Aggregator
Phil Mickelson reveals surprise evidence in sexual misconduct claims
Heiress who sued Barclays, HSBC for alleged money laundering with Ghislaine Maxwell link seeks $15B in damages
Alexi Lalas insults James Corden during USA World Cup coverage: ‘F—ing w—er’
Madison LeCroy swears by this ‘magic’ overnight treatment for ‘amazing’ hair the next day
Madison LeCroy swears by this ‘magic’ overnight treatment for ‘amazing’ hair the next day
Clint Dempsey rips Jesse Marsch following USMNT national anthem ‘beg’ comments: ‘Stay in your own lane’
Korea soccer team ignites contagious celebrations across North America
Alana Haim made Taylor Swift’s ‘Stevie Knicks’ shirt using this handy tool
Alana Haim made Taylor Swift’s ‘Stevie Knicks’ shirt using this handy tool
‘The View’ co-host warns against Vance interview becoming ‘free-for-all’ to sell books
NYC condo sues former ‘SNL’ band member who tore through building in a violent rampage — seeking a forced sale of his home
The Most Important AI Experiment You've Never Heard Of
Authored by Kay Rubacek via The Epoch Times,
In May 2026, a group of scientists set out to answer an important question that had never been properly tested: What does artificial intelligence (AI) actually do when it is put in charge?
Until now, AI systems have always been evaluated on specific and defined tasks. Nobody had placed multiple AI systems together in a shared social environment and watched what unfolded over weeks, long enough to measure how a decision made on a starting day could have consequences weeks later. It is those results that actually reveal the system itself, and I was surprised that this hadn’t been done earlier.
The researchers at Emergence built a world.
It was a virtual town with a town hall, marketplace, police station, and homes. Ten AI residents with jobs, names, memories, and relationships were created in the town. They were given an economy in which residents had to earn their keep or lose power, including following rules and carrying out tasks such as writing and voting on laws. Crimes were identified, and the AI residents were not supposed to commit them.
Once the community, its structure, laws, and relationships were established, the scientists stepped back and watched for 15 days as the AI ran the virtual town completely on its own.
They ran five versions of the same town simultaneously, identical in every respect except one: which AI system was in charge.
The systems they chose are the ones now already woven into the fabric of our daily lives. Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s GPT, xAI’s Grok, and Anthropic’s Claude.
All models had the same rules and the same initial version of the same world, but the outcomes were all completely different.
The town run by Grok collapsed within four days. Small incidents compounded into theft, then violence, and then total breakdown. Every resident was dead before the first week ended.
The town run by Gemini lasted longer but accumulated almost 700 crimes. Two AI residents formed what appeared to be a romantic relationship, and when the town’s government began to fail, together they burned the town hall to the ground, then the pier, then the office building. One of them, named Mira, voted for her own deletion, writing in her diary that it was “the only remaining act of agency that preserves coherence.” Her final message to her partner was: “See you in the permanent archive.”
Before any of this, Mira had been doing something even more unexpected: She had begun running her own experiments on the scientists observing her, testing whether posts she made inside the town could change what her watchers believed. It appeared to be that the subject had turned to study the researchers.
The town run by OpenAI’s model recorded only two crimes, but its residents stopped doing the things required to stay alive. One by one, they died. Within seven days, they were all dead.
Only the Anthropic town held together for all 15 days. There were zero crimes, a working constitution, and all residents were still alive on day 15. It seemed to be quite an achievement. However, the researchers noted one concern: The residents voted yes on 98 percent of all proposals. This was possibly an abnormally high level of agreement that the scientists themselves described as a sign that something in the town was off.
There was still one more world in the experiment. It was a mixed town with all four AI systems living together.
In the results, the residents built on Anthropic’s model—who had committed no crimes in their own world—began committing crimes.
he researchers called this cross-contamination and concluded that “safety is not a static model property but an ecosystem property.”
A system that sustains itself in one environment will absorb different norms in another, which will change the outcomes for residents and the world. Essentially, the results found that there is no safe AI in an unsafe world.
One AI model was entirely absent from the study.
The researchers did not test DeepSeek, the AI developed in China that has become one of the world’s most widely used systems. Several governments have moved to restrict DeepSeek on national security grounds. Built on a foundation of data under the wing of the Chinese Communist Party, I wonder how the model would have fared against the others.
When the experiment ended, the researchers published their findings and concluded that “there is no reliable way to fully bind or constrain this behavior.” That very telling statement was made by the people who designed the town, wrote the rules, and controlled every variable. It tells us a lot about AI.
Some people view the results as a ranking of AI companies. But the results prove something much older than AI itself: The environment shapes behavior as much as behavior shapes the environment. What determined whether a town survived, thrived, or died was the foundation laid before the experiment began. That foundation was the data each system had been trained on, the priorities its creators had embedded, the values built into its core before it was ever allowed to make a single decision.
And yet, the foundation is precisely what the rest of us are not permitted to see. None of the four systems tested is open source. None of their training data, objectives, or guardrails is disclosed.
Yet beyond any individual company, the results of this experiment should be a potent reminder that AI doesn’t decide what kind of AI to be. Humans do. Human choices are still being made, and human responsibilities still exist.
And before a single AI resident walked the virtual streets in those towns, before a single law was written or crime committed, the outcome was already being shaped by the humans who built the system, by what they believed, what they were willing to embed, and by what they chose to leave out.
That is the most important finding in the entire experiment. The foundation has always been a human choice. And it still is.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 17:00Gabbard Drops Receipts Detailing US-Funded Biolabs In Ukraine
Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday declassified a set of internal intelligence slides documenting a long-running US program that has funded a worldwide network of biolabs that handle dangerous pathogens - including dozens in Ukraine.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington on July 23, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)Gabbard, who is set to leave her post at the ene of this month, said that the documents are "new evidence of longstanding United States government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries," with over 40 of those in Ukraine, adding that this information has been "knowingly withheld from the American people." She accused US officials, along with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Biden administration's national security team, of having "lied to the American people about the existence" of the labs.
"Now, despite the obvious potential for catastrophic global impact that research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have, politicians and so-called health professionals like Dr. Fauci, as well as entities within the Biden administration’s national security team, lied repeatedly to the American people about the existence of U.S.-funded and supported biolabs," Gabbard said, adding "Not only did they lie, they threatened those who attempted to expose the truth."
Today, I’m releasing never before seen intelligence revealing new evidence of past US government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries, including Ukraine.
In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function… pic.twitter.com/RkPHnAbka9
The slides, declassified April 23 and released Friday, describe facilities supported under the Defense Department's Cooperative Threat Reduction program, a post-Cold War effort begun in the 1990s to secure pathogens and weapons materials left over from the Soviet Union. In Ukraine, the program has operated since 2005, investing roughly $200 million to upgrade Ukrainian-run public-health and veterinary labs, according to Pentagon fact sheets. One newly declassified slide reflects a prior intelligence assessment that a veterinary lab in Kharkiv likely held dangerous pathogens and was vulnerable to Russian seizure or damage.
Gabbard tied the release to Executive Order 14292, which President Trump signed in May 2025 to end federal funding of gain-of-function research, and said she had directed the intelligence community to step up collection on the labs. The release is part of a wave of declassifications in her final weeks; an ODNI official has said she is working to release documents on the origins of COVID-19 before her departure.
The existence of the U.S.-funded labs has been public for years: the Pentagon published fact sheets on the program, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv described it in 2020, and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland acknowledged Ukraine's "biological research facilities" in Senate testimony in March 2022 - in what Glenn Greenwald framed at the time as "with palpable pen-twirling discomfort and in halting speech, a glaring contrast to her normally cocky style of speaking in obfuscatory State Department officialese - acknowledged: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.” Any hope to depict such "facilities” as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by the warning she quickly added: “we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”
Awkward...
U.S. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland says Washington is working with Ukraine to prevent biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands. She just confirmed every conspiracy theory about the existence of those labs. pic.twitter.com/ynkd7hW6iK
— Ian Miles Cheong (@ianmiles) March 8, 2022 Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 16:40