted by a margin of 2-1 for a referendum that will require all future data center projects in the area to be approved by a vote of the city’s residents.

The referendum was sparked in the wake of Oracle and OpenAI’s Stargate facility setting up shop in the area. The proposed 1.3 gigawatt facility will consume the power equivalent of over one million households.

The referendum does not undo the Stargate project but will prevent any future project worth more than $10 million from getting approval without the public input.

Over 1,000 residents signed the petition that put this measure on the ballot. "We are not against development," added Michael Baester, founding member of Great Lakes Neighbors United, which spearheaded this campaign. "We are for development that the community understands, supports, and has chosen together. Tonight proves that when citizens organize and engage, their voices can be heard."

What is so important nationally about this vote is that Port Washington was carried by Trump 52-48 in 2024. It is the quintessential swing city that sways the Wisconsin vote, and by proxy, the entire country’s electorate.

Such an emphatic result from a swing town demonstrates the potency of the data center issue.

According to Politico, other communities around the country are set to vote on similar ballot measures.

Imagine if Republicans could get on the right side of the data center issue. What might that do for their failing election efforts?

In Festus, Missouri, a solid conservative jurisdiction, voters ousted four GOP councilmen who recently approved rezoning for a $6 billion data center. Two of them were defeated by margins greater than 2-1.

Thus the grassroots opposition to data centers is just as virulent in red America as it is in swing areas that have already soured on Trump because of the economy.

Oklahoma is a state where Trump carried every county, yet voters there are firmly opposed to data centers.

After Google tried to bribe the locals in Osage County to support a hyperscale data center, the Rock Volunteer Fire Department turned down a $250,000 donation from the company. This is a county Trump won by 41 points.

The opposition is just as stiff in the cities. Last month, the Tulsa City Council voted unanimously to halt construction of new data centers for nine months. All 19 speakers at the meeting voiced support for the moratorium.

Across the state in Oklahoma City, the city council recently voted to rezone over 800 acres of farmland for a Google data center. The council is now facing a recall petition.

Portage County, Ohio, is a prototypical rust belt, blue-collar county that traditionally voted Democrat but migrated to the GOP under Trump. The president carried the county by 15 points in 2024. Last week, the Ravenna City Council moved forward with a 12-month moratorium on the centers after a crowd filled the city council chambers to speak against the proposed projects.

In many respects, the ubiquitous opposition to data centers is a reflection of the sheer pervasiveness and magnitude of these projects, targeting nearly every county in states like Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Arizona and numerous places in the majority of other states.

According to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the grid operator in most of the Midwest, by 2030, the proposed hyperscale data centers in Indiana will use an amount of electricity equivalent to twice that used by the entire state.

None of this makes any sense nor is it sustainable, especially for a product that increasingly fails to produce a degree of profit that could come close to paying for all the capital expenditure and power.

This is why red-state RINOs like those in drought-stricken Texas continue to shower these companies with lavish sales tax breaks.

RELATED: Data centers are a hidden tax on your burger

lchumpitaz/Getty Images

We don’t offer 30-year abatements like this to any other industry, but this is what data centers require to remain solvent because their hardware depreciates so quickly. According to the state comptroller, Lone Star voters will subsidize $3.2 billion in tax breaks to the largest companies on the planet over the next two years.

Four of the largest states targeted for data centers — Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia — are languishing through a severe and sustained drought.

Industry apologists are trying to gaslight people into believing that their closed-loop systems will somehow not affect the water flow, but it’s inconceivable that it won’t have a short-term effect and also pose health concerns when recycled back into the water table.

An application from Amazon to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management indicates that the sanitary system it is constructing for two of its hyperscales in New Carlisle is designed to use more than 1.6 million gallons per day on hot summer days.

This is “only” the equivalent water use of about 5,000 households, which pales in comparison to some other facilities and to the magnitude of the power use. Keep in mind that the entire population of this town is just under 1,900.

There’s a reason why 65% of voters oppose all data center construction, including a clear majority of all demographics, ideological groups, and income levels, despite all of the lobbying and electioneering by Big Tech.

The public is being asked to shoulder a burden to facilitate a supposed technology whose benefits are very unclear and dubious.

Republicans can continue ignoring this grassroots revolt, but they will do so at their own peril. Nothing motivates voters more than the preservation of their own communities. That is one thing that still unites a divided America.

West Virginia Republicans are betraying their voters for AI special interests



There is a reason why most red-state Republican leaders fail to reflect the political values of their constituents. They represent the special interests they work for rather than the whole of the people.

Nowhere is this more evident than with the ravaging of West Virginia by generative AI data centers, promoted by people like House of Delegates Speaker Roger Hanshaw, who legally represents special interest groups fighting poor, local communities in court.

The same man who was instrumental in stripping localities of their ability to block data centers is now representing the people behind those data centers in court.

Remember the provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 that originally attempted to strip all state and local governments of any ability to block data centers from being built? Well, last year, West Virginia enacted just such a ban at the state level. Hanshaw shepherded HB 2014 to Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s desk.

Among many special tax and regulatory favors offered to data centers, this bill removed local jurisdiction over the siting, zoning, and operating of certified high-impact data centers and microgrids.

Thus, companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI could work with state politicians bought into their pay-for-play and force their way into any community. And what better person to be fighting for them than the speaker of the House?

While serving as speaker, Hanshaw filed a notice of appearance in the appeal to the Department of Evironmental Protection’s Air Quality Board on behalf of his client MGS CNP1 LLC, which is an affiliate of Houston-based Fidelis New Energy working on a data center project in Mason County.

This was in the middle of the session and just one week after the state House of Delegates passed legislation making it easier for these projects to obtain certification with the Department of Commerce.

Then, just two days after the session ended, Hanshaw took on a case through his work at Bowles Rice for Fundamental Data, the company working on powering the data center bonanza in Tucker County.

So the same man who was instrumental in stripping localities of their ability to block data centers is now representing the people behind those data centers in court against local community groups appealing the DEP’s permit issuance.

It was the Tucker County fight that led me to speak out nationally against this mindless business model of raping red-state land, power, and water for a form of generative AI that serves nothing but chatslop and the surveillance state.

Last August, I vacationed in Tucker County, home to the gorgeous Blackwater Falls State Park and Canaan Valley. A county that voted for Trump by a 50-vote margin, these people are the forgotten men that MAGA was supposed to represent.

RELATED: How to power the AI race without losing control

Rudall30/Getty Images

I spoke with several locals who were irate beyond words about the injustice occurring in a state with barely any Democrat elected officials.

What’s worse is that West Virginia is also being violated with endless transmission lines to power the blue-state “data center alley” in northern Virginia. According to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysts, West Virginia energy consumers will be expected to pay $572 million in higher rates to fund the rope to hang themselves.

What is so offensive is that these projects are not even creating jobs. According to the February JOLT report from BLS, construction remains in the greatest recession since the Great Recession, despite these so-called data center projects. Oracle, which is at the center of the cloud computing in the data centers, is laying off 18% of its workforce.

Shockingly, Henshaw and his minions attempted to pass even greater handouts for data centers offered to no other industry, in addition to what was in HB 2014.

This session, they introduced SB 623, which offered a complete property tax exemption and sales tax exemption on all data center equipment. They also introduced HB 4013, which would have created a new tax credit available to data centers to offset all state income, sales/use, franchise, and payroll withholding taxes based on capital investments, construction costs, and wages.

How many jobs did they have to create to qualify? Just 10! Which, of course, is a tacit admission that these behemoths don’t create many jobs, despite their enormous footprint, cost, and consumption of power.

In other words, Agenda 2030 is being fulfilled right under our noses in a state where Republicans control both houses of the legislature with 32-2 and 91-9 majorities.

What West Virginia, with its mind-numbing GOP majorities, shows is that the lack of conservative outcomes under GOP control is not due to a lack of power or votes but too much access to money and special interests.

Sam Altman described as 'sociopath' by board member in brutal insider report: 'He's unconstrained by truth'



OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was dragged through the mud in a new in-depth report that features former colleagues and current board members referring to him as sociopath and a liar.

Altman, 40, has yet to respond to claims made in a recent report, some of which were uncovered in secret memos to OpenAI's board members.

'He is a sociopath. He would do anything.'

According to the New Yorker, OpenAI's chief scientist, Ilya Sutskever, sent the memos to three other board members in 2023. One of the memos about Altman began with a list titled "Sam exhibits a consistent pattern of." The first item on the list was "lying."

The memos also alleged that Altman misrepresented facts to executives and board members while deceiving them about safety protocols. Unfortunately for Altman, the claims did not stop there.

"He's unconstrained by truth," a board member told the New Yorker. "He has two traits that are almost never seen in the same person. The first is a strong desire to please people, to be liked in any given interaction. The second is almost a sociopathic lack of concern for the consequences that may come from deceiving someone."

The outlet said that the unnamed board member was not the only person to describe Altman as "sociopathic" without being prompted. Not long before his 2013 suicide, according to the New Yorker, coder Aaron Swartz warned at least one friend about Altman, whom Swartz had known from their time together at Y Combinator. His warning: "You need to understand that Sam can never be trusted. He is a sociopath. He would do anything."

Sutskever additionally implied that he did not think Altman should have power over others, saying, "I don't think Sam is the guy who should have his finger on the button."

Others described him as more ambitious than anything else.

RELATED: Sam Altman tells BlackRock he wants AI on a meter 'like electricity or water'

The New Yorker just dropped a massive investigation into Sam Altman, based on over 100 interviews, the previously undisclosed "Ilya Memos," and Dario Amodei's 200+ pages of private notes. It's the most detailed account yet of the pattern of behavior that led to Sam's firing and… pic.twitter.com/vX5xIp5DnI
— Ryan (@ohryansbelt) April 6, 2026

Former OpenAI board member Sue Yoon said Altman was "not this Machiavellian villain" but was able to convince himself of his own sales pitches.

"He's too caught up in his own self-belief," she reportedly said. "So he does things that, if you live in the real world, make no sense. But he doesn't live in the real world."

Other anonymous colleagues cited by the New Yorker said that Sutskever and similar detractors were simply aspiring to take Altman's throne. Still, even many neutral comments did not help Altman's portrayal in the report.

"He's unbelievably persuasive. Like, Jedi mind tricks," a tech executive colleague of Altman's reportedly said. "He's just next-level."

At the same time, OpenAI is allegedly in the midst of unleashing superintelligence that Altman himself says will be so disruptive that it will require a new social contract.

RELATED: Sexting with chatbots is too far, OpenAI decides

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Altman told Axios that there would be widespread job loss and a threat of cyberattacks coupled with social unrest.

"I suspect in the next year," he said, "we will see significant threats we have to mitigate from cyber."

Altman proposed a new deal with citizens that includes a public wealth fund, taxes on "automated labor," a 32-hour workweek, and the "right to AI."

That confirms previous reports that Altman wanted to put AI on a meter like electricity or water, to both democratize its usage and limit the possibility of overburdening the electrical grid.

OpenAI did not respond to Return's request for comment about the claims made about Altman and who they were coming from.

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

Sexting with chatbots is too far, OpenAI decides



Just days after announcing it would be shutting down its artificial intelligence video generation platform, OpenAI put the brakes on another project.

While the terminology remains vague, it seems Sam Altman's company could be drawing a line as to what it deems "adult" content.

'We still believe in the principle of treating adults like adults.'

Those familiar with the adult-themed project at OpenAI have "indefinitely" shelved their plans to release an erotic chatbot, per the Financial Times. OpenAI confirmed that before moving forward with such a product, the company wanted to be able to fall back on long-term research about the effects AI sex chats have on users and any emotional attachments that might be created.

OpenAI said there is no "empirical evidence" available at this time.

RELATED: Sam Altman tells BlackRock he wants AI on a meter 'like electricity or water'

CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP/Getty Images

Last year, Altman announced that ChatGPT would start including more content, including erotica, to "treat adult users like adults."

But in early March, OpenAI made its first announcement that "adult mode" was being delayed. That decision was made in part to focus on more pertinent tasks. "We're pushing out the launch of adult mode so we can focus on work that is a higher priority for more users right now," a spokesperson told reporter Alex Heath, "including gains in intelligence, personality improvements, personalization, and making the experience more proactive."

"We still believe in the principle of treating adults like adults, but getting the experience right will take more time," the company stated.

Inside sources since told the Financial Times that the company will refocus on core products after staff and investors expressed concern about the sexualized AI content. The upside to this endeavor was allegedly too small for OpenAI.

RELATED: Sam Altman says NSA can't use OpenAI — then tells staff they don't have a say in military actions

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The revelations follow hot on the heels of other strategy-shifting announcements. The tech giant has recently tightened up its offerings, shuttering generative AI service Sora.

"What you made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing," the company wrote on X. "We'll share more soon, including timelines for the app and API and details on preserving your work."

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

Sam Altman tells BlackRock he wants AI on a meter 'like electricity or water'



OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has likened artificial intelligence to utilities that are required to live.

Altman was discussing his company's plans during BlackRock’s U.S. Infrastructure Summit on Wednesday. A mix of politicians, union leaders, and industry executives were in attendance when he dropped the news about his vision for AI.

'People buy it from us on a meter and use it for whatever they want to use it for.'

Speaking to Bayo Ogunlesi, chairman and CEO of BlackRock's Global Infrastructure Partners, Altman likened AI to lifesaving utilities that are typically viewed as human rights.

"We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter and use it for whatever they want to use it for," Altman explained.

The CEO then claimed that the "demand" for metered AI usage is high and that the idea only continues to become more popular. His claims contained a warning though, in that "if we don't have enough" AI, it will become too expensive and "kind of goes to rich people."

This claim was seemingly based off Altman's plans to build a massive AI infrastructure system in the United States through his Stargate Project.

RELATED: Silicon Rebellion

Announced at the beginning of 2025, the Stargate Project is a $500 billion investment plan to build sprawling AI infrastructure for OpenAI and its partners by 2029.

This would allegedly "generate massive economic benefit for the entire world," the press release stated.

However, as it stands, there is only one data center under the project currently operating: the flagship location in Abilene, Texas.

The 980,000 square foot site produces an estimated 200+ megawatts, capable of powering 50,000 NVIDIA GB200 NVL72s in each of its buildings — which are essentially AI supercomputers.

Another data center in Port Washington, Wisconsin, is scheduled to be open in 2028.

RELATED: Sam Altman says NSA can't use OpenAI — then tells staff they don't have a say in military actions

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"If we don't have enough [AI], we either can't sell it or the price gets really high, and it, you know, kind of goes to rich people or society makes a bunch of sort of central planning decisions that I think almost always go badly about, you know, we're going to use our limited compute supply for this and not that," Altman said at the BlackRock event.

He added, "So the best thing to me throughout all the history of capitalism, innovation, whatever you want, is to just flood the market," which seemingly means the flooding should go through OpenAI.

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