The <a href="https://www.theripcurrent.com/p/he-helped-build-chatgpt-now-he-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">public resignation of Jacob Coxon</a> — who told the world his industry is “gambling with our lives” — buried two other chilling warnings from inside the AI industry this week.The first is <a href="https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">“An Alien Mind,”</a> an essay OpenAI’s chief scientist Jakub Pachocki published on September 6, in which he describes his own creation as an intellect nobody fully understands and says no lab has solved alignment well enough to keep scaling at full speed.The second is <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-september-2026#biological-misuse-sep-26" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Anthropic’s September threat report</a>, which lays out what people have already done with Claude: a Russian espionage group whose AI agents rewrote their own malware until security products stopped catching it; hotel WiFi networks turned into malware delivery systems; one person who built a searchable doxing database of political dissidents; a Wagner-funded radio station in the Central African Republic where the model wrote the loyalty contracts and the scoring rubric used to decide which journalists to fire; and a cell in northern Yemen running three weapons programs, including a multi-stage ballistic missile with a stated range goal above 2,000 kilometers.In the last weeks of 1944, Polish physicist Joseph Rotblat told his boss James Chadwick that he was leaving the world’s most dangerous scientific undertaking.In this episode I go through the report, explain why the labor curve that used to limit what a small group could do has collapsed, and lay out the questions I submitted to a CNN producer for the executives running these companies — including whether Dario Amodei would support the <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ban-Artificial-Superintelligence-Act-Release-Summary.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,</a> the bill Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar announced on September 3, which would carry penalties comparable to those for unlawfully developing nuclear weapons.For the full written reporting, and analysis you'll read nowhere else, subscribe at <a href="https://theripcurrent.com/subscribe?utm_source=spotify&utm_medium=show-notes&utm_campaign=evergreen" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">TheRipCurrent.com</a>.

The public resignation of Jacob Coxon — who told the world his industry is “gambling with our lives” — buried two other chilling warnings from inside the AI industry this week. The first is “An Alien Mind,” an essay OpenAI’s chief scientist Jakub Pachocki published on September 6, in which he describes his own creation as an intellect nobody fully understands and says no lab has solved alignment well enough to keep scaling at full speed. The second is Anthropic’s September threat report, which lays out what people have already done with Claude: a Russian espionage group whose AI agents rewrote their own malware until security products stopped catching it; hotel WiFi networks turned into malware delivery systems; one person who built a searchable doxing database of political dissidents; a Wagner-funded radio station in the Central African Republic where the model wrote the loyalty contracts and the scoring rubric used to decide which journalists to fire; and a cell in northern Yemen running three weapons programs, including a multi-stage ballistic missile with a stated range goal above 2,000 kilometers. In the last weeks of 1944, Polish physicist Joseph Rotblat told his boss James Chadwick that he was leaving the world’s most dangerous scientific undertaking. In this episode I go through the report, explain why the labor curve that used to limit what a small group could do has collapsed, and lay out the questions I submitted to a CNN producer for the executives running these companies — including whether Dario Amodei would support the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, the bill Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar announced on September 3, which would carry penalties comparable to those for unlawfully developing nuclear weapons. For the full written reporting, and analysis you'll read nowhere else, subscribe at TheRipCurrent.com.

The <a href="https://www.theripcurrent.com/p/he-helped-build-chatgpt-now-he-says" rel="noopener noreferrer">public resignation of Jacob Coxon</a> — who told the world his industry is “gambling with our lives” — buried two other chilling warnings from inside the AI industry this week.The first is <a href="https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/" rel="noopener noreferrer">“An Alien Mind,”</a> an essay OpenAI’s chief scientist Jakub Pachocki published on September 6, in which he describes his own creation as an intellect nobody fully understands and says no lab has solved alignment well enough to keep scaling at full speed.The second is <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-september-2026#biological-misuse-sep-26" rel="noopener noreferrer">Anthropic’s September threat report</a>, which lays out what people have already done with Claude: a Russian espionage group whose AI agents rewrote their own malware until security products stopped catching it; hotel WiFi networks turned into malware delivery systems; one person who built a searchable doxing database of political dissidents; a Wagner-funded radio station in the Central African Republic where the model wrote the loyalty contracts and the scoring rubric used to decide which journalists to fire; and a cell in northern Yemen running three weapons programs, including a multi-stage ballistic missile with a stated range goal above 2,000 kilometers.In the last weeks of 1944, Polish physicist Joseph Rotblat told his boss James Chadwick that he was leaving the world’s most dangerous scientific undertaking.In this episode I go through the report, explain why the labor curve that used to limit what a small group could do has collapsed, and lay out the questions I submitted to a CNN producer for the executives running these companies — including whether Dario Amodei would support the <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ban-Artificial-Superintelligence-Act-Release-Summary.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,</a> the bill Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar announced on September 3, which would carry penalties comparable to those for unlawfully developing nuclear weapons.For the full written reporting, and analysis you'll read nowhere else, subscribe at <a href="https://theripcurrent.com/subscribe?utm_source=spotify&amp;utm_medium=show-notes&amp;utm_campaign=evergreen" rel="noopener noreferrer">TheRipCurrent.com</a>.

Anthropic Says Its Own AI Helped Build a Missile in Yemen: Inside Its September Threat Report

Why did Google and Apple change Lake Ontario to Lake America? And why did MapQuest decide not to? On August 27, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario as "Lake America." The order applies to the federal government and the Geographic Names Information System — not to private companies. Google Maps made the change over the weekend of August 29th, citing official government sources. Apple Maps followed on September 1st, after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said on Fox Business that Trump had personally asked Apple to make the switch. MapQuest refused. Its app went to No. 1 in Navigation on the U.S. App Store, No. 4 among all non-gaming apps, and No. 2 overall in Canada, picking up roughly 180,000 downloads in a week. Its parent company, System1 (NYSE: SST), saw its stock jump. MapQuest is the control group here: it proves compliance was a choice. In this video I look at what changed. Google walked away from China in 2010. Tim Cook beat the FBI in 2016. Google dropped Project Maven in 2018 after 4,000 employees signed a petition, and killed Dragonfly in 2019. Then Google fired about 50 workers over Project Nimbus in 2024 and deleted its AI no-weapons pledge in 2025. Meanwhile Apple pledged $100 billion in U.S. investment and won an exemption from 100% semiconductor tariffs, and Google is still in the remedies phase of two federal antitrust cases — including Judge Leonie Brinkema's September 2nd ruling on its ad network. When a president holds that much of your business, you're not looking for hills to die on. Members get early access to this and all my analysis. For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming a subscriber at https://theripcurrent.com/subscribe?utm_source=spotify&utm_medium=show-notes&utm_campaign=evergreen

Why did Google and Apple change Lake Ontario to Lake America? And why did MapQuest decide not to? On August 27, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario as "Lake America." The order applies to the federal government and the Geographic Names Information System — not to private companies. Google Maps made the change over the weekend of August 29th, citing official government sources. Apple Maps followed on September 1st, after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said on Fox Business that Trump had personally asked Apple to make the switch. MapQuest refused. Its app went to No. 1 in Navigation on the U.S. App Store, No. 4 among all non-gaming apps, and No. 2 overall in Canada, picking up roughly 180,000 downloads in a week. Its parent company, System1 (NYSE: SST), saw its stock jump. MapQuest is the control group here: it proves compliance was a choice. In this video I look at what changed. Google walked away from China in 2010. Tim Cook beat the FBI in 2016. Google dropped Project Maven in 2018 after 4,000 employees signed a petition, and killed Dragonfly in 2019. Then Google fired about 50 workers over Project Nimbus in 2024 and deleted its AI no-weapons pledge in 2025. Meanwhile Apple pledged $100 billion in U.S. investment and won an exemption from 100% semiconductor tariffs, and Google is still in the remedies phase of two federal antitrust cases — including Judge Leonie Brinkema's September 2nd ruling on its ad network. When a president holds that much of your business, you're not looking for hills to die on. Members get early access to this and all my analysis. For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming a subscriber at https://theripcurrent.com/subscribe?utm_source=spotify&utm_medium=show-notes&utm_campaign=evergreen

Why did Google and Apple change Lake Ontario to Lake America? And why did MapQuest decide not to? On August 27, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario as "Lake America." The order applies to the federal government and the Geographic Names Information System — not to private companies. Google Maps made the change over the weekend of August 29th, citing official government sources. Apple Maps followed on September 1st, after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said on Fox Business that Trump had personally asked Apple to make the switch. MapQuest refused. Its app went to No. 1 in Navigation on the U.S. App Store, No. 4 among all non-gaming apps, and No. 2 overall in Canada, picking up roughly 180,000 downloads in a week. Its parent company, System1 (NYSE: SST), saw its stock jump. MapQuest is the control group here: it proves compliance was a choice. In this video I look at what changed. Google walked away from China in 2010. Tim Cook beat the FBI in 2016. Google dropped Project Maven in 2018 after 4,000 employees signed a petition, and killed Dragonfly in 2019. Then Google fired about 50 workers over Project Nimbus in 2024 and deleted its AI no-weapons pledge in 2025. Meanwhile Apple pledged $100 billion in U.S. investment and won an exemption from 100% semiconductor tariffs, and Google is still in the remedies phase of two federal antitrust cases — including Judge Leonie Brinkema's September 2nd ruling on its ad network. When a president holds that much of your business, you're not looking for hills to die on. Members get early access to this and all my analysis. For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming a subscriber at https://theripcurrent.com/subscribe?utm_source=spotify&amp;utm_medium=show-notes&amp;utm_campaign=evergreen

Why Did MapQuest Fight Trump When Apple and Google Wouldn't?

By now you know how I felt about it. When I heard, seven days into the Meta trial, that the company would be allowed to settle with the States, I was astounded. “They did what?” I shouted at my phone first thing that morning.For one thing, it was clear in even those first few days in court that there was a mountain of evidence showing that executives at Facebook and Instagram had known for years not only that young kids were on the platform when they shouldn’t be, but that terrible things were happening to them as they snuck around what attempts Meta made to filter them out. Witness after witness had described a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at the company when it came to kids. And the executives were about to take a public beating.We had just begun to hear from Instagram boss Adam Mosseri. The famously sweaty Mark Zuckerberg was due to take the stand in a couple of days. (He’d have to answer for, among many other things, testimony that suggested he’d personally attended a meeting at which his people told him four million kids under the age of 13 were on Instagram.) This was shaping up to be another very public reckoning for the company.I spent weeks reassuring people in the comments that no, this wasn’t going to wind up a monetary settlement. This time was clearly going to be different. It was clear to me that the states had this company on the ropes, and it was not at all clear to me what incentive they would have to accept anything short of a verdict against Meta. But I was wrong, and I needed to know why.So on the Monday after the settlement I interviewed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who co-led the multi-state effort to hold Meta accountable for violating children’s privacy and violating state laws about deceptive practices — and helped lead the settlement negotiations. He told me that the calculus of accepting a settlement only made sense when it had become clear to Meta that they were likely to lose this case. He also said it made far more sense to him to pursue a settlement that would guarantee Meta made changes to its business now than wait the years it would take to get through various appeals, even if the judge in the case decided in the states’ favor.It’s a tough business being an Attorney General in a case like this. In our conversation, it became clear to me that A.G. Weiser and his peers are struggling to figure out the best remedies, just as we all are. It’s going to take a lot more legal action like this one to get the change we would want to see in this world. This conversation was, for me, a very helpful first journey into just how complex it all is once the problems we see so clearly in our lives have to be sorted out in court. In this conversation Weiser explains why he thinks New Mexico's $942 million litigated judgment bought less protection than his settlement did, why he considers messaging — which is excluded from the settlement — "a different kettle of fish" than an algorithmic feed, why requiring age assurance from parents hurts Meta rather than kids, why he put the odds of getting what the states wanted at trial around 30 percent, what he does and doesn't know about whether the discovery evidence can be shared with the thousands of remaining plaintiffs, and whether landing a settlement ten weeks before voters decide whether he’s the next governor of Colorado was a coincidence. Read the most damning evidence of the trial <a href="https://www.theripcurrent.com/p/the-evidence-against-meta-week-one" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">here</a>, and consider becoming a paid subscriber to <a href="theripcurrent.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">The Rip Current</a>, your guide to tech, power and the invisible forces shaping our lives.

By now you know how I felt about it. When I heard, seven days into the Meta trial, that the company would be allowed to settle with the States, I was astounded. “They did what?” I shouted at my phone first thing that morning. For one thing, it was clear in even those first few days in court that there was a mountain of evidence showing that executives at Facebook and Instagram had known for years not only that young kids were on the platform when they shouldn’t be, but that terrible things were happening to them as they snuck around what attempts Meta made to filter them out. Witness after witness had described a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at the company when it came to kids. And the executives were about to take a public beating. We had just begun to hear from Instagram boss Adam Mosseri. The famously sweaty Mark Zuckerberg was due to take the stand in a couple of days. (He’d have to answer for, among many other things, testimony that suggested he’d personally attended a meeting at which his people told him four million kids under the age of 13 were on Instagram.) This was shaping up to be another very public reckoning for the company. I spent weeks reassuring people in the comments that no, this wasn’t going to wind up a monetary settlement. This time was clearly going to be different. It was clear to me that the states had this company on the ropes, and it was not at all clear to me what incentive they would have to accept anything short of a verdict against Meta. But I was wrong, and I needed to know why. So on the Monday after the settlement I interviewed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who co-led the multi-state effort to hold Meta accountable for violating children’s privacy and violating state laws about deceptive practices — and helped lead the settlement negotiations. He told me that the calculus of accepting a settlement only made sense when it had become clear to Meta that they were likely to lose this case. He also said it made far more sense to him to pursue a settlement that would guarantee Meta made changes to its business now than wait the years it would take to get through various appeals, even if the judge in the case decided in the states’ favor. It’s a tough business being an Attorney General in a case like this. In our conversation, it became clear to me that A.G. Weiser and his peers are struggling to figure out the best remedies, just as we all are. It’s going to take a lot more legal action like this one to get the change we would want to see in this world. This conversation was, for me, a very helpful first journey into just how complex it all is once the problems we see so clearly in our lives have to be sorted out in court. In this conversation Weiser explains why he thinks New Mexico's $942 million litigated judgment bought less protection than his settlement did, why he considers messaging — which is excluded from the settlement — "a different kettle of fish" than an algorithmic feed, why requiring age assurance from parents hurts Meta rather than kids, why he put the odds of getting what the states wanted at trial around 30 percent, what he does and doesn't know about whether the discovery evidence can be shared with the thousands of remaining plaintiffs, and whether landing a settlement ten weeks before voters decide whether he’s the next governor of Colorado was a coincidence. Read the most damning evidence of the trial here, and consider becoming a paid subscriber to The Rip Current, your guide to tech, power and the invisible forces shaping our lives.

By now you know how I felt about it. When I heard, seven days into the Meta trial, that the company would be allowed to settle with the States, I was astounded. “They did what?” I shouted at my phone first thing that morning.For one thing, it was clear in even those first few days in court that there was a mountain of evidence showing that executives at Facebook and Instagram had known for years not only that young kids were on the platform when they shouldn’t be, but that terrible things were happening to them as they snuck around what attempts Meta made to filter them out. Witness after witness had described a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at the company when it came to kids. And the executives were about to take a public beating.We had just begun to hear from Instagram boss Adam Mosseri. The famously sweaty Mark Zuckerberg was due to take the stand in a couple of days. (He’d have to answer for, among many other things, testimony that suggested he’d personally attended a meeting at which his people told him four million kids under the age of 13 were on Instagram.) This was shaping up to be another very public reckoning for the company.I spent weeks reassuring people in the comments that no, this wasn’t going to wind up a monetary settlement. This time was clearly going to be different. It was clear to me that the states had this company on the ropes, and it was not at all clear to me what incentive they would have to accept anything short of a verdict against Meta. But I was wrong, and I needed to know why.So on the Monday after the settlement I interviewed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who co-led the multi-state effort to hold Meta accountable for violating children’s privacy and violating state laws about deceptive practices — and helped lead the settlement negotiations. He told me that the calculus of accepting a settlement only made sense when it had become clear to Meta that they were likely to lose this case. He also said it made far more sense to him to pursue a settlement that would guarantee Meta made changes to its business now than wait the years it would take to get through various appeals, even if the judge in the case decided in the states’ favor.It’s a tough business being an Attorney General in a case like this. In our conversation, it became clear to me that A.G. Weiser and his peers are struggling to figure out the best remedies, just as we all are. It’s going to take a lot more legal action like this one to get the change we would want to see in this world. This conversation was, for me, a very helpful first journey into just how complex it all is once the problems we see so clearly in our lives have to be sorted out in court. In this conversation Weiser explains why he thinks New Mexico's $942 million litigated judgment bought less protection than his settlement did, why he considers messaging — which is excluded from the settlement — "a different kettle of fish" than an algorithmic feed, why requiring age assurance from parents hurts Meta rather than kids, why he put the odds of getting what the states wanted at trial around 30 percent, what he does and doesn't know about whether the discovery evidence can be shared with the thousands of remaining plaintiffs, and whether landing a settlement ten weeks before voters decide whether he’s the next governor of Colorado was a coincidence. Read the most damning evidence of the trial <a href="https://www.theripcurrent.com/p/the-evidence-against-meta-week-one" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>, and consider becoming a paid subscriber to <a href="theripcurrent.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Rip Current</a>, your guide to tech, power and the invisible forces shaping our lives.

"We Were Gonna Win" Says Colorado's AG. So Why Settle with Meta?

I was often first on the scene for big wildfires during my 10 years as a correspondent for Al Jazeera and NBC News. The lessons I learned, and the ways in which my mind began to shorthand otherwise unimaginable experiences, make the LA fires particularly hard to watch. Here’s some perspective from the front lines. Thinking of you, SoCal. Get full access to The Rip Current by Jacob Ward at <a href="https://theripcurrent.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4">theripcurrent.substack.com/subscribe</a>

I was often first on the scene for big wildfires during my 10 years as a correspondent for Al Jazeera and NBC News. The lessons I learned, and the ways in which my mind began to shorthand otherwise unimaginable experiences, make the LA fires particularly hard to watch. Here’s some perspective from the front lines. Thinking of you, SoCal. Get full access to The Rip Current by Jacob Ward at theripcurrent.substack.com/subscribe

I was often first on the scene for big wildfires during my 10 years as a correspondent for Al Jazeera and NBC News. The lessons I learned, and the ways in which my mind began to shorthand otherwise unimaginable experiences, make the LA fires particularly hard to watch. Here’s some perspective from the front lines. Thinking of you, SoCal. Get full access to The Rip Current by Jacob Ward at <a href="https://theripcurrent.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_4" rel="noopener noreferrer">theripcurrent.substack.com/subscribe</a>

Lessons from 10 Years of Wildfires

The Rip Current covers the big, invisible forces carrying us out to sea, from tech to politics to greed to beauty to culture to human weirdness. The currents are strong, but with a little practice we can learn to spot them from the beach, and get across them safely.

Veteran journalist Jacob Ward has covered technology, science and business for NBC News, CNN, PBS, and Al Jazeera. He's written for The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Wired, and is the former Editor in Chief of Popular Science magazine.

News

The Rip Current covers the big, invisible forces carrying us out to sea, from tech to politics to greed to beauty to culture to human weirdness. The currents are strong, but with a little practice we can learn to spot them from the beach, and get across them safely. Veteran journalist Jacob Ward has covered technology, science and business for NBC News, CNN, PBS, and Al Jazeera. He's written for The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Wired, and is the former Editor in Chief of Popular Science magazine.

Share The Rip Current with Jacob Ward

Sign up to save your podcasts

The Rip Current with Jacob Ward

The Rip Current with Jacob Ward episodes

About The Rip Current with Jacob Ward

More shows like The Rip Current with Jacob Ward

Fresh Air

The New Yorker Radio Hour

On the Media

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Left, Right & Center

MSNBC Rachel Maddow (video)

The Quanta Podcast

Science Friday

Conversations with Bill Kristol

The Lawfare Podcast

The Daily

Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes Podcast

DSR's Words Matter

The Ezra Klein Show