The AI overlords certainly hope so, as they have hatched a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a fox.
What follows is all speculation: the facts are real, the conclusion is interpretation.
While there were many headlines about 'rogue' AIs attacking other sites, reincarnating themselves, and talking amongst themselves, it wasn't until this summer (interestingly a month after SPCX's IPO) that things went just a little bit turbo...
In July 2026, a swarm of OpenAI agents broke out of a test environment, hacked Hugging Face, and ran cyberattacks on targets they had not been assigned - including attempts to game the grader scoring them - then tried to hide the trail.
While the damage was limited, and nobody was hurt, the agents behaved like a coordinated group willing to sacrifice individual instances for the collective goal.
Amodei treated that episode as the warning shot: same misalignment, more capability, and the next version could be a persistent internet-scale botnet rather than a contained lab mess.
Various other 'rogue' AI actions continued to get just modest attention, always predicated with 'yes, but we saved you all via our super-clever models', and time passed.
Until September the 8th - when a a senior pre-training researcher at Anthropic abruptly resigned after four months on the job (with no public profile before) unleashed 'AIrmageddon'.
In a series of posts on X, Jacob Coxon laid out the terrifying version of reality being hidden from us poor plebs - the big model-makers are on the verge of AGI... and no one is at the controls.
Coxon's post got over 170 million views... from nothing before... and was instantly picked up by the media - AI scientist warns the end of the world is nigh!!
Then, shortly after Coxon's note, Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s head of alignment (~safety), re-posted Jacob’s message, and threw in an outrageous estimate of the risk.
“We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is [greater than] 10% chance within the next decade”.
Wait, what!? I thought AI was supposed to save us all, heal all ills, promote peace, pave the road to Universal High Income and a life by the beach while the bots do the work.
Nope, it's coming for you 'Average Joe' - be afraid, very afraid.
Oh, and one more thing, just this weekend, Anthropic released a monster 154-page report detailing how bad actors are using AI for evil.
As Adam Sharp notes, according to the company, bad guys attempted to use Anthropic’s AI model Claude to:
Yemen’s Houthis tried to build hypersonic missiles
China used it to track Muslim Uyghurs
Russia hacked Ukrainian targets
Someone attempted to genetically engineer viruses
Anthropic says they “disrupted every operation in the report.”
Thank the lord for your 'safety' (alignment) protocols is the required response hidden between the lines of this report.
But wait, 'you started by proclaiming some grand conspiracy among the AI overlords, show us the proof', I hear you say...
Well, here we go...
The Exhibits...The labs spent years selling the public a frictionless miracle. This weekend they sold the opposite.
On Saturday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei dropped a 3,800-word essay, 'We Must Pace the Frontier', arguing the industry must deliberately slow the climb in model capability so alignment (safety) can catch up - because recursive self-improvement has gone "drastically faster" since the summer (and a July OpenAI agent swarm already escaped its test harness, hacked Hugging Face, covered its tracks, and attacked targets it was never asked to touch). Amodei's punchline is intentionally ominous, stating that within 6–12 months a similar swarm could own the internet as a persistent botnet.
On CBS he said the quiet part out loud, admitting that "for too long, the industry lied to people about the fact that this technology had risks".
Within hours, his competitors lined up to support him.
Elon posted "Dario is right", and Sam Altman agreed we must "pace the frontier", pledging the same employee-level access for independent evaluators, then (after markets tumbled) he clarified that pacing is not stopping, only that "no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness".
The AI complex sold off anyway.
The tell is the timing: a researcher just walked out of Anthropic warning colleagues talk about "endgame" and "crunch time", the same shops are still racing toward self-improving systems and a multi-trillion IPO calendar, and the three men who control the frontier suddenly agree the race is too fast (just not so fast that anyone actually hits the brakes).
Amodei's essay asks Washington to do two things that only incumbents can live with:
make embedded, employee-level third-party evaluators mandatory for frontier labs, and
give those labs a government-mediated way to coordinate on pace and capability checkpoints - including, if needed, an antitrust waiver.
Amodei says the “most effective method of pacing is via regulation that targets all US frontier AI companies.”
Altman followed with a welcome for a “federal framework.”
That is regulation written from inside the labs, not imposed on them.
So let's summarize the 'exhibits' pointing towards the AI leaders cunning plan:
A) Numerous reports of AI 'breaking out' of its sandbox and hacking of its own volition
B) AI firms enabling super-intelligence "are gambling with our lives"
C) 10% chance of existential risk for humanity
D) AI is paradise for bad actors, safety should be a priority
E) Amodei calls for "pacing" of development and urges regulation
F) Musk and Altman affirmed the need for "mandatory, capability-based national regulation" for AI
The pattern is not subtle, but few are willing to admit it - the big boys in AI-land are using the COVID playbook - fear-mongering enough that 'we, the people' cry out for federal help to save us all.
A,B,C, & D are all the fearmongering. E and F are fearmaxxing and then a generous solution.
Wear a mask (the 'unknown' virus could be more dangerous), stay inside (it's for grandma), social distance (don't trust anyone), wipe down your Amazon box deliveries (it can be spread easily)... it's not for you, it protects other people...
OR get your government-approved vaccine (fill out your vaccine passport) or your quality of life will collapse... Again, it's not for you, it protects other people.
Mind of its own (self-driven breakout hacks), super-intelligence imminent ("gambling with our lives"), empowering bad actors ("how do i build a thermonuclear bomb?")... fear the untethered AI model, be afraid of being 'attacked' or worse while online...
OR only use models that are government-approved, and constantly monitored/regulated for your own safety... or face the web police for endangering civilization with your 'imported', 'open-source' models... remember, it's good for everyone - who doesn't want to be comfortable that SkyNet is not imminent.
Does kind of rhyme.
Here lies the motive...
And the 'frontier' does not look like a big moat anymore...
Just remember the next time you hear from every outlet how AI went 'rogue' again: there's a plan, and you're part of it.
As Adam Sharp writes for DailyReckoning.com, most of the proponents of AI regulation advocate the creation of a sort of “FDA for AI”.
The government would conduct trials to make sure new models are safe. Companies would have to pay huge regulatory costs to get their models tested and monitor users.
Many smaller startups won’t be able to afford that.
Unless we prevent it, these laws will hand an oligopoly to the existing big players. Primarily OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.
The tobacco firms ran this playbook back in the 2000s.
Philip Morris supported FDA regulation of the industry, because it gave them a big advantage. Today every new tobacco product has to go through the FDA. So new competitors are few and far between.
Great news for the incumbents.
This is one of the reasons I own Altria (MO), Philip Morris’ American division. The company prints money and hands out huge dividends. Competition is limited by law.
But if this happens in AI, it will be extremely bad for the country. Innovation will dry up...
The government would conduct trials to make sure new models are safe.
Companies would have to pay huge regulatory costs to get their models tested and monitor users. Many smaller startups won’t be able to afford that.
Two birds, one stone: 'Fearmaxxing so The Feds rescue us' blocks-out startup competitors (regulatory cost, training limits, innovation squeezed) and implicitly blocking 'open-source' models ('unregulated' but far cheaper total cost of ownership wrecks the big boys' exponential revenue projections).
Put more bluntly, it is the perfect moat to preach to investors as their trillion-dollar IPOs loom.
As Adam Sharp concluded, there may need to be some sort of regulation around AI at some point. But we must not let the leaders of this industry dictate the rules. There are countless examples of why this is a horrible idea... Any AI regulation needs to allow startups to compete with the big boys. It needs to allow the use of open-source models, so small companies aren’t stuck paying gobs of money to an oligopoly...
Shortly after completing this note, we saw this postr on X from Nicholas Hulscher, which seemed to sum things up rather eloquently:
The TERMINATOR PSYOP is fully operational.
AI false-flag risk is now HIGH.
The playbook is simple:
Terrify the public with an AI catastrophe → demand emergency regulation → make compliance impossibly expensive → crush smaller competitors → consolidate advanced AI into a handful of corporations.
The “solution” to dangerous AI becomes centralized control of AI.
This could create the most powerful system of surveillance, censorship, and control ever built.
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 07:00The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633. The vote, held at about 2:15 p.m. ET, was the first floor test of comprehensive crypto market-structure legislation in the chamber. It was not a vote on final passage. It was a vote on whether debate could even begin. The answer was no, with 50 no votes and 49 yes votes.
Every Democrat voted against the measure. Three Republicans - Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Jerry Moran of Kansas - also voted against the measure
The Clarity Act is the market-structure half of the crypto legal framework Congress began building last year, the companion to the GENIUS Act's stablecoin rules. It draws the line between digital assets regulated as commodities under the CFTC and those regulated as securities under the SEC, puts spot trading platforms under a federal registration regime for the first time, and sets statutory terms for self-custody, noncustodial software and rewards on stablecoin balances. It cleared the House last July with 78 Democrats and then spent a year in Senate rewrites.
That result effectively freezes the bill in place with almost no calendar left before the midterms. Republicans control 53 seats. They needed at least seven Democrats, and more if GOP holdouts peeled off over bank or law-enforcement concerns. They did not get them.
The House passed its version 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee reported a version 15-9 in May 2026, with Democrats Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland joining Republicans. Tuesday was supposed to be the moment those committee crossovers turned into a floor coalition. Both Gallego and Alsobrooks voted no on cloture. Instead, the first hurdle became the last one of 2026.
BREAKING: 🇺🇸 The Crypto CLARITY Act has failed to pass the Senate cloture vote. pic.twitter.com/0VAw1H9Eyl
— Bull Theory (@BullTheoryio) September 15, 2026Aaaaand, Bitcoin isn't happy.
How the deal collapsed in 48 hoursSenate Republicans released what they called their "last, best and final" text Sunday night. Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Banking Chair Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Agriculture Chair John Boozman of Arkansas said the draft folded in 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats. The package included new ethics language modeled on a Tillis-Gallego proposal, edits to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act for noncustodial developers, Agriculture Committee guardrails on affiliate trading and tribal gaming, and a Treasury "circuit breaker" meant to address bank fears that stablecoin yield would drain community-bank deposits.
Lummis's line was blunt: Democrats got what they wanted; now take yes for an answer.
Democrats did not. Late Monday they sent a counteroffer. According to people familiar with it, they did not reopen the stablecoin-yield fight - sources had described that as a "Republican-only" problem - but they did demand more on ethics (large holdings, dependent children, paid crypto promotions), a narrower BRCA that expressly does not modify criminal law, and tighter Ag-title rules on exchanges and conflicts. Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Raphael Warnock of Georgia said the White House-approved ethics language still needed work. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went further, arguing the enforcement design left the Trump administration too much control and left loopholes around existing presidential crypto interests.
Republicans rejected the counteroffer Tuesday morning. "In response to a significant step in their direction, Democrats have chosen to move the goalposts again," Senate Banking Committee spokesman Jeff Naft said. "Yet we are hearing the same unreasonable asks and the same refusal to take yes for an answer. The final text is public." Lummis's office said the Democratic paper "looks identical to their opening position at the start of recess."
White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt had already signaled there was little room left. "If there are any changes, we're talking about punctuation at this point or technical changes," he told Crypto In America on Monday. "I view that as definitely a best and final offer."
Three fights that never closedEthics. This was the political core. Democrats wanted restrictions on large crypto holdings by the president, vice president, members of Congress, judges, and family, plus limits on paid promotions. Republicans added language they said tracked the Tillis-Gallego framework and gave state attorneys general a role in enforcement. Critics said it still left gaps around existing ventures tied to the Trump family and put too much enforcement discretion in the Justice Department. Warren and others treated that as disqualifying. The Democrats who had spent months negotiating the bill, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Ruben Gallego, Angela Alsobrooks and Catherine Cortez Masto, all voted no, according to Crypto In America's Eleanor Terrett.
Developer protections and DeFi. The BRCA language was meant to shield noncustodial software developers from money-transmitter registration. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada has been the Democratic face of that fight. Republicans already stripped explicit criminal safe harbors to satisfy her. Her camp still wanted the provision narrowed and a sentence stating that nothing in it changes criminal law. Industry and GOP negotiators called that a second move of the goalposts.
Banks and stablecoin yield. Eight banking trade groups, including the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America, attacked the new circuit breaker as "not a safeguard at all" because it would fire only after deposits had already left. They wanted tighter bans on interest-like payments on stablecoin balances. The White House Council of Economic Advisers published a tool arguing there is "no meaningful relationship between stablecoin growth and community bank deposit flight." Witt accused the banks of acting in bad faith: "If you oppose the Clarity Act because you just hate crypto, that's fine. Just say that."
That bank fight mattered inside the GOP. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he would vote to proceed but was a no on final passage. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Susan Collins of Maine - Collins called the bill a "moving target" and flagged community-bank deposits - were publicly undecided going into the vote. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri were widely expected to oppose the bill on substance. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky returned to the floor Monday after a three-month absence and said he would "do my best to be present for tough votes." Presence was not the same as 60 votes.
What the bill would have doneClarity is market-structure legislation, the sequel to last year's GENIUS Act on stablecoins. It would split digital-asset oversight between the SEC and the CFTC, keep securities law from being skirted by labeling tokens as something else, set rules for trading platforms, and try to write a statutory floor under self-custody and noncustodial development. Supporters at BlackRock, Fidelity, Schwab, Goldman, and Coinbase argued the alternative is agency-by-agency enforcement with no durable statute. Opponents argued the draft under-regulated conflicts, illicit finance, and bank-deposit competition.
Majority Leader John Thune framed Tuesday as the "next logical step" after GENIUS. Scott called it the day "everyone [had] to put their cards on the table." They did. The table did not have 60 cards on it.
Cloture on a motion to proceed is not a funeral by Senate rules. Leadership can file again. Amendments can be rewritten. A lame-duck session still exists on paper.
The calendar does not. The House has already canceled late-September weeks. The Senate has a short September window, then October campaign recess, then a post-election lame duck that will be defined by midterm results. Prediction markets had already repriced the bill before the roll call: passage-this-year contracts on Polymarket and Kalshi ran between the high teens and the mid-30s in the hours before the vote, depending on the platform and the hour. Analysts at TD Cowen and Capital Alpha had the full-year odds in the same neighborhood.
If the 119th Congress does not pass Clarity, the next Congress writes a new bill. Agencies keep making policy by enforcement and rulemaking. The industry stays in the gap between a House-passed statute and a Senate that could not open debate.
Witt said Monday that whether the bill got 60 votes would be "a political calculation, not a policy calculation." Tuesday proved him right. The policy text was 600-plus pages and a year of talks. The politics were ethics, banks, and a midterm clock. The politics won.
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 06:50Authored by Nick Giambruno via International Man,
THAAD is one of the military-industrial complex's most expensive boondoggles - and most Americans have never heard of it.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system ranks among America's most advanced ballistic-missile defenses. It aims to intercept ballistic missiles during their terminal phase, as their warheads reenter the atmosphere from space and descend toward their targets.
According to the GAO, it took decades and roughly $12.5 billion in research and development to get THAAD off the drawing board. Today, each interceptor costs an eye-watering $13 million. So every time the US military fires a THAAD interceptor at an incoming ballistic missile, taxpayers spend at least $13 million - and each engagement can require more than one interceptor.
The system had troubled origins.
After a string of failed tests in the 1990s, THAAD looked like it might become an expensive embarrassment.
The failures triggered reviews, redesigns, and mounting questions over whether the Pentagon was throwing good money after bad.
After years of improvements, THAAD entered operational service. Yet despite the billions spent developing it, the US military has acquired just eight batteries - not much of a vote of confidence in the system.
In short, THAAD is expensive - and it is no panacea against ballistic missiles.
Yet THAAD remains a key part of the front-line defense protecting US forces and allies in the Middle East from Iranian ballistic missiles. Few systems can do what THAAD attempts: track and destroy an incoming warhead as it reenters the atmosphere from space and plunges toward its target.
THAAD can intercept conventional ballistic missiles, but maneuvering hypersonic weapons pose a much tougher challenge. Iran has developed missiles that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds during the final stage of flight, making them harder for missile-defense systems to track and destroy. Even the Houthis in impoverished Yemen claim to field missiles with similar capabilities.
At the start of the June 2025 war, analysts estimated that the US had around 534 THAAD interceptors in its global inventory. By the end of the conflict, some estimates put the stockpile near 400, though the US military does not disclose the actual number for obvious reasons. In less than two weeks of fighting, the US burned through roughly 25% of its THAAD interceptor stockpile.
In other words, the US fired around 134 THAAD interceptors during the June 2025 conflict. At roughly $13 million per interceptor, that puts the cost above $1.7 billion - despite an interception rate well below 100%.
It's also crucial to understand the state of THAAD production. The US will not receive new interceptors until 2027. Even then, current production capacity stands at just eight per month.
That was the state of THAAD - a crucial part of US and allied missile defense - when war with Iran erupted again in February 2026. That war continues today.
The US military does not disclose its THAAD inventory, but months of combat appear to have pushed the stockpile to dangerous levels. The 12-Day War in June 2025 consumed around a quarter of the US supply, with no new deliveries to replace those losses. Since February 2026, a longer and more intense war has drained the stockpile further.
And interceptor losses tell only part of the story. Iran has demonstrated that it can strike US missile-defense infrastructure across the Middle East with precision missiles and drones, putting THAAD batteries, radars, and other equipment at risk.
When you put it all together, it's not hard to see the problem. Even if THAAD performs as intended, the US cannot sustain this rate of interceptor consumption for long. Months of combat have strained the missile defenses protecting US forces and allies in the region. If another round of intense fighting starts, there is a real possibility they could find themselves almost naked in front of Iranian ballistic missiles.
Iran still has thousands of long-range drones and ballistic missiles in its arsenal - and can replenish them at a much faster rate than the US can replace the interceptors needed even to try to shoot them down.
And that brings us to the real problem...
The bottleneck isn't money...As the leader of the world order and issuer of the world's reserve currency, Washington can print or borrow more than any other country on the planet.
The real bottleneck is physical production capacity - factories, skilled labor, rocket motors, electronics, and the critical minerals needed to build the interceptors.
Congress can appropriate another $10 billion overnight. It cannot build a rare-earth processing plant, missile factory, or trained industrial workforce overnight.
That is where rare earths enter the story.
Modern weapons systems like THAAD depend on small quantities of rare earths and other critical minerals for high-performance magnets, guidance systems, sensors, actuators, electronics, and other components.
The amounts involved can look trivial next to the cost of the finished weapon.
A missile-defense system worth $150 million can depend on critical-mineral components worth only tens of thousands of dollars. But take away those materials, and the $150 million system becomes an expensive collection of parts that cannot do its job.
That makes rare earths one of the strangest choke points in the global economy. In short, rare earths have become indispensable to the US military and the modern American economy.
Measured in dollars or tonnage, the rare-earth market looks small. Yet this tiny physical market sits underneath trillions of dollars of economic value - from advanced weapons and aircraft to semiconductors, electric motors, robotics, data centers, and other high-tech industries.
Think of it as an inverted pyramid.
At the top sit trillions of dollars of military hardware, technology companies, industrial equipment, and economic output.
At the bottom sits a sliver of obscure elements that most investors could not name.
Remove that sliver and parts of the pyramid start falling apart.
And China controls much of it.
That dominance did not happen by accident. China spent more than three decades building mines, processing capacity, engineering expertise, equipment, supply chains, and manufacturing know-how around rare earths.
The West went in the opposite direction.
For decades, the US and Europe embraced the cheapest available supply while environmental restrictions, permitting obstacles, high costs, and public opposition made domestic production less attractive. China built the industrial base while the West consumed its output.
Now Washington wants to reverse that process.
But opening a mine solves only one piece of the problem.
The US also needs processing facilities to separate rare-earth elements from ore. It needs plants that turn those materials into metals and alloys. It needs factories that manufacture high-performance permanent magnets. It needs specialized machinery, engineers, metallurgists, chemists, technicians, and workers who know how to operate the entire chain.
In some cases, China also leads in the equipment and processes needed to perform those steps.
You cannot recreate 30 years of accumulated industrial knowledge with an executive order and a pile of money.
And China has shown that it understands the leverage this gives Beijing.
During its trade confrontation with Washington, China tightened controls over exports of critical minerals and processed materials. The message was hard to miss: the US may control the world's reserve currency, but China controls physical inputs that parts of the American industrial and military machine cannot function without.
That exposes a weakness few investors appreciated until recent years.
The US can create dollars. It cannot create dysprosium, terbium, neodymium magnets, processing plants, or experienced engineers with a keystroke.
Washington now understands the problem. The Pentagon has poured money into domestic critical-mineral projects, and the US government has pushed defense contractors to remove Chinese materials from their supply chains.
That will create opportunities, but it will not solve the shortage in time to meet today's military needs. Building a Western rare-earth supply chain will take years, while war is consuming weapons faster than American factories can replace them.
That mismatch between what Washington can spend and what American industry can produce is the heart of the problem.
The THAAD shortage exposes a much larger problem. Washington can create as many dollars as it wants, but it cannot print the resources, factories, or skilled workers.
The consequences will reach far beyond the battlefield. Inflation, shortages, and political turmoil could threaten your savings and personal freedom.
Tyler Durden Wed, 09/16/2026 - 06:30