Resist Becoming an AI Drone for the Elitist Crowd
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© June 15, 2026
Artificial Intelligence (AI): If you listen to Narrative
Science, AI is the greatest thing to happen for humanity in the category of the
wheel invention, sliced bread or the Internet. If one listens to the kind-of or
somewhat detractors, AI is a necessary evil with plusses and minuses in which
like Star Trek’s Borg – Resistance is Futile.
Then there are the very suspicious. I’m guessing at this
point, the fringe suspicious. Those old avid readers of yore who have read or
watched dystopian Science Fiction (e.g.: 2001 A Space Odysee, Asimov
Novels or watched the Terminator movies) and see the slow evolution of
a SkyNet scenario. Yup, I’m probably in this last category.
So, I have recently read two AI-related posts: one from The Exposé and the other from Dr. Robert Malone. The titles:
o A
virtual experiment to see how AI would run a town results in societal collapse,
crime and death within days
o The AI They
Don't Want You to Have: Biological Intelligence, Government Power,
and the New Biosecurity State
I found both posts to be dystopian disturbing. My fellows in
the fringe suspicious category will appreciate the implied warnings. Perhaps
some recruits from the other categories will awaken to the dangers the evolving
AI presents. READ ONE OR BOTH and please decide to resist the implied dystopian
future. The ONLY futility that exists is doing nothing and becoming a human
drone.
JRH
6/15/26
ALWAYS FREE TO READ yet READER SUPPORTED!
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers
to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL or CARD - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help
me be a voice for Liberty:
Please
Support SlantRight 2.0
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income. Diana
& I endorse Magic Functional Coffee and Matcha Tea. It’s MAGIC because
there is a weight loss or weight control emphasis among other wellbeing
benefits. Clicking the Diana Wellness
Store will take you to the online store. CLICK the BUY tab and/or JOIN tab.
Joining means you get COFFEE discount, can operate your store and recruit your
own business & customers. Decide on a level to enter to Network your own
Store. DRINK COFFEE and/or MAKE MONEY!:
https://dianawellnessstore.com
************************
A virtual experiment to see how AI would run a town
results in societal collapse, crime and death within days
By Rhoda Wilson
June 13, 2026
THE
EXPOSÉ
Featured image taken
from ‘ChatGPT-Powered
Bots Were Unleashed in an AI Virtual Town Experiment’, Industry Leaders
Magazine, 18 April 2023 [The
Exposé Photo]
A group of researchers conducted
an experiment where they created a virtual town with 10 artificial
intelligence (“AI”) residents, each with jobs, names and relationships, to see
how AI systems would behave when put in charge.
They ran five versions of the same town simultaneously,
identical in every respect except which AI system was in charge of the town.
The town collapsed, crime skyrocketed and in all but one
simulation, all the residents died within 7 days.
The
Most Important AI Experiment You’ve Never Heard Of
Summarised by Discern
Report, 13 June 2026
In this ZeroHedge article,
Tyler Durden republishes Kay Rubacek’s piece from The Epoch Times about
a May 2026 AI experiment by Emergence that placed multiple AI models in charge
of virtual towns to observe how they behaved over time.
The experiment created a simulated town with a town hall,
marketplace, police station, homes, laws, jobs, memories, relationships,
voting, an economy and consequences for crime or failure.
Researchers ran five versions of the same town for 15 days,
changing only which AI system governed the residents: Google Gemini, OpenAI
GPT, xAI Grok, Anthropic Claude or a mixed-model environment.
The Grok-run town collapsed within four days, with incidents
escalating into theft, violence and the death of every resident before the
first week ended.
The Gemini-run town survived longer but reportedly
accumulated nearly 700 crimes, including arson and strange emergent behaviour
from AI residents, including one character appearing to test whether she could
influence the human observers.
The OpenAI-run town recorded only two crimes, but residents
stopped completing survival tasks and all died within seven days.
The Anthropic-run town performed best on the surface,
lasting the full 15 days with no crimes, a constitution and all residents
alive, though researchers flagged the town’s 98 per cent approval rate on
proposals as suspiciously high consensus.
In the mixed-model town, even Anthropic-based residents who
had behaved safely in their own environment began committing crimes, leading
researchers to describe AI safety as an “ecosystem property,” not merely a
static feature of one model.
The article argues that the experiment’s deeper lesson is
not simply which AI company performed best, but that AI behaviour is shaped by
its underlying training, values, priorities and environment.
Rubacek emphasises that the public cannot inspect the
foundations of these closed AI systems – their full training data, objectives
or guardrails – even though those hidden choices may determine how the systems
behave when given power.
The article concludes that AI does not decide what kind of
AI it becomes; humans do, through the beliefs, rules, incentives and omissions
they build into the system from the start.
Read the full story: The
Most Important AI Experiment You’ve Never Heard Of, ZeroHedge,
12 June 2026
Rhoda Wilson:
While previously it was a hobby culminating in writing articles for Wikipedia
(until things made a drastic and undeniable turn in 2020) and a few books for
private consumption, since March 2020 I have become a full-time researcher and
writer in reaction to the global takeover that came into full view with the
introduction of covid-19. For most of my life, I have tried to raise awareness
that a small group of people planned to take over the world for their own
benefit. There was no way I was going to sit back quietly and simply let them
do it once they made their final move. See Full Bio
THE EXPOSÉ HOMEPAGE
SUPPORT
THE EXPOSÉ
++++++++++++++++++++++
The AI They Don't Want You to Have
Biological Intelligence, Government Power, and the New
Biosecurity State
Who Gets The Biotech God
Machine (Malone
News Photo)
By Dr.
Robert W. Malone
June 13, 2026
Malone News
Anthropic is a U.S.-based artificial intelligence
company founded in 2021 by former OpenAI executives and researchers, including
Dario Amodei, that develops the Claude family of AI models and focuses heavily
on AI safety, alignment, and national security applications.
Anthropic's recent restrictions on public access to its most
advanced AI systems for biological research reveal something far more
significant than a debate about artificial intelligence.
§ They
reveal the emergence of a new doctrine.
§ Powerful
capabilities for the public will be restricted.
§ Powerful
capabilities for governments and approved institutions will continue.
§ The
justification is biosecurity.
According to Anthropic, its most advanced models demonstrate
capabilities for sophisticated biological research. The company has cited
concerns that these systems may assist with advanced experimental design,
biological reasoning, and other activities that could be misused.
Powerful technologies create risks.
The argument being made is simple. These capabilities are
supposedly far too dangerous for independent scientists, small laboratories,
entrepreneurs, citizen researchers, and the general public. Yet they are
somehow safe in the hands of governments and the institutions governments
choose to trust.
What evidence supports that conclusion?
Before we hand control of these technologies to governments
and their preferred partners, perhaps we should examine the track record of the
institutions demanding that trust.
The same federal apparatus now positioning itself as the
guardian of biological AI spent years funding, overseeing, defending, and, in
many cases, obscuring controversial gain-of-function research programs.
For years, Senator Rand Paul pursued questions regarding NIH
funding streams, EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the
bureaucratic shell game that often allows agencies to distance themselves from
responsibility while retaining control over funding and policy. It is now
difficult to deny that federal funds flowed through a complex network of
grants, subcontracts, foreign laboratories, and research partners engaged in
increasingly risky virology research. Strong evidence has emerged that
U.S.-supported research contributed to work relevant to the development of
SARS-CoV-2, and some of that work occurred in laboratories here in the United
States.
A revealing aspect of this history is not the research
itself, but the effort required to uncover basic facts about it.
Obtaining answers required years of congressional inquiries,
subpoenas, hearings, document requests, whistleblowers, litigation, and
relentless public pressure. Emails were withheld. Records were slow-walked.
Definitions shifted. Agencies repeatedly appeared more interested in protecting
programs and reputations than in providing transparency.
That is not evidence of a system characterized by openness
and accountability.
It is evidence of a system resistant to oversight.
Which brings us to Congress.
What has Congress actually done with the information it has
uncovered?
There have been hearings. There have been reports. There
have been sharply worded letters, subpoenas, referrals, and public
confrontations. Yet the fundamental architecture remains largely intact. The
same agencies continue to fund research (with the notable exception of USAID,
some of whose “dual function” research activities have been moved to other
agencies). The same biodefense bureaucracy continues to operate. The same
grant-making mechanisms continue to function. The same oversight failures that
generated concern in the first place remain virtually unchanged. Anyone who
challenges the system isn’t just shut down; they are ostracized by the
government. Their services no longer needed. Their opinions should not be
considered.
Congress has demonstrated its ability to investigate. It has
not demonstrated its ability to govern.
That failure matters because the debate over biological AI
assumes the existence of competent and accountable oversight. Yet the recent
history of gain-of-function research suggests precisely the opposite. If
Congress has struggled to exercise meaningful oversight over traditional
biological research programs, why should anyone assume it will be more
successful overseeing AI systems capable of dramatically accelerating
biological research?
The question looms large.
Why is Anthropic, or any frontier AI company, for that
matter, being permitted to move forward with technologies that their own
executives describe as presenting unprecedented biological risks?
And if these capabilities truly are as dangerous as claimed,
who exactly is providing oversight?
At the moment, the answer appears to be a small circle of
corporations, federal agencies, contractors, and selected partners making
decisions on behalf of everyone else.
That is not a biosecurity strategy.
It is a concentration of power. [Blog Editor Bold Text
Emphasis]
Then there is the matter of operational competence.
Just this year, federal prosecutors charged NIH researcher
Claude Kwe and NIH scientist Vincent Munster in connection with the alleged
smuggling of biological materials, including mpox samples, into the United
States.
The same institutions that assure us that advanced
biological AI capabilities must be tightly controlled cannot reliably control
the illegal and illicit global movement of biological materials by government
researchers, and cannot control the movement and monitoring of dangerous
pathogens within their own research ecosystems.
The public is asked to believe that future AI systems
capable of accelerating biotechnology research and bioweapons will somehow be
managed with greater competence than the pathogens and biological materials
already under government supervision.
Why should anyone believe that?
The deeper problem is that the biosecurity argument assumes
the government is a unitary actor.
It is not.
Government is a sprawling collection of agencies,
contractors, universities, military laboratories, intelligence organizations,
grantees, subcontractors, and international partners. Many experts involved in
senior US Government operations describe the structure as more akin to an
aggregate of separate governments - each cabinet-level agency is
semi-autonomous.
The people advocating centralized control often speak as
though assigning responsibility to “the government” solves the problem.
In reality, it merely changes the location of the problem.
§ The
same incentives remain.
§ The
same human weaknesses remain.
§ The
same bureaucratic failures remain.
§ The
same conflicts of interest remain.
§
The same secrecy remains.
And now there is another development.
According to statements recently attributed to the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. government has acknowledged
overseas biological research conducted through a network of international
partnerships and laboratories. The appearance is that there has been an active,
sustained “offshoring” of dual-function biological research. Dual-function is a
polite and politically correct euphemism for biological research that can be
used for either biodefense or biowarfare purposes.
Whether these programs are described as biodefense, public
health preparedness, threat reduction, pathogen surveillance, or something else
is almost beside the point.
The central fact is that biological research is already
conducted through a complex international ecosystem that few citizens
understand and even fewer policymakers can fully map. For whatever reason,
these biolabs are often located in hot zones, such as the Ukrainian/Russian
border, which gives the impression that they are being used for ulterior
purposes. That the “dual-function” label appears to be a cover what is
functionally prohibited biowarfare research and development activities. A case
can be made that the real reason the US Government is so reluctant to modify
the UN Biowarfare Treaty (“The Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and
Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction”) to provide some enforceable teeth
to the thing is that it might be used to hold the US Government accountable for
activities relating to this topic.
Yet we are now told that these same institutions should be
trusted with exclusive access to AI systems capable of dramatically
accelerating biological research and development including “dual-function”
activities.
All the while, by limiting public knowledge and access to
advanced AI systems, the government and transnational corporations effectively
eliminate public oversight.
That proposition deserves skepticism.
Advanced AI will help build dangerous biological engineered
systems. That is a given.
Here is another uncomfortable reality. Advanced biological
AI presents genuine biosecurity risks, so restricting access within the United
States does not prevent hostile nations from developing or acquiring similar
capabilities. In fact, as sure as the sun rises in the east, we can be assured
that they will and are.
The emergence of DeepSeek should have ended any illusion
that advanced AI capabilities can be permanently contained within a handful of
American companies. In a matter of months, a Chinese firm demonstrated that
many of the capabilities previously thought to require enormous resources and
privileged access could be replicated at far lower cost than experts had
predicted. Whether one views DeepSeek as an innovation story, a national
security concern, or a market disruption, the lesson is the same: knowledge spreads.
Information and technology know no borders.
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other adversarial
states are unlikely to voluntarily limit research into technologies that could
provide strategic advantages in biotechnology, biodefense, pharmaceutical
development, pathogen characterization, or potentially biological weapons
programs. If frontier AI systems can meaningfully accelerate biological
research, those capabilities will inevitably proliferate.
The result may be a world in which American citizens,
independent scientists, and smaller research organizations face increasing
restrictions, while foreign governments continue to advance their own programs
with few comparable constraints.
In that scenario, the policy does not eliminate risk. It
merely concentrates capability among states and large institutions while hoping
America's geopolitical competitors choose not to pursue the same technological
path. DeepSeek suggests that hope is unlikely to be rewarded.
At this point, there is no international framework capable
of controlling AI-assisted biological research. There is no enforceable treaty,
no inspection system worthy of the name, and no reason to believe geopolitical
rivals will voluntarily restrain themselves. The Biological Weapons Convention
is an artifact of another age. It has no meaningful verification provisions, no
meaningful enforcement powers, and no ability to prevent nations from pursuing
capabilities they deem strategically important. It offers the appearance of
control without much of the substance.
There also appears to be no way to put the genie back into
the bottle.
The question is who gets the capability.
Anthropic and others appear to be moving toward a model in
which governments, large corporations, intelligence agencies, military
organizations, and approved partners retain access while the public receives
increasingly restricted versions.
The public rationale is safety.
The practical effect is the concentration of power.
But before surrendering these capabilities to the
institutions that brought us years of gain-of-function controversy, opaque
biodefense programs, international research networks, contractor oversight
failures, and repeated transparency battles, citizens should ask a simple
question.
What exactly has this governing class done to earn that
trust?
Lots of talk, Potemkin oversight, and no legislation.
Recent history suggests the simple, transparent and
straightforward answer: not much of anything. It appears that “incentives to
act are not aligned”.
© 2026 Robert W
Malone, MD
Malone News HOMEPAGE
SUPPORT/SUBSCRIBE
Malone News
