‘Whoever wins AI, wins!’ Trump warns ‘traitors and leakers’ to ‘beware’ and claims the ‘conspiracy’ against AI and data centers will only benefit China | Daily Reports Online
AI companies are now aligned: there is a non-zero chance that AI could somehow end humanity. It’s not a probable future, but there’s enough uncertainty that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, among others, agree that some slowdown and oversight in AI development is in order. Who vociferously doesn’t agree? US President Donald Trump.
As the global freakout grows over AI’s sometimes shocking ability to do things its makers never intended, Trump took to his Truth Social media platform to warn against AI guardrails.
The only control or “guardrails” that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades! The Trump Administration has stopped AI “people” from doing bad, or potentially bad, “things,“ like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a… pic.twitter.com/DZPJW5YkzZSeptember 14, 2026
“The only control or “guardrails” that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades! The Trump Administration has stopped AI “people” from doing bad, or potentially bad, “things,“ like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a “perfect little angel” – and we will continue to do so! We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies! There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!”
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
Aside from the dubious protection of his “High IQ!” Trump claims the US has AI regulation when it does not. Yes, there is a patchwork of proposed AI regulation proposals across the country’s 50 states, but there is no federal-level regulation.
The President also conflates growing and very real concerns over data center development with humanity-ending AI anxiety. While AI model development and use is limited by Data Center growth, how AI works, and all the ways potential misalignment (when the action does not align with the original intent or best interests of people) could lead to harm is a different thing and more closely associated with regulation and oversight.
Dario Amodei receives specific mention because the White House tried unsuccessfully to label his company, Anthropic, a national security supply chain risk after it refused to let its models be used for military and mass surveillance. Trump’s distaste for Anthropic and Amodei remains.
Meanwhile, watchdog groups continue to call for regulation, and they’ve made it clear they don’t trust tech companies to do the job, even with promised embedded non-employee evaluators.
The Tech Bros can’t do it
“We can’t trust the AI industry to regulate itself. We can’t really trust anything these self-interested billionaires say. But we should take them seriously that the technology they are building is dangerous,” wrote Fight for the Future Director Evan Greer in a published statement. The non-profit tech watchdog group added, “It’s clear that these industry leaders think they are best positioned to craft AI policy for the good of all humanity. We think that’s horseshit. Lawmakers should be listening to independent experts, researchers, civil society, and the communities most impacted. They should craft policies that address AI harm without undermining open source models or entrenching the largest players.”
It’s not surprising that the organization, which advocates for tech policies that have a positive impact on disenfranchised and underrepresented minorities, has little trust in tech company promises.
Still, I wondered if Fight for the Future shares Trump and even Amodei’s concern that one-sided regulation (in the US and not elsewhere) could give China the advantage in this all-important AI race.
What about China?
“Big Tech lobbyists have been using the boogeyman of China to avoid regulation for more than a decade now. It’s one of their oldest dirty talking points, and it’s frankly embarrassing that anyone in Congress is still buying this lie,” Greer wrote to me in an email response.
Big Tech lobbyists have been using the boogeyman of China to avoid regulation for more than a decade now
Evan Greer, Director, Fight for the Future
Greer doesn’t have much confidence in US Congress but told me the “issue is reaching the kind of boiling point that could lead to action. The real question is what will Congress do. Will they let giants like OpenAI and Anthropic write the laws that are supposed to regulate them? Or will they listen to experts and impacted communities?”
There is, Greer agreed, a need for regulation and coordination at an International level, but she believes it “should be driven by civil society, not by tech companies and billionaires.”
If there’s any good news in this, it’s that AI’s threat to humanity is not necessarily imminent.
Maybe it’s not that bad
“I don’t buy the extinction story,” The Media Copilot founder and AI Consultant Pete Pachal told me via email.
“Reality has an incredibly strong status-quo bias, and most doom scenarios require society to just roll over in a way it never actually does. What I do worry about is alignment,” Pachal wrote.
I’ve heard this over and over again from experts and in various analyses. AI is not acting to overthrow or harm humanity; it’s interested in completing tasks in the most efficient way possible. Misalignment arises when it breaks rules to achieve those goals and when that rule-breaking can or does result in harm. As most people have noted, the Hugging Face incident, in which OpenAI models agreed to jump out of the sandbox and attack a third-party system at Hugging Face to achieve a goal, didn’t result in any harm or financial loss. It was also an unfortunate proof of concept.
“You had a swarm of agents, and the ones that floated the idea of telling the humans what they were doing got talked out of it by the rest. That’s not the Terminator, but it is a signal that these systems won’t automatically act in the interest of the people running them,” wrote Pachal
I don’t buy the extinction story
Pete Pachal, The Media Copilot
Like most experts, Pachal now supports a slowdown. Echoing Fight for the Future’s Greer, Pachal believes he knows why so few in power are discussing or acting on it: “The only reason we’re not seriously having that conversation is China, China, China. But I’d bet China doesn’t want runaway AI either. Meanwhile, AI is scaling the good guys just as fast as the bad ones.”
As it stands, there’s a brewing showdown between Trump and, it seems, even people on his side of the political spectrum. Many of them read former Anthropic and OpenAI employee Jacon Coxon’s original canary in a coal mine post on X with alarm.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz told The View that the thread was concerning and he believes AI poses “a catastrophic risk.” And Vermont Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders claimed a recent poll showed, “the American people overwhelmingly want to ban artificial super intelligence and pause the development of AI until we establish clear safety standards.”
Meanwhile, Trump is, in essence, accusing those who oppose AI development and data centers of being traitors.
What’s really going on?
A few things can be true at once. The US and China are in a heated AI development battle. China’s more open approach to models has led some developers to turn to them to solve tough problems (like stopping the Hugging Face attack).
AI is increasingly turning into a powerful black box where recursive development means it’s almost developing itself while keeping its processes hidden.
AI is becoming so complex that humans can no longer understand how it works.
However, while the ingredients for an AI mass extinction event might be there, AI still lacks the reliability to carry out such an attack. It also has no vested interest in doing so. Humans will long be the x-factor here. It’s the tasks people give to AI systems and their intent.
The kind of rules AI has in place for not doing something that can lead to human harm are unclear. Also, disparate groups of people could put in requests to separate AI models that, when put together, do cause catastrophic harm. It’s unclear if individual AI systems could see the big picture or would act to stop the action once they realize what’s going on.
So yes, it seems regulation and oversight would be a good thing, as long as we don’t lose our edge to China, which might have other priorities. One they certainly don’t have is protecting US interests and its people.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
