Category: Ai
The Pornography Free Pass
Have you ever wondered why so much sexually explicit content pollutes the internet today? Hardcore pornography is omnipresent online, even…
Dear Globalists, AI Won’t Defeat Christianity
This year’s meeting of liberal elites in Davos, Switzerland, was supposed to be banal. You can always tell when meetings…
How the military is computing the killing chain
In 2025, the nomenclature caught up with the reality. For decades, the United States had operated under the fiction of a Department of Defense, a name that suggested protection, reaction, and a reluctance to engage. When Secretary Pete Hegseth signed the memoranda that would redefine the American military for the algorithmic age, the letterhead had changed. It was the Department of War again.
The revival of the old title was not merely cosmetic. It was an unapologetic signal, a shift from a defensive posture to a mission-focused one. Then between late 2025 and early 2026, Hegseth released a flurry of new memos announcing that the United States intended to become an “AI-first” war-fighting force. The language was clipped, urgent, and devoid of the hand-wringing that usually accompanies the introduction of new lethal means. The department now treats AI not as a support tool but as a core element of warfare, intelligence, and organizational power.
There is a simulation engine that alludes without irony to Orson Scott Card’s novel about child soldiers fighting insectoid aliens.
Reading through these documents, one is struck by the anxiety of the “algorithm gap,” which echoes the “missile gap” of the Cold War, with the stakes shifted from megatonnage to processing speed. The prevailing sentiment is that falling behind an adversary’s AI capabilities would be as catastrophic as falling behind in nuclear weapons. The Department of War does not intend to be a laggard. “Speed and adaptation win,” one memo states.
To achieve this speed, the Department has declared war on its own bureaucracy. The memos speak of a “wartime approach” to innovation, dismantling the risk-averse culture that has defined Pentagon procurement for half a century. The endless committees and boards have been dissolved, replaced with a “CTO Action Group” empowered to make quick calls. The ethos is that of Silicon Valley, grafting Mark Zuckerberg’s call to “move fast and break things” onto an institution whose business is to break things in a more literal sense.
The specific initiatives, what the Department calls “Pace-Setting Projects,” read like the chapter titles of a science-fiction novel. There is “Swarm Forge,” a project designed to pair elite war-fighters with technologists to experiment with drone swarms. There is “Ender’s Foundry,” a simulation engine meant to war-game against AI adversaries, a name that alludes without irony to Orson Scott Card’s novel about child soldiers fighting insectoid aliens. There is “Open Arsenal,” which promises to turn intelligence into weapons in hours rather than years.
Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images
What is being built here is “civil-military fusion,” a concept the Chinese have long championed and which the United States is now adopting with a convert’s zeal. The Department is actively courting the private sector, mentioning commercial AI models such as Google’s Gemini and xAI’s Grok. It is bringing in tech executives to run the show, with a new chief technology officer empowered to clear bureaucratic blockers.
The transformation is not limited to the battlefield but permeates the “enterprise,” a sterile word for the three million personnel who make up the Department’s nervous system. The vision is total: Under a program called GenAI.mil, every analyst, logistician, and staff officer will be issued a secure AI assistant to draft reports and code software. The goal is to embed AI systems across war-fighting, intelligence, and support functions until the distinction between soldier and data processor dissolves. The focus is on “decision superiority,” out-thinking the opponent at every turn.
The drive for decision superiority leads to a profound shift in the role of human judgment. The memos describe “Agent Network,” a project to develop AI agents for battle management “from campaign planning to kill chain execution.” They speak of “interpretable results,” a concession to the idea that humans should know why the machine decided to fire. The momentum is toward “human on the loop,” in which a human may abort an attack, rather than “human in the loop,” in which the human must initiate it. We are entering an era of “hyper-war,” in which AI systems could escalate a conflict in seconds, before a human commander can pour a cup of coffee.
The Department is betting that American ingenuity, harnessed in code, will secure the future, that it can maintain “America’s global AI dominance” through force of will and capital. The memos outline a future in which algorithms join soldiers on the battlefield, data platforms become as crucial as tanks, and decisions are increasingly informed by machines. It is a grand experiment in efficiency. We have decided that if warfare is now a battle of algorithms, we intend to algorithmically outgun the world. The name on the building has changed to reflect the reality: We are no longer defending. We are computing the kill.
AI in education: Innovation or a predator’s playground?
For years, parents have been warned to monitor their children’s online activity, limit social media, and guard against predatory digital spaces. That guidance is now colliding with a very different message from policymakers and technology leaders: Artificial intelligence must be introduced earlier and more broadly in schools.
When risky platforms enter through schools, they inherit an unearned legitimacy, conditioning parents to trust tools they would never allow at home.
On its face, this goal sounds reasonable. But what began as a policy push has quickly turned into something far more concerning — a rush by major tech companies to brand themselves as “AI Education Partners,” gaining access to public education under the banner of innovation, often without parents being fully informed or given the ability to opt out. When risky platforms enter through schools, they inherit an unearned legitimacy, conditioning parents to trust tools they would never allow at home.
AI in education is being sold as inevitable and benevolent. Behind the buzzwords lies a harder truth: AI is becoming a back door for Big Tech to access children and sidestep parental authority.
Platforms already under fire for child safety
At the center of this debate are three companies — Meta, Snap, and Roblox — all now positioning themselves as AI education partners while facing active litigation and investigations tied to child exploitation, predatory behavior, and failures to protect minors.
Meta is facing lawsuits and regulatory actions related to child exploitation, unsafe platform design, and illegal data practices. Internal company documents revealed that Meta’s AI chatbots were permitted to engage minors in flirtatious, intimate, and even health-related conversations — policies the company only revised after media exposure.
European consumer watchdogs have also accused Meta of sweeping data collection practices that go far beyond what users reasonably expect, using behavioral data to profile emotional state, sexual identity, and vulnerability to addiction. Regulators argue that meaningful consent is impossible at such a scale. Meta has also claimed in U.S. courts that publicly available content can be used to train AI under “fair use,” raising serious questions about how student classroom work could be treated once ingested by AI systems.
Snapchat is facing lawsuits from multiple states, including Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and others, alleging that its platform exposes minors to drug and weapons dealing, sexual exploitation, and severe mental health harm. In January 2025, federal regulators escalated concerns by referring a complaint involving Snapchat’s AI chatbot to the Department of Justice.
Despite this record, Snap signed on as an AI education partner, promising “in-app educational programming directed toward teens to raise awareness on safe and responsible use of AI technologies.”
Roblox, long flagged by parents for safety concerns, is being sued by multiple states, including Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, over allegations that it enabled predators to groom and exploit children. Yet Roblox now seeks classroom access as an “AI learning” platform.
If these platforms are too dangerous for children at home, they are too dangerous to normalize at school. Allowing companies with a history of child-safety failures to integrate themselves into classrooms is negligent and dangerous.
The contradiction no one wants to address
The danger becomes clearer when you step outside the classroom.
Across the country, states including Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Connecticut are restricting minors’ access to social media through age verification, parental consent, and limits on addictive features. At the federal level, the bipartisan Kids Off Social Media Act seeks to bar social media access for children under 13 and restrict algorithmic targeting of teens.
For more than a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents — not the state and not corporations — hold the fundamental right to direct their children’s education.
When Big Tech gains access to classrooms without transparency or consent, that authority is eroded. Parents are told to restrict social media at home while schools integrate the same platforms through AI. The result is families being sidelined while Big Tech reduces their children to data sources.
RELATED: Why every conservative parent should be watching California right now
Photo by AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images/Getty Images
This dangerous escalation must meet a clear boundary. Some platforms endanger children, others monetize them, and some expose their data. None of them belong in classrooms without strict, enforceable guardrails.
Parents do not need more promises. They need enforceable limits, transparency, and the unquestioned right to say no. The Constitution has long recognized that the right to direct a child’s education belongs to parents, not Silicon Valley. That authority does not stop at the classroom door.
If artificial intelligence is going to enter our classrooms, it must do so on the terms of families,not tech companies.
Melania’s bold AI message to America’s youth: ‘Use AI as a tool, but do not let it replace your personal intelligence’
Appearing at the “Zoom Ahead: AI for Tomorrow’s Leaders” virtual event from the White House on Friday, Melania Trump addressed the rapid advancement of AI technology, highlighting both its current capabilities and the potential risks and opportunities it may present in the future.
Thanking Zoom founder Eric Yuan for hosting the event, the first lady praised the company’s leadership in the tech space and connected the discussion to what she described as her broader “mission.”
Mrs. Trump said AI has expanded access to creative tools in ways that were previously unimaginable, allowing young people to explore fields such as film, fashion, art, and music.
“Your support directly advances my mission to prepare America’s next generation to use AI to enhance their education and ultimately their careers,” Mrs. Trump said.
She told the audience they were “fortunate” to be living in what she repeatedly described as “the age of imagination,” a new era shaped by artificial intelligence.
“The age of imagination is a new era, powered by artificial intelligence, where one’s curiosity can be satisfied almost magically in seconds,” she said.
RELATED: AI isn’t killing writers — it’s killing mediocre writing
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images
Mrs. Trump said AI has expanded access to creative tools in ways that were previously unimaginable, allowing young people to explore fields such as film, fashion, art, and music from their own homes.
“For the first time in history, the young girl dreaming of becoming a fashion designer and the young boy who wants to stand up his school animated superhero series can do so from their own home,” Trump said.
She emphasized that curiosity has always been central to human progress, pointing to writers, scientists, architects, and artists who challenged unanswered questions and the status quo.
“Every giant at some point in time questions the status quo,” she said. “Their singular vision pushes humanity in a new direction.”
She noted, however, that the power of the technology actually lies in the human “imagination.”
“Artificial intelligence provides all the tools needed to implement your creative vision today,” she said.
“But what do you need to start? You need to harness your imagination.”
She encouraged students and creators to focus on developing the ability to ask meaningful questions and to think critically beyond the information AI can provide.
RELATED: Can artificial intelligence help us want better, not just more?
Brooks Kraft/Getty Images
The first lady stressed that while AI can generate content, it cannot replace human purpose.
“Although artificial intelligence can generate images and information, only humans can generate meaning and purpose,” she said.
She concluded by urging the audience to treat AI as a tool rather than a shortcut, encouraging intellectual honesty and personal responsibility in how the technology is used.
“Use AI as a tool, but do not let it replace your personal intelligence,” Mrs. Trump said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Melania’s bold AI message to America’s youth: ‘Use AI as a tool, but do not let it replace your personal intelligence’
Appearing at the “Zoom Ahead: AI for Tomorrow’s Leaders” virtual event from the White House on Friday, Melania Trump addressed the rapid advancement of AI technology, highlighting both its current capabilities and the potential risks and opportunities it may present in the future.
Thanking Zoom founder Eric Yuan for hosting the event, the first lady praised the company’s leadership in the tech space and connected the discussion to what she described as her broader “mission.”
Mrs. Trump said AI has expanded access to creative tools in ways that were previously unimaginable, allowing young people to explore fields such as film, fashion, art, and music.
“Your support directly advances my mission to prepare America’s next generation to use AI to enhance their education and ultimately their careers,” Mrs. Trump said.
She told the audience they were “fortunate” to be living in what she repeatedly described as “the age of imagination,” a new era shaped by artificial intelligence.
“The age of imagination is a new era, powered by artificial intelligence, where one’s curiosity can be satisfied almost magically in seconds,” she said.
RELATED: AI isn’t killing writers — it’s killing mediocre writing
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images
Mrs. Trump said AI has expanded access to creative tools in ways that were previously unimaginable, allowing young people to explore fields such as film, fashion, art, and music from their own homes.
“For the first time in history, the young girl dreaming of becoming a fashion designer and the young boy who wants to stand up his school animated superhero series can do so from their own home,” Trump said.
She emphasized that curiosity has always been central to human progress, pointing to writers, scientists, architects, and artists who challenged unanswered questions and the status quo.
“Every giant at some point in time questions the status quo,” she said. “Their singular vision pushes humanity in a new direction.”
She noted, however, that the power of the technology actually lies in the human “imagination.”
“Artificial intelligence provides all the tools needed to implement your creative vision today,” she said.
“But what do you need to start? You need to harness your imagination.”
She encouraged students and creators to focus on developing the ability to ask meaningful questions and to think critically beyond the information AI can provide.
RELATED: Can artificial intelligence help us want better, not just more?
Brooks Kraft/Getty Images
The first lady stressed that while AI can generate content, it cannot replace human purpose.
“Although artificial intelligence can generate images and information, only humans can generate meaning and purpose,” she said.
She concluded by urging the audience to treat AI as a tool rather than a shortcut, encouraging intellectual honesty and personal responsibility in how the technology is used.
“Use AI as a tool, but do not let it replace your personal intelligence,” Mrs. Trump said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Spectacle Ep. 316: What Are the REAL Population Stats of China? Were Direct Energy Weapons Used in Venezuela? Will AI Replace Humans?
On this “grab bag” segment of The Spectacle Podcast, hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay debunk and discuss various news…
Utah police report claims officer shape-shifted into a frog
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why, on paper, a local Utah police officer allegedly turned into a frog.
The claim comes from the Heber City Police Department in Heber City, Utah, where officers are reportedly looking to save time on their paperwork, as writing police reports typically takes personnel between one and two hours per day.
‘I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly.’
In order to save on man-hours, Heber City PD began testing new software that can take bodycam footage and generate a police report based on the audio and video.
The new artificial intelligence program did not take long to malfunction though, as just a few weeks into its trial in December, a police report stated that one of the local officers had shape-shifted into a frog during an investigation. It turns out the software picked up on audio that was playing on a TV screen present during the incident.
“The bodycam software and the AI report-writing software picked up on the movie that was playing in the background, which happened to be ‘The Princess and the Frog,'” Sergeant Rick Keel told FOX 13 News, referring to the 2009 animated Disney film.
Keel then stressed, “That’s when we learned the importance of correcting these AI-generated reports.”
Photo by Michael Kovac/FilmMagic
The department reportedly began testing two AI programs in early December, named Draft One and Code Four.
Draft One comes from company Axon, founded by American Rick Smith. On its website, Axon promises to “revolutionize real-time operations,” but is responsible for generating the Disney-themed police report. The program reportedly works for both English and Spanish languages — and apparently for princesses too.
Blaze News reached out to Axon for comment.
Sgt. Keel told reporters that he has saved about six to eight hours per week since employing AI to do his paperwork.
“I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly,” he said.
Code Four, however, was created by two MIT dropouts who are just 19 years old: George Cheng and Dylan Nguyen. That program also claims it can transform “bodycam to reports in seconds.”
Code Four reportedly costs $30 per officer, per month.
Photo by Scott Brinegar/Disney Parks via Getty Images
According to Dexerto, AI policing programs have already caused issues elsewhere in the United States. For example, the outlet reported last October that armed police officers swarmed a 16-year-old student outside of a high school in Baltimore after an AI gun-detection system falsely claimed the boy had a firearm.
It turned out after police arrived on scene that the teen was actually holding a bag of Doritos.
Blaze News reported on the increased use of AI monitoring software in schools in early 2024, when an Arkansas district announced it would use over 1,500 cameras at its schools.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Blame Everyone for Grok’s Perverted Porn Problem
Humanity has an unfortunate tendency toward perversion. Given a tool capable of mediocre goods and banal evils, we (as a…
Microsoft CEO: AI ‘slop’ is good for you — or at least for your ‘human potential’
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says the general public is looking at artificial intelligence through the wrong lens.
In a recent blog post, the India-born executive told readers to start viewing AI platforms as “bicycles for the mind.”
‘While AI can improve efficiency, it may also reduce critical engagement.’
Nadella explained that he prefers users would think of AI “as a scaffolding for human potential vs. a substitute” for human labor.
This scaffolding should be used to achieve goals, not replace humans in their roles, he continued, before saying debates around AI should not include an argument as to whether or not something is “slop.”
“We need to get beyond the arguments of slop vs. sophistication and develop a new equilibrium in terms of our ‘theory of the mind’ that accounts for humans being equipped with these new cognitive amplifier tools as we relate to each other. This is the product design question we need to debate and answer.”
“Slop” was named as Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year for 2025 and was defined as “digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence.”
With this definition in mind, it is no wonder that Nadella would rather his users shy away from using such a term.
RELATED: CRASH: If OpenAI’s huge losses sink the company, is our economy next?
The blog post, titled “Looking Ahead to 2026,” envisioned a world where it is not even considered to not integrate AI into regular tasks.
Society must account for AI’s “‘jagged’ edges” and enable rich and safe “tools use” to advance to proper “scaffolds,” Nadella claimed.
Consistently using this term to imply assistance in man-made projects en masse, Nadella described the use of AI as necessary in the face of “scarce energy, compute, and talent” resources.
“If Nadella wants people to stop referring to AI output as slop, then the AIs should be improved so they no longer produce slop,” said Josh Centers, a tech expert from Chapter House.
Interestingly enough, the very same slop that generative AI models have produced recently have actually not enhanced human thinking, according to studies. As PC Gamer noted, Microsoft even co-authored a study that showed reliance on AI models can reduce independent problem-solving capabilities.
“Surprisingly, while AI can improve efficiency, it may also reduce critical engagement, particularly in routine or lower-stakes tasks in which users simply rely on AI, raising concerns about long-term reliance and diminished independent problem-solving,” the paper revealed.
RELATED: ROTTEN APPLE? Top execs bail on CEO Tim Cook as woked-up tech giant fumbles lead
Chona Kasinger/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The study also noted that AI tools “appear to reduce the perceived effort required for critical thinking tasks among knowledge workers, especially when they have higher confidence in AI capabilities.”
Content creator Kabrutus — who represents a community of more than 470,000 disenfranchised gamers — has heavily criticized AI when it does churn out “slop.”
“I think Nadella’s main goal on wanting us to stop using the term ‘slop’ to refer to their AI is because he realizes AI is perceived as something very negative on many different fronts,” he said.
He added, “Nadella is trying to make people stop using this term while the ‘AI culture’ is still small, because it’s easier. Once AI gets HUGE, and pretty much everybody calls it ‘slop,’ it will be impossible to revert the situation.”
“Why is he so worried about it?” the Brazilian asked. “Because AI is going to be one of the flagships of ‘his’ company in the near future, and if people perceive AI as ‘slop’ it will be much harder to sell them AI-based products, right?”
Meanwhile, Lewis Brackpool, U.K. director of investigations for Restore Britain, said he sees slop as something that defines “meaningless, talentless content creation that numbs the brain” and is plastered all over social media.
Brackpool explained that asking people not to use the term “slop” seems like “a marketing tool to prevent criticism of a product that could hurt sales numbers” and act as a coping mechanism for a company because “their product likely sucks.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
