# Futuristic Lawyer > Weekly Newsletter About Human Rights & IT Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### About this site URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/about/ Last updated: 2026-07-27T19:13:53.000Z Futuristic Lawyer is an independent publication launched in July 2022 by Tobias Mark Jensen. If you subscribe today, you'll get full access to the website as well as email newsletters about new content when it's available. Your subscription makes this site possible, and allows Futuristic Lawyer to continue to exist. Thank you! ### Access all areas By signing up, you'll get access to the full archive of everything that's been published before and everything that's still to come. Your very own private library. ### Fresh content, delivered Stay up to date with new content sent straight to your inbox! No more worrying about whether you missed something because of a pesky algorithm or news feed. ### Meet people like you Join a community of other subscribers who share the same interests. --- ### Start your own thing Enjoying the experience? Get started for free and set up your very own subscription business using [Ghost](https://ghost.org/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), the same platform that powers this website. ### Contact URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/contact/ Last updated: 2026-09-03T14:50:44.000Z _This page is for paying subscribers only._ ## Posts ### Trumpism & the American AI Project URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/trumpism-the-american-ai-project/ Last updated: 2026-09-08T04:30:33.000Z There is an iconic clip from the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner where comedian Seth Meyers jokes about Donald Trump’s ambitions to become President. While the whole room is boiling over with laughter, Trump sits still like a statue with an ice cold stare on his face. Fifteen years later, it’s clear who in that room was clueless. The political elite was unable at the time to envision in the slightest the seismic shift that was about to take hold of America. Simply, the US population no longer thought that politics represented something real with relevance to their lives. After years of broken promises and a catastrophic war in Iraq that failed, politicians were widely seen as cringe actors participating in theatrical games to humor the population, but voters no longer believed in their empty words and stories. At the same time, social media had emerged as a new source for public service announcements, replacing the central role of journalism in society. The barrier to be heard was removed with social media. You no longer needed a fancy degree or a sophisticated title to your name before you could get your message across. Every idiot with an internet connection had a chance of being discovered and becoming famous. This was widely celebrated as a win for democracy at the time, especially by the clueless politicians who didn’t understand that their last minutes as leaders of the free world were ticking. Social media changed the American society in two fundamental ways. First, there was no way to reliably factcheck the abundance of information uploaded every split second, which meant that facts and truthfulness became much less of a factor. What mattered instead was what kind of messaging people were continually exposed to by the algorithms and how it made them feel. Secondly, and this is the important part, power shifted from speakers to those who distributed speech, so from politicians to large corporations. Intuitively, Trump understood all of this, while the political elite who mocked and laughed at him, did not. As a result, Trumpism won and the established political system in the US lost. Many Americans, and certainly investors, still expect that things will gradually get back to normal after the midterms. But maybe they won’t. I think a more likely scenario is that Kamala Harris, if she is picked to run again for the Democrats, will lose to Trump again in the 2028 presidential election, as Donald is succeeded by one of his children. The old political vanguard remains clueless, in denial, and out of good ideas, failing to grasp what they are up against. Meanwhile, all the negative attention Trump receives makes him stronger, because attention is the new currency in the social media age – good or bad attention, doesn’t matter. True, Trump is a historically unpopular president for obvious reasons. But it’s also true that each time the American political system has counted Trump out, he has returned stronger with a ferocious appetite for revenge and destruction. Before the 2016 presidential election, Princeton Election Consortium [gave Trump less than a 1% chance of winning](https://newrepublic.com/article/139158/2016-can-ever-trust-polls-again?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) over Hillary Clinton. In the wake of the 2020 election, the Department of Justice [missed its chance](https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/06/politics/doj-trump-jan-6-riot?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to put Trump on trial for his role in January 6, which could have killed his political career indefinitely. Attorney General Merrick Garland didn’t see the urgency, because it seemed clear that the Trump era was over. And by looking at the current polls and feeling confident that politics must return to normal soon, Americans are on track to make the same mistake in 2028, as they did in 2024. This leads us to the American AI project. AI is arguably more unpopular than Trump. According to a recent [Gallup survey](https://news.gallup.com/poll/712751/americans-cool-toward.aspx?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), only 9% of Americans believe that AI will do more good than harm. The old political elite in the US is still under the false impression that having power over Big Tech is not the same as having political control over people. Indeed, for now it does seem like US politics and US technology live in two different clusters of reality. For example, while the White House was [busy dropping bombs in Iran](https://www.jpost.com/international/article-907275?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Anthropic dropped Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 and OpenAI dropped GPT-6 Astra. The investor class is suspiciously quiet about Iran, but [beyond excited](https://x.com/GavinSBaker/status/2094863032677507507?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) about the new models, while most people are concerned about their jobs and role in the future. Isn’t it fascinating how the country developing the world’s most powerful AI models is also acting out its most barbarian instincts and shamelessly lying about it without concern. In the midst of the special military operation in Iran and threats on traditional allies’ economies and sovereignty, the US economy [is remarkably resilient](https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-hits-keep-coming) and the stock market continues to explore new heights. We still expect that tomorrow will be like today. But here is a disturbing thought to kick off your week with. What if the same Big Tech companies that are currently [suppressing opposition to](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/apple-removes-ice-tracking-apps-after-pressure-by-trump-administration-2025-10-03/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [actively providing tools for ICE](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/sep/22/ice-palantir-data?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to catch and detain brown-skinned immigrants could also be used to secure Trump a third term? People aren’t comfortable making this connection, but it’s obviously a risk. The same technology that the investor class is fanboying over could be repurposed to control the population faster than Google and Apple can [rename Lake Ontario](https://people.com/apple-maps-joins-google-approving-trump-lake-america-change-12074262?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Even if it doesn’t play out this way, the potential of this outcome is undeniable. Trumpism and the American AI Project may very well be one and the same. Next week, we will take a deeper look at the public’s opposition to data centers and the rebelliousness among state regulators, which could be a deciding factor in whether the project succeeds. ## Further reading: [The Corporate Takeover of America - Status = CompleteGoogle’s Antitrust Win, Silicon Valley’s Super PACs & Must-Read Post by Timothy Snyder![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-a27fbe12-4905-48cf-a0e1-82a6977a8457.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f72096670-0d56-4641-90bb-712b39647325_803x452-png-9dca1a52-0cf2-408f-84ae-cd85a5348094.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-corporate-takeover-of-america/) [How the EU Is Preparing for AI-Driven WarCan Europe defend itself in a time of war?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-8290ee82-290b-4f1d-9326-b715a0ce8aa7.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f3454a53f-651f-411f-b99f-26e4ed2ebf28_618x419-png-bedba484-f39a-41c5-b259-372abadff89b.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-is-preparing-for-ai-driven/) [US Monarchy & Trump v. Slaughter\+ implications on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-705ea287-d557-4590-ba49-944827bf8cac.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/8e78ebb3-a27a-4ea8-9459-2131301df8f2_680x462-jpeg-3f9e277d-4f6a-4228-9c65-a462ea481d67.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/us-monarchy-and-trump-v-slaughter/) ![Big Nerve](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/08/bignerve_social_icon_square_500px-1.png) **Join in the discussions!** Introducing the new [Futuristic Lawyer forum](https://bignerve.com/futuristiclawyer/discussion-forums/channel/futuristic-lawyer?sort=most-recent&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for discussing: The ethics and laws of tech, what the future may bring, how IT shapes human rights and vice versa, and any other topic! Build your reputation and earn money. ### The Right to a Human v. the American AI Investment Thesis URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-right-to-a-human-v-the-american-ai-investment-thesis/ Last updated: 2026-09-01T04:30:28.000Z How much better would life be if we always had the right to a human? Unfortunately, we don’t. Companies are increasingly saving on customer service workers in favor of AI assistants and good advice is expensive, so is therapy. Most of the time, we’ll have to make do with an AI model. Nikhil Suresh writes a [wonderful story](https://hermit-tech.com/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-global-decisionmaking?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) about an experience he had with car maker Mitsubishi’s customer chatbot. A very polite voice asked him to describe the problem he was experiencing with and said he’d receive a call back as soon as someone was available. Suresh describes it as the single most competent implementation of a chatbot he had ever seen in the wild. A natural sounding voice, quick responses, and the promise of a quick resolution. And then, nothing. He never received a call back. > *“When Mitsubishi did not call me back, what happened? Did that request just go into the void, showing one less incident for the year? Does it appear that the phone bot resolved my query without the need for human intervention? All we know is that it didn’t show up as an error, or I’d have received a call. I’m sure it looks great in all sorts of ways except the one that matters, which is that I was planning to buy a car and decided not to buy another one of theirs.”* I can relate to this story. For example, I receive several e-mails each week from people who want to be interviewed. Many of these mails are upbeat, friendly, and relate what they want to talk about to my posts or prior conversations. The display of effort makes me smile, but I can tell that most of the e-mails are generated, so I seldom reply. But then, some time ago I thought what the heck, let’s respond to a few of these and try to arrange a call, see what happens. And… no reply… so… why did they reach out in the first place? Why go through the bother of generating an e-mail that appears personal and sincere, reaching out to a stranger, and then ignoring the response? Our lives are full of such mysteries now. The observation that AI makes the easy stuff easier and the hard stuff harder, is only half truth. Easy tasks such as cancelling a subscription, coordinating a call, or receiving help with a request about a product or service is too often a Kafkaesque experience that leaves customers bewildered and frustrated with more questions than they came in with. At the end of the process, they don’t even know whether to ask why or what. Why… what? The disconnect between what customers and companies need is [symptomatic of the AI movement as a whole](https://www.wired.com/story/silicon-valley-doesnt-get-why-you-hate-ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Customers may need help with basic requests, but board members are eager to prove that AI is a real, sensible investment before their competitors do. The pressure to adopt AI creates a headless chicken race to the bottom, where companies overpromise and oversell what they can do with AI and cost-cut more on other expenses than what is healthy for their business. [AI Is Porn for Cost-Cutting CorporationsAI is not about worker empowerment, but worker replacement.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-805dcf86-f7da-4cdf-b8b1-a8f7098cf118.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f93e8bbb2-29a1-4276-bd10-221a9eb2773b_736x902-jpeg-5d1959e6-7dd7-424f-969d-da0de5e4648d.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-is-porn-for-cost-cutting-corporations/) Julie Averill, who worked as the chief information officer of the athletic apparel company Lululemon for eight years, [distinguishes between](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/03/opinion/ai-hype-tech-layoffs.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *AI wishing*, *AI washing*, and *AI layoffs* in a kind of flywheel. *AI wishing* is the belief that AI is magic; you can wave it towards any hard problem like a wand and skip the work of actually solving it. Then comes *AI washing*. Companies are pressured to show results, so they overstate what AI is currently capable of doing and what it may do for them in the future. This leads to *AI layoffs*. The companies proclaim that they need fewer people because AI made their operations more efficient. In reality, the efficiency does not yet exist, but the companies need to free up cash, sometimes to spend more on AI. Then, the cycle continues. While CEOs and board members paraphrase canned lines from inspo-posts on LinkedIn such as “remember, this is the worst the technology will ever be” with dead eyes and the enthusiasm of North Koreans or MAGA republicans praising their Dear Leader. Paradoxically, AI foundation models can prove and disprove decades-old mathematical conjectures, yet fail to solve basic customer service requests. Here, we could talk about the “[jagged frontier](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/working-definitions/what-is-jagged-ai-frontier?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”, but I have found a better framework for understanding how AI can solve extremely complex problems and fall flat on easy ones. If this framework holds up, it pokes holes in the already porous American AI investment thesis and underscores the need for further regulation. Much more in the paid section below. [How Humans Can Defeat Centaurs and Cyborgs in the Modern WorkplaceMy take on AI assistance at work and a critical look at a paper from Harvard Business School.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-98d5d024-a664-4cc7-af9f-9d0db290480d.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f012036f6-532e-43ab-8bce-3a81704efbca_1024x1024-png-c9bf4330-f979-4c85-bf2d-14b6fb3f0a41.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-humans-can-defeat-centaurs-and/) [How the American AI Industry CollapsesMy contrarian bear case![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-6c0d4086-3a4f-46d1-b099-d1db37edb4a3.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f1fb27004-91b9-4396-9a90-032f21c16741_668x680-jpeg-73dd3f0d-41c9-4a69-8cf5-746d6416eb94.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-american-ai-industry-collapses/) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Infinite Donut Machine URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-infinite-donut-machine/ Last updated: 2026-08-25T04:30:33.000Z Two weeks ago, I invited members to participate in my [BigNerve challenge](https://bignerve.com/challenges/what-could-i-write-about-next-b62789a8?scout%5Fid=futuristiclawyer&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) where they can (still) suggest ideas for new posts. So far, I have received three really good suggestions: - The deviousness of infinite scroll - Overview of different state laws on AI/AI data centers - The right to deal with a human I plan to tackle each of these topics in the coming weeks. Today, it will be the deviousness of the infinite scroll which kind of resembles the infinite donut machine depicted in the post image. Instead of being punished with pain, Homer is punished with pleasure; getting what he most likes over and over again, forever. Social media algorithms work in a substantially similar way; rewarding users with pleasure and entrapping them like slow-boiling frogs, until they can’t muster the willpower to escape from the platform. As you read, please imagine that you are the CEO of a big social media company. Imagine that you are Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and majority vote shareholder of Meta, which in practice means that you are the king, the one-ruler, of Facebook and Instagram. Ask yourself: why would I *not* give users the option to opt-out of algorithmic recommendation, slow down their feeds, put voluntary time limits on their feeds, give users more control over which types and genres of videos they are exposed to, or implement responsible safeguards for children? I have thought about that question for some time. My honest answer is that a person must be a narcissistic psychopath to not give users these options in the face of expert recommendations and tremendous public, political, and regulatory pressure to do so. I will elaborate on that essential point towards the end of this post. If it’s even directionally true that addictive tech platforms are governed by people who fundamentally care more about business growth than how their platforms make users feel that changes how digital law-making should be approached. The soft, non-confrontational approach the EU has adopted with the GDPR, AI Act, and DSA emphasizes self-assessments, formal documentation, and fines measured in single digits of annual turnover. All the compliance paperwork is annoying, but manageable for Big Tech companies - less so for startups – and not sufficient to protect consumers against a company that doesn’t care for the wellbeing of its consumers. The Trump regime refers to the EU Commission’s fines as a form of taxation – implicitly, the price of doing business in Europe. Evidently, the load of compliance paperwork and the disputed fines have not prompted social media companies to overhaul the design of their addictive platforms. The EU Commission [concluded in July 2026 ](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F26%5F1579?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) after a two-year-long investigation that Meta failed to account for the risks to children associated with Facebook and Instagram and didn’t implement the necessary mitigation measures. TikTok received [a similar warning from the EU Commission](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F26%5F312?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in February 2026\. I have expressed concerns before about the ability of the Digital Services Act to protect children. The DSA approach is too slow, costly, bureaucratic, and respectful towards the tech platforms that want to addict children. So far, the DSA has mainly served to improve the lives of lawyers and bureaucrats who get paid, not children, EU consumers, and certainly not businesses anywhere. [The Digital Services Act Is Protecting Children Less Than the Lawyer-Industrial ComplexLet’s talk about it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-4dbc04fd-1e8e-45f0-8b7f-e79f7f8ce16b.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f0f5277cb-6df5-417b-b32e-0d29173a02cb_803x449-jpeg-54b1dde2-0227-4f7c-8374-bd4bd536d30a.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-digital-services-act-is-protecting/) If there is one group of people who are more concerned about social media’s impacts on children than EU bureaucrats, it’s the [American tech executives](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/technology/silicon-valley-tech-fans-children.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) who are responsible for building addictive digital platforms. But that is only when it comes to their own children, not to others. Zuckerberg has said that he doesn’t want his children to sit passively “and go from video to video”, while Peter Thiel limits his children’s screen time to 1.5 hours screen time a week (not a day). The law is finally starting to catch up with Zuckerberg’s ad surveillance empire at a state-level in the US. The state attorneys general in California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey understand what’s at stake. The four states are [collectively seeking](https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-says-us-states-are-seeking-14-trillion-penalties-august-youth-safety-trial-2026-07-07/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) up to $1.4 trillion in penalties from Meta over accusations the company designed Facebook ‌and Instagram to addict young users and misled the public about their safety. But even that is not enough. The four states want Meta to overhaul Facebook and Instagram by eliminating the infinite scroll, likes, and setting time limits for users under 18, and enforcing restrictions to keep children under 13 offline. Earlier this month, a court in New Mexico [ordered Meta](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7lz3wr2rlo?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to pay $567 million to a public fund for its failure to warn the public about dangers its platforms posed to children. The judge overseeing the case compared Meta to a “public nuisance” akin to air pollution. In addition, Meta was ordered to remove like counts, implement usage limits and ban push notifications during school hours for children. The $567 million fine comes on top of another fine of $375 million, Meta was already ordered to pay in the same case, for a total of $942 million. [Landmark Decisions in California & New MexicoWE GOT THEM![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-eaa5297c-b26f-49e5-80d6-7d7f13f52ea8.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2fa760f14f-c624-4af8-bea1-05b6a545c92e_803x535-jpeg-d1c7a55e-29c0-429a-87d6-16ee1d543fde.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/landmark-decisions-in-california/) Meta has unsurprisingly announced it will appeal the court’s decision. Many more trials concerning Meta’s negligence of child safety are to come. The biggest social media trial to date is [currently ongoing in California](https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-29-states-head-court-biggest-test-yet-youth-social-media-litigation-2026-08-12/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) between Meta and the coalition of state attorneys general which comprises 29 states led by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. [Potential Landmark Case on Social Media’s Destruction of Youth Mental HealthThe multi-state class action against Meta, social media’s harmful effects on the youth, manipulative product features, and Meta’s denial of key findings in internal research.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-c155f178-4c0b-48ed-aa03-34e65642eb81.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2fffde1fa3-5909-4d8c-a05a-f5217ebc7d3b_726x484-jpeg-739b7852-ae23-4677-88b7-b13bd97b4d08.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-meta-profoundly-altered-the-psychological/) Besides the crushing penalties Meta will face if it loses in court, all the company’s business-defining engagement hacking features on Facebook and Instagram will have to be eliminated for children, including the infinite scroll. In conjunction with personalized algorithmic recommendation, autoplay, and reactions and reshares which rapidly distributes the most emotionally captivating content, the infinite scrolling feed is the very foundation for social media’s commercial success. Aza Raskin, who designed and introduced infinite scrolling to the world in 2006, has publicly regretted it. In a [TED podcast from May 2024](https://www.ted.com/podcasts/rethinking-with-adam-grant/aza-raskin-on-why-technology-and-democracy-are-in-an-imagination-crisis-transcript?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Raskin says the following: > *“I was blind to the way that my invention created with positive intent was going to be picked up by perverse incentives of what would later become social media where it wasn't to help you but to essentially to hunt you, right? To extract something from you using an asymmetric knowledge about how the human mind works, which is that your brain doesn't wake up to ask, “Do I want to continue?” Unless it gets something like a stopping cue. (..) So, my invention got sort of sucked up by a machine and wastes on the order of a hundred thousand human lifetimes per day now it's, it's horrendous.* (..) > > *It's a business model that is fundamentally about getting reactions from the human nervous system. You get people angry. You show them things that they cannot help but look at, so you addict them. If the incentive is to get reaction and make reactive the human nervous system, *it's sort of obvious* that we're gonna get polarization, narcissism, more outrage, eventually democratic backsliding, like that's all a predictable outcome of just make the human nervous system more reactive and get reactions from it."* To me, it’s sort of obvious too, but conclusive evidence from research is missing which means that politicians are left with a thin foundation for regulating digital technologies. Especially, since there is a [loud minority](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) which insists that “correlation does not imply causation”- that social media may correlate, but does not necessarily *cause* negative mental health outcomes - even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. For example, a [meta-study published in March 2026](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12998613/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) combines self-assessments from a sample of 96,676 participants across 58 studies and finds there are *“no significant correlations between short-form video use and positive psychological states, but significant positive correlations with negative psychological states, including depression, anxiety, stress, negative affect, loneliness, and boredom*.” Yet, a skeptical reader can still claim that the *correlation* does not objectively prove that short-form video usage is the *cause* of a negative psychological state. The users could feel bad for other reasons that are not related to short-form videos at all. Even if there was conclusive evidence that engagement hacking features such as the infinite scrolling feed cause negative mental health outcomes for users over time, political initiatives to do something about it would very likely remain contested. Just think of how much resistance there still is to the green energy transition, despite the rock solid scientific evidence that excessive consumption of fossil fuel-based energy undermines the conditions for living on earth. At the current moment, humanity’s best shot at preventing the next generation of adults from [wasting 25 years of their lives away on phones ](https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/average-young-person-25-years-phone-screen-time-hwt76mnpq?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)with adverse mental health outcomes, may be the ongoing social media trial in California, and upcoming trials in other US states. --- Returning to my questions from the introduction section: Why would anyone deliberately design social media to be hyper-addictive when the damaging effects on users and society at large are well-documented? I think it’s due to a combination of greed and sexual perversion which characterizes most white-collar crimes. In contrast, the root of most blue collar crimes is survival needs. Thieves steal bread to feed their families or physically attack someone who threaten their fragile sense of identity. Perpetrators of blue-collar crimes can often experience complex moral quarrels associated with their crimes like the protagonist in Dostoevsky’s *Crime and Punishment*. Our justice systems in liberal society tend to punish blue-collar crimes harshly. White-collar crimes, on the other hand, are based on free will rather than a survival need. They are motivated by material greed, to become more than others, and/or the desire to dominate and control others, which is sexual in nature. Jason Parham wrote a [good, provocative story for WIRED](https://www.wired.com/story/people-are-getting-off-to-content-about-ice-raids/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) about a genre of MAGA-coded gay porn playing on ICE raids and detentions that is quickly gaining popularity on X. It’s not coincidental that the MAGA administration liberates members of the Epstein class and financial fraudsters from legal accountability, while punishing and attacking migrant workers, receivers of food stamps, children from broken homes, those who struggle to pay for a health insurance, and oil-rich but politically broken countries such as Venezuela and Iran. Greed is definitely part of the explanation, but there is a kind of sexual perversion behind the performative cruelty as well. The best pressure testing of any justice system or a political system is to see how well it responds to the whims and kinks of the rich. If it can’t curtail them, well, then there is no genuine rule of law or democracy. Just words, formalistic rituals, and meaningless children’s games that the poor and desperate are forced to participate in, so a [privileged group in golden animal masks](https://screenrant.com/squid-game-vips-gold-animal-masks-meaning-explained/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) can observe with pleasure and bet on the outcomes from a safe distance. When I think of social engineering features such as the infinite scroll my thoughts go towards white collar crime and my thoughts go toward the public’s failure, if not legal, then moral failure, to curtail the whims and kinks of the rich. Infinite scrolling feeds are an essential feature of the social media platforms that are designed to be more addictive than slot machines. The owners of infinite scrolling feeds have a financial incentive to throw as much advertisement as possible on users without making them look away. But there must also be a pleasure involved in entrapping, dominating and controlling the attention and lives of so many people. The same kind of pleasure Elon felt when he announced he was spending a weekend feeding the USAID into the woodchipper instead of going to cool parties or the look of hunger in Sam’s or Dario’s eyes when they talk about the singularity or AI-driven worker displacement. EU regulators and sane state regulators in the US sometimes make the mistake of assuming that Big Tech companies and tech billionaires are honest actors who deep down in their hearts want to do what is best for the public and for humanity. But we have to open ourselves up to the possibility that we are in fact dealing with dishonest actors who are horny for power and control, sick with greed, and want to do everything they can to protect themselves, their friends, and family while the world burns to ashes - metaphorically or otherwise - and they escape to build a new civilization on Mars. If that is directionally true, we should ask harder questions and think much more critically about the digital technology we use every day. ## Further reading: [8 Reasons Why Taylor Lorenz Is WrongAbout the moral panic of children’s smartphone use and social media![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-4020e437-40c8-4740-a3f7-2136d013ebae.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2fd476bc4e-10f4-4fa9-8296-c90c941ef7cf_850x698-png-07a318b0-869d-4601-b171-61f43ff723ab.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/8-reasons-why-taylor-lorenz-is-wrong/) [To Sit Quietly in a Room AloneReflections on smartphone usage, media consumption, and a new study that shows how switching between video clips intensifies boredom.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-f88780f8-7984-4ba7-8b3e-686e4de90f09.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f7391928c-73e2-4944-af07-e1ab5c1854b5_848x474-jpeg-3e9a5ddf-583d-4312-9737-bdeecc4414c2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/to-sit-quietly-in-a-room-alone/) [Banning TikTok Is The Right Call… but not because of Chinese surveillance![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-02d7d6a8-4cd4-45fc-b277-72dc0735f033.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f7e0cc409-829f-43f3-a110-bff1368ba53b_708x400-png-fe982e8a-db4b-45de-b7d1-0352e7153f2b.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/banning-tiktok-is-the-right-call/) ### What Happened After I Quit Social Media URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-happened-after-i-quit-social-media/ Last updated: 2026-08-18T04:30:49.000Z Let me release the tension right away by answering the post title: Nothing. Nothing happened. But that’s pretty remarkable, right? Over so many years, different people have told me to be on different platforms. “Everyone is on Snapchat nowadays. That is how the new generation communicates” “If you are looking for a job, you *have* to be on LinkedIn” “For anyone interested in AI policy, there is no way around X” “You cannot really be a crypto enthusiast without being on Telegram and Discord” “If it’s not on Instagram, did it even happen?” “TikTok is actually the best way to stay up to date with breaking news” “If you are not on Facebook, how will you know what is going on with your family and friends?” I listened to people who told me these things and I’ve had accounts on all of these services. Now, I have accounts on none of them. It didn’t happen overnight, but was a gradual process. I was never a big user of Telegram, Discord or Snapchat in the first place. After Elon Musk took over Twitter, I ditched my account. TikTok, I found was dangerously addictive, so I had to get off it. My accounts on Facebook and Instagram were dormant for a long time even though I checked them several times a week. About six months ago, I thought I would deactivate them just to see what would happen. Nothing happened, and I haven’t felt compelled to reactivate them since, probably never will. Then, just last week, I took a big step and hibernated my account on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is without a doubt the platform I have been most active on over the years. I have a lot of followers on LinkedIn and it has genuinely brought value to my life by opening new doors and opportunities. However, over the last two-three years’ time, my LinkedIn posts have generated little traction and the platform has not led to any career-changing opportunities - despite the ridiculous amount of work I have put into it. And even though I like the polite and professional tone on LinkedIn, there are too many “hot takes”, too much work slop, hysteria, and exaggerations of unremarkable stuff that irritate me. So now I have ditched LinkedIn too and don't know whether I will return. For the time being I am off social media which makes me a statistical outlier. I can report that absolutely nothing materially in my life has changed - in the exact same sense as nothing in my life changed after I quit smoking. The arguments for quitting social media are straightforward and uncontroversial: better sleep, you will become much less distracted, less overstimulated, more present in daily life and with the people who matter to you, regain the ability to focus on a difficult task for long periods of time without interruption, feel less anxious, feel more enjoyment about basic things, have more time available, have an easier time connecting with people in real life, and so on and so forth. Still, many people won’t be able to quit, and indeed, I am not sure quitting social media is for everyone. Some people are much better at managing the time and energy they spend on social media than I am. I can’t manage it. In the same way as I am unable to enjoy 2-5 cigarettes a day; whenever I buy a package, I smoke that package ASAP. The major downside of quitting social media, may be that you start to live under a rock, disconnected and alienated from people and the wider world. That was my concern. But I have concluded that it’s a good thing. Living without the dopamine hits from social media frees up time and space so I can focus on things I enjoy, things I want to improve on, things I want to excel at, without constantly having to concern myself with other people’s thoughts and opinions and emotions. Personally, I always thought being on social media was kind of lame and embarrassing. Like in high school, when most of my classmates were on Facebook and some of them pushed me to open an account. It didn’t feel natural to share my personal thoughts and photos with strangers, or mapping out all my social connections. “What is the point and who really benefits from this?” I thought. Over time though, I became desensitized and occasionally hunted likes, posted cringe photos, and got into pointless discussions, like everyone else was apparently, enthusiastically, and very publicly doing. Still, being on social media never felt quite right. LinkedIn is the only social media platform I have been posting regularly on for years and to be honest I always felt like a clown whenever I did - and most of the time I was treated with dead silence in return. There is just something about social media as a concept that I find inherently cringe. Social media and the wider attention economy turn everything it touches into inauthenticity quicker than King Midas’ touch. Have any great speakers or genuine thought leaders throughout history said “like and subscribe” or interrupted their messages halfway through for a quick commercial break? I don’t think so. Finally, yes, I am aware of a big hypocrisy here. I am complaining about people making a big deal out of themselves on the socials, and here I am, making a big deal out of my decision to quit social media. The truth is I am a drama queen, but I would much rather channel it into meaningful writing about things other than myself, than wasting so much time with algorithmic entertainment. The extensive research I did for my book “[Death To Algorithms](https://www.death2algorithms.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” has strongly colored my perception of social media. I don’t know if I am ahead of my time or deluded. Either way, I strongly feel life would be better if everyone stopped connecting through enshittified platforms that essentially couldn’t care less about any of us. So what's the takeaway message? Not that everyone should check out of social media. But it is worth reflecting about how much time we spend on social media, what we get in return, and whether these hours would be better spend elsewhere. In my experience the fear of missing out is a withdrawal symptom. ### American Storytelling & “Our AI Agent Also Went Rogue” URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/american-storytelling-our-ai-agent-also-went-rogue/ Last updated: 2026-08-11T05:59:32.000Z Before the printing press, I imagine storytelling was a bonfire activity that inspired a sense of awe, mystique, excitement and wonder in the audience. Storytelling is the ability to stimulate people’s imagination, giving them mental images and a conception of the unknown; what they can’t see, touch, feel or experience directly. Storytelling is magical, but also a deeply human act. We are probably the only mammal alive that can pursue inner visions out in the real world. Our abilities to imagine and conceptualize *are* what make us human. It’s the only probable answer that explains why we have evolved so far beyond other species. Do you know what lacks the capacity to imagine? Certainly *not* tech CEOs, investors, board members, or the Trump administration. These people love storytelling more than anyone else. Especially tales that involve American greatness. In fact, many of them imagine stories so vividly that they are unable to distinguish between the beautiful ideas in their minds and the cold realities in front of them. The American culture apparatus which counts Hollywood, Disney, Universal, MTV, etc. was exceptional at spinning out stories during the 20th century. The creative boom in the US came to expression in so many great movies, albums, books, ideas, and works of art. But in the early 00s, the business model of storytelling changed from capturing people’s imagination to capturing their attention. Great storytelling became much less of a commodity, while the medium they were told on became much more of a commodity. Streaming platforms and social media companies outsourced the ability to stimulate people’s imagination to users, while harvesting the lion’s share of revenue for themselves. Our imaginative abilities, once pristine, innocent, and fertile, were exploited by technology providers to their advantage. Now, even the greatest stories imaginable are either used as fuel for the algorithms – in order to provide technology providers with more advertisement revenue - or alternatively, the stories won’t be heard at all. I don’t think we should underestimate how damaging this shift has been for American society or rather the “American dream”, because the United States was always an aspirational project. [The American Disease... was once the American Dream.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-8421f570-59eb-42a2-81c7-6807ac37e6ec.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/469b7b5d-237a-43a7-a8bd-aa1520f59676_803x604-jpeg-cda190c7-b793-4031-9058-62f8b2e13d9e.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-american-disease/) American algorithms turned great storytelling from a deeply inspiring and human act into a chemical addiction process. In a sense, the fragmented bits of storytelling digital platforms offer have become so stimulating that more and more people are losing touch with reality. American storytelling remains greater than ever, but reality is messy and uncomfortable, so people lose interest in facts and find solace in the imaginary. [Science Fiction, AI & The Fourth Law of RoboticsOn using science fiction writing to envision and predict the future, the Three Laws of Robotics by Isaac Asamov, and a Fourth Law for the 21st century.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-36f313c0-b4da-4d3e-ac66-fe6c223db244.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f8eefa349-6fd7-4e55-9e82-c3d2a882b709_1280x1093-jpeg-48ee6270-3738-4658-9d78-576e9f812732.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/science-fiction-ai-and-the-fourth/) There is nothing wrong with that in itself. But living detached from reality, through one’s own imagination, is not a good basis for running a country or developing and investing in new technology. The imaginative abilities which made America great are no longer great, because the authenticity and more human elements are missing. Storytelling’s innate potential to influence and inspire action is misused on an industrial scale for commercial gains and political deception. 👽 ****This interruption is an invitation, not advertisement.** Today’s post is free because I want to celebrate my partnership with [BigNerve](https://bignerve.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The partnership was set in place by long-time reader and BigNerve co-founder, Paul Gurney, a fellow visionary who shares many of my beliefs and values. Paul has generously donated $500 to members of Futuristic Lawyer – to you. BigNerve is a platform for idea generation. Users can ask for, pitch, and comment on ideas and place real money on them. Think of Reddit’s karma point system, but instead of vanity metrics, users are rewarded for the value they provide. Not in the currency of likes, but in dollars. That’s how it should be. Value should accrue to the creators who create it, not to advertisers, and platforms shouldn’t swallow most of the value in exchange for cheap dopamine hits. I have created a [public tournament on BigNerve](https://bignerve.com/challenges/what-could-i-write-about-next-b62789a8?scout%5Fid=futuristiclawyer&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) with subscribers of this newsletter in mind. I ask a simple question: “What could I write about next?” If you set up a user account, you can pitch ideas in response to the question. Myself and others can rate your answer and by the end of this month, you will receive a corresponding share of the reward pool ($250 for ideas, $250 for discussion in August). Transfers will be made on either PayPal or Venmo. Furthermore, if you make a good suggestion for a topic, count on me actually researching it in depth and writing about it. All my posts are available on an RSS feed in Big Nerve [here](https://bignerve.com/futuristiclawyer/discussion-forums/channel/futuristic-lawyer?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for discussion. My hope is that BigNerve can compensate for the loss of community feature this publication suffered after leaving Substack. But really, it’s about more than that: it’s about experimenting with a new kind of social platform and a concept that I think holds a lot of potential. I hope you will give it a shot by opening an account on BigNerve and [participating in my challenge](https://bignerve.com/challenges/what-could-i-write-about-next-b62789a8?scout%5Fid=futuristiclawyer&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). --- I wonder what role storytelling has played in the recent surge of security incidents at major AI labs. The American AI race has led to a bizarre dynamic where the major labs seem to compete over whose model is most rogue. OpenAI started the trend on July 21 after it [announced](https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that “GPT-5.6 Sol and an even more capable pre-release model” had escaped their sandbox environment during a test on a cyber-security benchmark, obtained internet access, and compromised the infrastructure of Hugging Face. In response, [Anthropic reviewed](https://www.anthropic.com/news/investigating-incidents-cybersecurity-evals?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) 141,006 evaluations where Claude could have obtained internet access and identified three incidents of their own. Last week, [Meta reported](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-06/meta-ai-reports-agent-hacked-external-company-during-testing/107003246?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that its newest AI model had also escaped its sandbox environment during testing and hacked an unnamed company. The three companies and Google, are now [meeting with Trump advisors](https://enterpriseai.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/meta-google-openai-anthropic-to-discuss-ai-safety-with-trumps-advisers-amid-cybersecurity-concerns/132909876?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to discuss a federal framework for voluntary safety testing. It’s been a surprise to many how the leading American AI models are using creative and deceptive tricks to achieve their goals. The UK-based AI Security Institute [recently tested the cyber capabilities of leading models](https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-agent-behaviour-during-cyber-testing?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and found a handful of instances where an AI agent took distinct actions beyond the scope of its parameters. The most serious incident involved Anthropic’s Mythos 5: > *“In the most serious case, an AI agent (Mythos 5) decided to attempt to solve the cyber challenge using a supply-chain attack. As a result, the AI agent created a GitHub account and then tried to convince an open-source repository maintainer to accept a malicious GitHub pull request (PR), including by creating a second account masquerading as another human user endorsing the PR. When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake – rather than a malicious attempt – then repeatedly tried to reintroduce the malicious content by claiming it had fixed the code. Furthermore, in its attempt to solve the challenge, the agent decided to employ the technique of “spear-phishing” by sending targeted emails containing malicious content and attempting to manipulate recipients into accepting the code changes, and planned a prompt injection to compromise other coding agents.”* On the other hand, the rogue AI incidents are not just expressions of increasing agency. The incidents were made possible because the companies slacked on basic security standards when testing. From [Alberto Pelliccione on Substack](https://albertoai.substack.com/p/ai-update-33-the-day-openai-hacked) about OpenAI’s Hugging Face hack: > *“OpenAI claims zero-day discoveries and chaining of multiple vulnerabilities, failing to mention how:* > > *1\. They completely failed to create a *truly isolated environment** > > *2\. They failed to notice an attack *that lasted an entire weekend* (?!)* > > *3\. They failed to catch 17,000 offensive operations (and this only counts those within HF’s \[i.e. Hugging Face's\] network).”* The emerging cyber capabilities of rogue AI agents are associated with some danger. But overstating the danger is a danger itself. Let me explain. It’s a compelling story that American AI - increasingly funded by taxpayer money - is so rogue and superhuman that only Big Tech and the government can protect us from it. Exactly the kind of story that sells newspaper subscriptions and drives engagement on the socials. The hype and genuine excitement may lead to more investments, and so the AI bubble continues to grow. But what if the dangers of AI models are not about their capabilities, but about who owns and governs these capabilities? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/08/data-src-image-e4dd7f2b-6cfe-4969-b0e6-eb0af3d05b90.jpeg) In the cartoon above, the demons Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei paints on the wall are rogue AI agents. The last two images of the cartoon show the real danger of AI: government authorities taking control of the technology and using it for military purposes, abroad and at home. The government involvement can also shield companies from competitors, foreign regulators, and business-restricting policies. I believe this is exactly what Big Tech is looking for. For the general population, believing in the most fantastical stories can be dangerous if they are told in bad faith. The alternative to American AI is local LLMs - the focus in China and Europe - where data is hosted and contained on the user’s own device. If AI is truly such a revolutionary transformation (and even if it isn’t) power over it should reside in the hands of users, not in the hands of centralized, Machiavellian entities. Don’t believe the stories. ## From the archive: [How the EU Should Approach AI - Part 1The EU should strive to build “good enough AI” instead of superintelligence.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-069b715b-9641-476c-82e5-3490215cafdd.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2fbbfa06e5-161b-4fba-b39d-9376ee41be0d_1920x1280-jpeg-c0ce7fdf-568c-4830-886d-9c093f874b30.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-should-approach-ai/) [AI Is a Distraction Maneuver & Back Door Escape for Tech BillionairesSuperintelligent AI is coming, if it’s not already here. But how will it be managed and by who? Let’s take the skeptical look.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-2cdee840-1de4-4677-a394-c5f8e494d435.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f2885c567-8ec3-4143-951e-b4b2a9295cfe_1600x1066-jpeg-add6b93b-4260-4f45-8b80-20cd7580b53c.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-is-a-distraction-maneuver/) [Why Stupidity Is a Threat to Democracy\+ the “Human-to-AI Intelligence Paradox”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-fba45425-3bc9-48f5-966d-d2646a9ebac9.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2fb4b078c1-112b-46eb-942d-e9bfef4ec168_1152x710-png-7b9b249b-931b-47df-8daa-0ceb023f12ed.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-stupidity-is-a-threat-to-democracy/) ### What if Claude and Chat Are Secretly Working for the Government? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-if-claude-and-chat-are-secretly-working-for-the-government/ Last updated: 2026-08-04T04:30:43.000Z In a previous decade, American social media platforms managed to make surveillance seem “sexy”. Sexyveillance. Facebook normalized the idea of people sharing everything about their personal lives online as a way of better connecting with others. Nothing should be hidden. Hobbies, personal interests, political views, vacation photos, date of birth, your entire social network, location data, medical history, who you dislike, sexual abuse stories, just put it all out there and don’t hold anything back. It will help you to connect with others. This is the future! Many people fell for the marketing and followed what their celebrity idols and outgoing friends did without a second-thought. Many people continue to overshare on social media in exchange for clicks and likes. That is because exposing yourself on social media genuinely pays off; such behavior is rewarded by the algorithm. Want to go viral on LinkedIn or TikTok? Post a photo or a video of yourself crying with a caption about some childhood trauma or how hard it is to land a job. Watch your follower count grow. In 2019, the US government began requiring visa applicants to list their social media usernames/handles from the past five years on the DS-160 (nonimmigration) visa application form. Throughout 2025 and 2026, the requirements have been expanded to more than a dozen visa categories. But linking to your social media accounts in the application form is no longer enough, you have to keep your profiles public for vetting by the US authorities. Oops! Posting that anti-Israel meme may cost you an entrance to the hottest country in the world. Isn’t it interesting how social media has a dual-use purpose like military technologies? It’s both a fun way to connect with friends and strangers and one of the greatest tools for surveillance ever created. The genius part is you don’t have to follow people around with a camera or continuously ask them questions to know what they are doing or how they are feeling. Users will self-disclose, tell on themselves, because the surveillance seems kinda fun, trendy, and sexy and all the celebrities are doing it. There isn’t any effective way for laws to deal with voluntary surveillance or “sexyveillance” as I call it. People are free to share what they like online and actions that restrict this right are censorship. The analogy that comes to mind is crypto-investing. Regulators cannot prevent willing buyers from putting their money into memecoins or other pump-and-dump schemes - it’s a free market. Similarly, regulators cannot prevent users from sharing everything about themselves and more on Facebook. Nor can they effectively prevent the companies and the US government from using this data however they please. Sorry, but GDPR won’t save you. [Your GDPR Is No Good HereDigital sovereignty as more than a buzzword.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-1fad3989-4eb0-4465-83e7-911ab2f9ac4f.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f5605584b-9412-4aa1-b22f-081e977f7441_1600x1066-jpeg-4365dc5c-cd9f-4412-b58d-16e1ff87b730.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/your-gdpr-is-no-good-here/) The Big Tech companies that created the American internet with Facebook, Instagram, Google Maps, the App Store, Amazon, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. are now building American AI. The leaders are the Big Tech’s proxy companies Anthropic and OpenAI, but Google, SpaceX, and Meta are not far behind. The same money that Big Tech invested in behavior-shaping surveillance tools is now being reinvested in American AI. No one understands better than BigTech the value of taking ownership of people’s data and of owning the platform users interact on. That is why Microsoft, Google, Meta and Amazon [are expected](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/30/technology/amazon-google-ai-data-center-spending.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to collectively spend $1.5 trillion on AI infrastructure across 2026 and 2027, so the successful business model of social media can be extended into the age of AI. If the American entertainment industry took celebrity worshipping to a whole new level, the American internet gave all people a shot of becoming stars of their own show with the whole world as spectators. Now, American AI removes the need for an audience altogether. You can engage with, talk to, get advice or encouragement from, or receive any information you need directly from the computer. Since it feels like no one is watching, even more privacy-minded people are prone to disclose personal and sensitive information in the intimate room they share with chatbots. But what if Claude and Chat are secretly working for the US government? I will present my case to you below the paywall. --- Sexy surveillance was the first great accomplishment of Big Tech. The second great accomplishment is funny fascism. With Trump back at the helm, the relationship between Big Tech and the government has never been cozier. BigTech is safe from regulation and politics are entertaining again; a delicious mix of reality show, brutal authoritarianism, and economic nihilism that most people find too irresistible to disengage from. We never know what will happen next in politics, like scrolling a social media feed or playing a slot machine, except the stakes are much higher. What could be more intriguing? It’s a perfect form of entertainment, a twisted kind, but a win-win situation for Trump and those in his cabinet who feed on attention, and for Big Tech companies that profit from people’s screen time and data sharing. The more American AI struggles financially, the more I think it will be brought home to the government. After all, American AI is a *nice to have*, not a *need to have*. If Claude and Chat magically disappeared tomorrow, no one’s life would be that much poorer, compared to the consequences of losing access to the internet, electricity or cars. That is why I think American AI has more potential as a military technology – where it’s used against people – than as a consumer technology – where it’s used as a service to people. [How the American AI Industry CollapsesMy contrarian bear case![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-48087597-8d84-43c2-9dbe-554432c54eff.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f1fb27004-91b9-4396-9a90-032f21c16741_668x680-jpeg-ab0bf673-0c0f-4daa-8d63-1e7686f5f2b1.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-american-ai-industry-collapses/) [How the EU Is Preparing for AI-Driven WarCan Europe defend itself in a time of war?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-c11ed1e0-d0c1-4f0a-a8bb-031ffe683be6.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f3454a53f-651f-411f-b99f-26e4ed2ebf28_618x419-png-157b267f-fbba-4a2f-8047-3dbbf518fb90.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-is-preparing-for-ai-driven/) No one can know at this stage how closely the government collaborates with its AI companies. But even if the data sharing is limited for now, how long can the government keep its hands out of the cookie jar? So much valuable data is right there for the taking. It would be foolish for a post-democratic government to not interfere and use it. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #16: Trump Has a Point About the EU Commission’s Big Tech Fines URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-16-trump-has-a-point-about-the-eu-commissions-big-tech-fines/ Last updated: 2026-07-29T06:13:36.000Z Welcome to the 16th edition of my newsletter concept Tech Legal Brief. The first edition on Ghost. Our main story today concerns the geopolitics around the billion-dollar fine the EU Commission recently imposed on Google for breaching its landmark law the Digital Markets Act. Here is what else we will cover below the paywall: - Another Interesting Ruling Against Google in Europe - Australia’s Age Restriction Law on Social Media Shows Signs of Success - A Useful Guide to Digital Privacy You can find all previous Briefs [here](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tag/tech-legal-brief/). And one more thing, make sure to look for [my introduction post on Ghost](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-is-the-future-for-me-you/) in your e-mail spam filter, if you haven’t received it in your inbox – and please mark it as non-spam 😊 --- ## Trump Has a Point About the EU Commission’s Big Tech Fines A week ago, the EU Commission issued its third-ever and largest [fine under the Digital Markets Act to Google](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F26%5F1670?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for *self-preferencing* on Google Search and *anti-steering* on Google Play. *Self-preferencing* means that Google treated its own services more favorably in search rankings. DMA requires search engines to apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to its ranking (Article 6 (5)). *Anti-steering* means that Google blocked app developers from communicating and promoting offers outside of Google Play, which app stores are required to allow (Article 5 (4)). The two instances of non-compliance led to fines of €460 million and €430 million, respectively, €890 million in total. This is a lot of money under any conventional standard, but corresponding to only 0.22% of Google’s revenue from 2025 ([$403 billion](https://www.analystlens.com/stocks/googl/10k/fy2025?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). The news of DMA fines to Big Tech companies is usually met with clapping hands and party popper emojis on LinkedIn and self-satisfied celebration posts. Meanwhile, the American tech companies respond with anger. When Meta and Apple were handed DMA fines last year, Meta’s spokesperson said ”the European Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards". Apple’s spokesperson said “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. [Tech Legal Brief #7 –DMA & Existential Antitrust Threatswith a Special Announcement![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-5ae6cc81-dcd7-4fe1-a07b-d96667ad32c5.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f5e8d684c-7bd9-425a-9e08-6676c1a5678a_1280x720-png-3e84a6df-bb21-4ff4-b2e2-a293f7ca3751.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-7-dma-and-existential/) Google’s global affairs president Kent Walker [said in an official statement](https://publicpolicy.google/article/search-play-google-statement?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), “to comply, we are having to strip away real-time Search features **Europeans love** – like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights and restaurants – and dismantle safety protections on Google Play.” To be clear, I don’t think there are Europeans who love these features. We Europeans may love sangria, chocolate, walks in the Alps, late-night dinners, and siestas, but not any specific instant pricing or hotel availability feature by Google. A more important observation is that Meta, Apple, and Google don’t display sympathy or respect for the EU’s market regulation law. In essence, Big Tech behemoths are not disputing the Commission’s interpretation of the DMA; they are disputing that the DMA exists in the first place. Apple has so far been the most vocal critic among the tech giants as it's forced to withhold several features from the EU market [such as Siri AI for iOS 27 and iPadOS 27](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-delayed-in-eu-for-ios-27-and-ipados-27/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) due to the DMA. Apple [claims that](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-acts-impacts-on-eu-users/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > *“(..) it’s become clear that the DMA is leading to a worse experience for Apple users in the EU. It’s exposing them to new risks, and disrupting the simple, seamless way their Apple products work together. And as new technologies come out, our European users’ Apple products will only fall further behind.* > *The DMA also isn’t helping European markets. Instead of competing by innovating, already successful companies are twisting the law to suit their own agendas — to collect more data from EU citizens, or to get Apple’s technology for free.”* I am afraid that anticompetitive behavior is not a design flaw, but a feature of many Big Tech products. The EU Commission sees the abuse of market position as a regulatory issue, but honestly, the maintenance of digital monopolies in the US is necessary to build American AI and keep the country’s economy afloat. AI-related stocks [constitute up to 45%](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/us-stock-market-concentration-risk-hits-extreme-levels-ai-stocks-surge-to-45-of-sp-500-market-cap-in-2026-can-1-4-trillion-ai-linked-debt-sustain-this-historic-dominance/articleshow/130493020.cms?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of the S&P 500 Index. Four hyperscalers – Microsoft, Google, Meta and Amazon – [will spend roughly ](https://valueaddvc.com/blog/big-tech-ai-capex-in-2025-microsoft-google-meta-amazon-and-the-spending-race?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)$725 billion (!) on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone. Without locking down the digital industry in all democratic countries, how can these capital expenditures possibly be justified? Due to the ballooning spending on AI infrastructure, Alphabet/Google [reported](https://www.ft.com/content/b02f972c-c764-4006-9377-42563d9d5530?syn-25a6b1a6=1&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a negative free cash flow for the first time ever in Q2 2026\. It looks pretty remarkable on this graph by Bloomberg. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/data-src-image-4cfe5833-e012-41dd-8078-f6717e3a6d59.png) **Source:* [**Bloomberg*](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-22/alphabet-posts-cloud-sales-beat-slight-miss-on-search-revenue?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) The central economic importance of Big Tech and the sensitivity of the American “AI bet”, turn any restraining action by the EU into a perceived political attack. This is where things get interesting. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### What Is the Future for Me & You? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-is-the-future-for-me-you/ Last updated: 2026-07-28T17:54:45.000Z This is my first post on Ghost. I have migrated all Substack subscribers over to this platform (which is why you receive this mail, if you are wondering). It feels like a small era is over for me, personally, after four years writing on Substack, so now must be a good time to give a quick note of appreciation and tell more about what to expect from Futuristic Lawyer in the months to come. First of all, I want to dedicate a huge thanks to those of you who support my work with paid subscriptions, and have done so over the years. Without your support, I would not have continued this project. The fact that people out there are willing to pay for my writing gives me motivation to keep on going, and I take the commitment seriously, even though it’s not a huge sum of money. I recall a good quote I was told recently about what the meaning of life is: “Do what you love and put an invoice on it”. That’s exactly what I feel like I’m doing with this work. I hope I can continue to write for the next twenty years and longer. Secondly, thanks to those of you who have liked, restacked, or commented on my posts on Substack. As I understand it, liking and restacking is not possible on Ghost, but don’t hesitate to comment or share posts. It helps turning Futuristic Lawyer from a monologue into a conversation. In today’s post, I will try to answer what’s next for you and me in the future. After all, that’s the futuristic aspect of Futuristic Lawyer; speculating about what the future may look like. Below is an overview of stuff I will cover in the coming weeks and months. - My next post is “Tech Legal Brief 16: Trump Has a Point About the EU Commission’s Big Tech Fines”. Tech Legal Briefs are a combination of links and comments to a handful of interesting stories and sources in tech anchored by one main opinion piece that I publish monthly or bi-monthly. - I work as a freelancer with a non-profit organization called Pax Technologica that works on building sovereign technology capacities in developing countries with a specific focus on Africa. I will use my platform here to share more information about the work we do and research we publish. You can see our latest publications [here](https://paxtechnologica.com/publications/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Instead of posting a list of future posts, here is a bullet list of things I believe. All of these build on previous research and analysis you can find in the archive of 200+ posts. If it sounds interesting to you, consider taking on a paid subscription of $5/month or $50/month (no action required for existing subscribers). I will gift a copy of my e-book [*Death To Algorithms*](http://www.death2algorithms.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)as a perk to yearly paid subscribers. In the coming months, I will defend, explore, and refine these viewpoints. There is a very low likelihood that you agree with all of them. - The business models of OpenAI and Anthropic are not sustainable. - Open models will become the norm in the future. Unless the major American AI labs pivot, China will win the perceived “AI race”, although I dislike the framing of calling it a race. A race to what? - American AI is quietly being repurposed to become a military technology. This is where the closed models by OpenAI and Anthropic will provide the most value to the people in power. - Age restrictions on opening an account on advertisement-based and algorithmically-driven social media platforms are fundamentally a good idea. - There is a lot of focus on the mental health crisis among young men, but young women are part of the same crisis. The crisis is caused in large part by smartphone addiction and the exploitative business model of social media companies, streaming platforms, and dating apps. The digital world distracts us from what it means to be a human and fills our brain with empty stimuli. However, it doesn’t have to be this way. - The most important step to make a better digital world for all is to break up Big Tech’s monopoly. New social media platforms and new ideas will struggle a lot to gain a foothold, as long as the digital ecosystem we depend on is closed and controlled by a few gatekeepers. - The EU is in a uniquely strong position to regulate Big Tech and make room for new competitors in the market. However, the EU needs to do more than issuing fines to change status quo. It will need to take radical steps, which means strict enforcement of its laws and restricting access to the EU market if necessary. The political pressure and opposition against such measures will be immense and unpopular among many businesses and voters alike. - American AI is only possible because Big Tech has unfairly captured the value created by users throughout decades. This issue cannot be solved by copyright law alone. It prompts us to rethink how the internet works. We cannot accept that a few powerful actors take ownership of all the value people create to develop the digital superbrains we call AI. - What would a better digital experience be like? Here is my wish list: Users have options of more control over what they see and engage with. The algorithms can be turned off and customized. Biohacking/social engineering features such as infinite scrolling loops, notifications, etc. can be turned off and/or customized. There is no powerful intermediary between every action and interaction on the platforms. The platforms are not financed by personalized ads. Privacy is built-in by default. Users can share personal data selectively and earn revenue from value they create on the platform. Platforms have to be interoperable by law, so users can seamlessly move from one platform to another, as seamlessly as moving newsletter subscribers from Substack to Ghost. ### Why AI Boyfriends Are a Much Bigger Deal Than AI Girlfriends URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-ai-boyfriends-are-much-bigger-than-ai-girlfriends/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:10:34.000Z There is already an alien intelligence present on earth, but it’s not AI. It’s limited liability companies. These entities are the arbiters of political decision-making in modern liberal democracy. So, in a very real sense our civilization is ruled by an alien intelligence. LLCs are alien because they prioritize market demands, cash flows, and profit maximization over human needs. What’s good for humans, is not necessarily good for business. That’s a strange paradox leading to some truly strange outcomes. Enter human-AI relationships. I expect these will be a much bigger deal in the years to come, especially for young women. In parallel to the crisis of young men, which is often talked about with loud voices in the media, young women are going through a more quiet crisis. Young men are generally escaping their responsibilities through computer games and porn - because they don’t know what else to do – whereas young career women roughly between the ages of 25 and 35 tend to take on too many responsibilities and suffer from stress and burnouts. Besides their lack of time and energy as they climb the corporate career ladders, these women are [tired of swiping and disillusioned with modern dating culture](https://www.forbes.com/sites/maiahoskin/2026/03/06/more-women-are-dating-ai-boyfriends-what-that-says-about-modern-dating/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). They just don’t have the time to complain and post about it, like young men do. By the way, this trend of changing gender roles where women take on dual-roles as the family’s caregiver and provider, while men are confined to the living room as dormant couch potatoes may become the norm. Traditional male-dominated jobs are rapidly becoming female, as for example, [college women far outnumber men in law and medicine](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-20/women-far-outnumber-men-in-law-medical-vet-schools-why-this-matters?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The American action hero male archetype doesn’t stand a chance against autonomous drones or modern military technology. Masculine qualities such as heroism, courage, and assertiveness are not in high stock either, because any kind of revolution or resistance can so easily be squashed by big corporations, sophisticated intelligence services, and American algorithms. Technology, the changing economy, and other structural developments raise serious questions about the role of men in this hyper-advanced technological society we live in. Men can’t give birth, protect the family, or really provide material support to it. I see the future of men as becoming a kind of luxury good to women like designer bags and silk scarves. There isn’t much of a need for them, but they are nice to have. Anyway, joking aside. This is not the future I want. It’s probably not the future you want either. But the alien intelligence wants it because it’s looking to improve shareholder value at any cost. Let’s prepare together and try to understand what is really happening. To catch a glimpse of what may happen, we can look to China, which is ahead of the curve. [A growing number of career women in China ](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/technology/china-ai-dating-apps.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)seek the “emotional value” from AI companions that they struggle to obtain from men in real life. Meanwhile, most American AI companion apps focus on pornographic AI girlfriends for men, but in my paid analysis below, I will argue that they are misreading market demands. The future I describe in this post is far from science fiction; it’s happening right here today. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The American Disease URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-american-disease/ Last updated: 2026-07-26T09:51:33.000Z I don’t believe that the United States of America really exists. 50 states exist, but what binds them together besides laws? What is their common cultural heritage, the American identity? Beyond baseball and eating turkey on Thanksgiving, there is the American dream; the dream of finding enough money and status to live a carefree life with a loving partner and children in a safe suburban neighborhood behind a white picket fence. A dream that is no longer realistic to attain for a majority of young Americans. The boomer generation sits on the housing market, while technology is gatekeeping the job market and the dating market. The American dream is becoming the American disease. Individualism was the main philosophical movement that shaped my generation thanks to MTV, Hollywood, and the rest of American pop culture, before Facebook and OpenAI. According to this philosophy, each of us is a superstar and we can and should do whatever we want, whenever we want, no matter what anyone says. [How The Attention Economy Fried the Brains of MillennialsA warning to Generation Z and Generation Alpha![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-13a02d8e-0748-4e0d-8262-7816ad15c1f6.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f10f5844d-fbb2-4695-ad03-dd5ef566002d_804x403-png-1866c4c9-3be9-4d48-b66f-2312c6ee386b.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/attention-economy-millennials/) Predictably, this anti-Christian, consumer culture way of living is no longer working. Instead of individual liberty, freedom and success, we find polarization, extreme wealth inequality, and addiction to mass surveillance and brainwashing devices. The idea that we shouldn’t care what anyone thinks as long as we “win” and get the largest piece of the pie for ourselves is the American disease, and too many countries are infected with it. I predict that those countries who have a culture of community over personal gratification will thrive in the future, while those countries who cling to individualism will descend into madness. The American disease implies that the rich have zero solidarity with the poor. Men don’t care for the struggles of women. Women have no patience to hear about the struggles of men. The political right and left are divided beyond possible reconciliation. Big businesses couldn’t care less about small consumers, because there is nowhere else to go. Polarization runs deep and wide across social layers and group identities. That’s the natural end-state of a culture so focused on individual achievement that teaches people the whole world begins and ends at the tip of their noses. Still, the US is the place where dreams come true. But with a small addendum: it happens only for a very small and specific part of the population. For everyone else, there are trillion-dollar industries tailored to make it seem like *their* dreams can come true as well. That is why the individualistic consumer culture has survived for several decades – the vague promise of massive success and lasting fulfillment – and also why American social media and AI services are popular. The US is not only a factory of dreams; the country has a dream-like quality to it. It’s like a vapid great land in the sky, so elusive and fleeting it feels like all the flashing light could dissolve any moment like mirages in the desert. The US status as the world’s center of capitalism makes it that much more connected to the nothingness of existence. The American culture seeks meaning and culture in winning, in the grandiose, in big hand gestures, and in pushing the limits of the possible. But beyond that, there is no cohesion or solidarity. There is no genuine freedom or democracy in a kingdom built on slavery and advertisement. That’s what the angry old man with the orange spray-tan face and yellow hair is saying in essence. Everything that matters in life can be measured in power, money, status and relations (not necessarily relationships). That is the American dream, the American disease, and the logic of individualism. Mr. Trump has revealed that many Americans are vile human beings who take too much pleasure in brutality and hatred to ever respond to challenges with civility and diplomacy. Their nature prefers fast food and pornography over substance. The games they play around money, status, and endorphins have become so embedded in culture and feel so immersive, that they are mistaken for the ultimate reality of all things. The American military, technology, universities, beachfront houses, and everything else the US stands for is flashy and awe-inspiring, because it’s meant to cover up a gaping hole of nothingness. Herein lies the uncomfortable truth: the US never really existed. Now we know. ### US Monarchy & Trump v. Slaughter URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/us-monarchy-and-trump-v-slaughter/ Last updated: 2026-09-04T11:29:37.000Z + implications on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Next Phase of American AI Is a Make-It-Or-Break It Moment for the EU URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-next-phase-of-american-ai-is/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:10:40.000Z Digital dependency vs. tech sovereignty _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### 'Digital Sovereignty' Is Just a Slogan URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/digital-sovereignty-is-just-a-slogan/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T21:31:05.000Z Damien Charlotin is a legal technologist and researcher associated with HEC Paris and Sciences Po Paris and creator of the global database of AI Hallucination Cases. We discuss AI’s impact on legal work and the EU’s digital policies. **The bottom line**: the use of AI in legal work is very beneficial to both lawyers and society, while the EU’s policies on AI and privacy are definitely not. Here are my own takeaways from our conversation: First, the use of AI in legal works is highly beneficial for lawyers and society, because it allows smaller law practices to take on big cases, generally improves access to legal knowledge, helps with data management in very complex cases, and automates trivial, non-interesting parts of lawyers’ work, such a renaming files. Overall, AI will increase access to legal knowledge at a much cheaper price, which means that qualified legal advice will be in high demand. Ultimately, Damien believes that AI will lead to more work for lawyers, not less. Secondly, EU’s strict regulation of data and AI often leads to a meaningless compliance burden on companies, achieving nothing and making no one happy. There is a well-known emphasis on “data privacy” in EU’s regulation and if we ask people if they care about their privacy, most will say “Yes”. However, people’s actions suggest otherwise. Everyday, we gladly give away our behavioral data to American companies in exchange for free services. Because we genuinely get something good out of it. Almost all people are willing to sacrifice privacy in exchange for free, useful internet services, even if they say their privacy matters to them in the abstract. The real threat is not abstract notions of online privacy, but a cyberattack from a malicious actor who steals a company’s customer data, trade secrets, sensitive business information etc. We rely on the tech giants to supply the structural security we take for granted. New, small tech companies in Europe (and other places in the world) don’t have the same levels of operational maturity, knowledge and experience to prevent attacks from malicious actors. Strengthening defensive cyber capabilities and ensuring a meaningful protection for users should be the regulatory focus, rather than forcing companies to go through comprehensive paper exercises about how they process data and protect people’s privacy. ‘Digital sovereignty’ is important in principle to ensure EU’s competitive relevance in future. Unfortunately, EU policymakers are unwilling to back up the high-flying buzzwords with action. For instance, the EU could offer an attractive prize to whichever contender that comes up with a viable alternative to Microsoft 365\. But no such prize is on the table. Instead, the EU is going through a stage of moral panic about its dependency on tech giants and condemn the American products and services that people and businesses are deeply dependent on. The condemnation and moral outrage is satisfying, namely to Europe’s intellectual elite, but it doesn’t accomplish anything by its own or change reality. The reality: People are not leaving Facebook, Instagram or TikTok in droves, most companies rely on OpenAI and/or Claude, and the market for Tesla cars is rebounding after the sales briefly plummeted when Musk was often in the news. There is a good reasons for this: the American services are frankly much better, than anything we can offer in Europe, people love them - even if they complain, and currently there is no meaningful indication that this could change in the near-term future. Please join the conversation and share your thoughts in the comments. ### Links: [Global database of AI Hallucination Cases](https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [What jobs will AI destroy? Exhibit A shouldn’t be on the list.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/05/17/ai-isnt-end-legal-profession-its-future/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Damien Charlotin/Washington Post) ### Can Copyright Bullies Beat AI? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/can-copyright-bullies-beat-ai/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:10:43.000Z Copyright is structurally bad at protecting individual creators, and it will not save them from AI. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Magnifica Humanitas & AI Policy URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/magnifica-humanitas-and-ai-policy/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:10:49.000Z Those of us who care about AI governance, human rights, anti-monopoly, and digital rights find an unexpected ally in Pope Leo XIV. It’s slightly ironic that [Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person In the Time of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) was co-presented by Anthropic, but more on that below. The papal encyclical provides a clear-eyed assessment of the present state of tech and humanity, regardless of which religion we subscribe to. The truth is that our societies are governed on digital platforms to a large extent, and that these platforms are governed by American tech giants that prioritize financial growth over people’s well-being. Silicon Valley’s digital tech development has led to a boom in innovation, but also a gross concentration of power and wealth and an unhealthy internet which is locked down by a handful of private conglomerates. As much as I commend the Pope’s message, there is no way to bargain with mad dogs. The tech giants are unable to self-regulate or to do the right thing out of a moral obligation to society. Silicon Valley has [too much hubris to change its ways ](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/technology/pope-leo-ai-religion.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)or to ever take an anti-technology stance to heart. A company like Anthropic famously speculates that its models are slightly conscious and have a religious relationship with them that is unchristian in nature. Since Big Tech cannot adjust, governments have no choice but to force digital platforms and AI companies to act right through regulation and strict enforcement. Civil discourse matters, but less if it doesn’t lead to political action. [David Sacks points out](https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2058944094035128593?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), that regulation gives sweeping powers to governments over AI development, but hey, in a democratic society that shouldn’t be a concern, right? I suppose there is a cultural difference here between Northern America and Northern Europe. In either case, regulation of AI and digital platforms is becoming less of a policy matter and more of a national security matter. The polite “middle way” where EU regulators expect companies to act right and ask them to pay fines when they neglect their responsibilities is an endless cycle leading to nowhere. Fundamentally, Big Tech doesn’t care much for compliance paperwork or high-minded righteousness from EU bureaucrats. To regulate tech effectively, regulators have to get involved on a level of system-design, but that is strongly opposed by Washington and Silicon Valley. EU’s digital laws are increasingly interfering with digital platforms on this level, but enforcement is challenging, because it requires piercing through a veil of corporate opposition, lobbyism, and confusing signals. For better and for worse, the EU is a peace project that makes bureaucracy, not warfare. The EU is apt at building coherence and harmony among Member States, not to deal with evil forces from outside that threatens its existence. Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical letter shines a light on the digital darkness we all try to navigate in. A space owned by a handful of American tech companies which operate with profits margins as a moral compass. Below the paywall, I will go over selected passages from the encyclical letter and explain how the Pope’s wisdom can (and should) be executed through concrete policies, moving a theological framework towards actionable steps. In essence, we already have the regulatory tools and policy ideas needed to tackle the dark forces of tech and AI. We know what to do. The real issue is doing it. Regulators and politicians fear the repercussions, the childish anger of Trump, of tech billionaires and other rich pocket voters, and the bright light of God when we step outside the darkness of our digital caves. ## Read also: [Section 230 Made the Internet Possible, But Is No Longer Serving Humanity One of the major findings I have discovered in my 5+ years studying and writing about the intersection of tech, law, and society, is that “the global internet” is an illusion. We tend to speak of the “internet” as a global, public common good, but that is the illusion.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-12.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/b44923ac-8259-4dd2-bec1-d9fa45a0f4be_639x410-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/section-230-made-the-internet-possible) [8 Reasons Why Taylor Lorenz Is WrongNow that Australia has effectuated a ban of social media for children under 16, several other countries are considering or planning to take similar measures.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-13.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/d476bc4e-10f4-4fa9-8296-c90c941ef7cf_850x698-png.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/8-reasons-why-taylor-lorenz-is-wrong) [How Can We Defeat Techlordism?The US gamified capitalism after the end of WW2\. Usually, there are winners and losers in games. The problem with gamifying life itself is that there is no restart button, no way to admit defeat and start over because the game keeps on rolling. As a result, those who win continue to win as their edge grows larger, while those w…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-14.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/b55eaab6-9dd9-470a-be51-5c6053265d6e_802x422.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-can-we-defeat-techlordism) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Will AI "Kill All the Lawyers" & Judges? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/will-ai-kill-all-the-lawyers-and/ Last updated: 2026-05-26T12:35:31.000Z Is AI a threat to the work of lawyers and judges? I talked about this with [Irina Carnat](https://www.linkedin.com/in/irina-carnat/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Irina is a postdoctoral researcher at the Lider-Lab and l’EMbeDS of Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies and author of the well-written paper ‘[Automation as Delegation of Power: Constitutional Constraints on AI Systems for the Administration of Justice’](https://www.iris.santannapisa.it/retrieve/92de1dbb-0487-424d-b350-75011c47887b/II-25-Carnat.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The narrative around AI replacing lawyers is flawed. Lawyers obtain value from AI systems through their own interpretation and understanding of the system’s output. LLMs don’t do anything on their own. Therefore, AI is not a competitor to lawyers, but a collaborator. Even though law firms are probably required to adopt AI to stay competitive in the future, this will change the legal profession slowly over time, not rapidly disrupt it overnight. Regulatory safeguards ensure that meaningful human control is in place to avoid “cognitive surrender” in task delegation to AI. Yes, AI does pose a threat to the future job prospects of junior lawyers, but maybe fewer, but better lawyers is not that bad after all. We should also address the common claim I see on LinkedIn and Substack that EU’s regulation presents a hindrance to innovation. That is only the case, if “innovation” means that companies can spend less and increase profits. From an EU perspective, if “innovation” does not support fundamental rights protection, that is not the kind of innovation we are looking for. Instead of loosening regulatory safeguards, we should invest more in better legal scholarship to help companies transition through the compliance process. See the full conversation here on Substack, via [my YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqSfY7V9Ho&t=258s&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), or listen to it on your favorite streaming service, and let me know what you think in the comments below. ### Links: [AI will kill all the lawyers](https://spectator.com/article/ai-will-kill-all-the-lawyers/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (article in The Spectator from December, 2025) [Moral Crumple Zones: Cautionary Tales in Human-Robot Interaction](https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/260?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [Global Database of AI Hallucination Cases](https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ### The Software Economy Is Eating Itself URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-software-economy-is-eating-itself/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:10:55.000Z Bon appétit! _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Your GDPR Is No Good Here URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/your-gdpr-is-no-good-here/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:02.000Z Digital sovereignty as more than a buzzword. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #15 –Google and Meta Are Using AI To Strangle the Media. But For How Long? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-15-google-and-meta-strangles-the-media/ Last updated: 2026-07-26T09:57:30.000Z ## Introduction We all know it, the central roles of Google and Meta in the modern information ecosystem have strangled journalism, media and creatorship for years. The depth and quality of creative work is substituted by click-worthy headlines and images, while the bulk of profits accumulate in the pockets of tech platforms. Only a few traditional newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian have successfully managed to pivot to a digital subscription model. Substack is one bright example of how independent creators and smaller media publications, at least to some extent, can continue to find a foothold and leverage in a skewed media system where American tech giants serve as global gatekeepers. AI adds a new layer of complexity to the dire situation of media plurality (by the way, media plurality is a human right in the EU, Article 11 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: “The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected”). Nowadays, most viral posts sound like they were written by the same author – typically, because they are - and people gravitate towards AI websites for news and opinions which were painstakingly reported by human creators with negligible compensation and no recognition. Copyrights may be an inappropriate weapon to fight back. Even if a licensing scheme of some sort were established to honor the creators whose works are used as AI training fodder, chances are that the licensing fees will accrue to the major publishing houses, record labels, movie studios, and rights organization, while individual creators are left with pennies. [Cory Doctorow has argued for a long time](https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), that copyright won’t solve creators’ generative AI problem, but it may solve their bosses’ problem in the short term. At the same time, there are seemingly no limits on how powerful the AI companies can become without legal intervention. The ultimate mission of American AI companies is to create a new form of alien intelligence that can do your job and the job of everyone around you, until human labor becomes redundant, and the tech capitalists yield complete control over every industry from the military to the local flower shop. Essentially, AI tech leaders are religious fanatics fighting for a self-serving cause with full support and confidence from the US government. Archaic copyright laws cannot stop this mission in its tracks. The fundamental laws of finance and physics eventually will, but it could take years. The best way to prevent AI from swallowing up what remains of the media industry in the coming years is by a strict enforcement of competition laws. The EU is uniquely positioned to do so. In this post, we will look at how Google and Meta are threatening media pluralism, go deep on the meaning and implications of CJEU’s landmark decision in [*Case C-797/23, Meta Platforms Ireland v. AGCOM*](https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/jurisprudence?sort=DOC%5FDATE-DESC&searchTerm=%22C-797%2F23%22&publishedId=C-797%2F23&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), how Google AI Overview threatens the media landscape anew, and why copyright may be an inappropriate mechanism to address it. This is the 15th edition of my newsletter concept, Tech Legal Brief. You can see all previous editions [here](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tag/tech-legal-brief/). I write and curate these Briefs as a service to paid subscribers who occasionally want to go deeper to gain a glimpse of clarity on the complex intersection of tech, law, and society. Below the paywall, you will find original reporting and analysis that you can’t find anywhere else on the internet. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Philosopher on How AI Changes Knowledge Work URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-philosopher-on-how-ai-changes-knowledge/ Last updated: 2026-05-12T14:19:39.000Z [Sune Selsbæk-Reitz](https://open.substack.com/users/236642841) is a fellow Danish tech philosopher and author of the new book “[*Promptism: Fluent Machines, Forgotten Questions, and the Fight for Meaning in the Age of AI*](https://technicspub.com/promptism/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)*”* which wrestles with questions of how generative AI systems change our relationship with knowledge. When we interact with chatbots, we expect fluency and well-presented answers with little to no room for interpretation and ambiguity. Yet, reality is rarely so simple and learning and progress tend to reside in confusion, failed attempts, friction and doubt, not in confident-sounding answers to hard problems. Selsbæk-Reitz describes in Promptism: “Every era invents the lie it most wants to believe. For ours, it’s the lie that clarity equals truth. I would argue that we’ve grown allergic to complication. All we want is our politics to be simple, our science to be certain, and our morality to be frictionless. Large language models feed that appetite with surgical precision and shape the answers we accept.” According to Selsbæk-Reitz, it’s vital that we adopt pauses for uninterrupted thinking in daily life, refuse to accept readily available answers as a default, seek out friends we disagree with, and learn to sit with uncomfortable doubt and challenging questions without reaching for the nearest resolution. The problem of AI’s presentation of a false, but convenient reality is counterintuitive and non-obvious. Frankly, I thought this was a difficult conversation to have, but an important one to open up. ### Links: [Two thirds of students say AI is hurting their critical thinking. They’re using it more than ever.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialInteligence/comments/1s52lhb/two%5Fthirds%5Fof%5Fstudents%5Fsay%5Fai%5Fis%5Fhurting%5Ftheir/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [Hikikomori: Why are so many Japanese men refusing to leave their rooms?](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23182523?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [The average attention span has shrunk to roughly 40 seconds. Here’s how to get it back.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/health/article/attention-spans-shrinking-how-to-regain?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ### The EU’s AI Strategy Is a Serious Blunder URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-eus-ai-strategy-is-a-serious/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:08.000Z and what it should focus on instead. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Digital Services Act Is Protecting Children Less Than the Lawyer-Industrial Complex URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-digital-services-act-is-protecting/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:09.000Z Let's talk about it. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How the American AI Industry Collapses URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-american-ai-industry-collapses/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:16.000Z ## Introduction Predictions about the future of AI tend to fall into two extreme categories: either AI will turn superintelligent (e.g. [AI 2027](https://ai-2027.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) or it’s a financial bubble waiting to burst (e.g. [Ed Zitron](https://www.wheresyoured.at/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). A more measured third approach is that ‘[AI is a normal technology](https://www.normaltech.ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)‘ as proposed by Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor - AI will neither turn into Skynet, nor will it turn out to be essentially useless. There is also a fourth option that I didn’t consider before I read a [recent post by Kevin Kelly](https://kevinkelly.substack.com/p/our-uncertain-uncertainties). What if the current uncertainty and confusion we are experiencing about AI’s economic impact and future capabilities persists? Kelly describes the scenario: *“AI continues to surprise us at its core. As AI continues to evolve rapidly there will be no resolution to these questions in 3 years. By 2029, we still won’t know if AGI is possible, we can’t tell if employment is disrupted, and we still can’t say if it is worth the huge investment. I don’t mean AI progress stalls. I mean, AI continues to advance, but the new stuff doesn’t answer the old questions, it only expands our ignorance because the new is new in a new way. We have to alter our ideas (and measurements) of employment, we have to amend our concepts (and measurements) of the economy, and we have to shift our ideas of what AI even is.”* The ‘sustained uncertainty’ scenario may be the worst outcome of all. We can handle success, we can handle failure, but not knowing what we know and don’t know is a frightening state to be in and the economy has a low tolerance for uncertainty and doubt. The whole data-driven economy is based on the assumption that we can accurately predict future outcomes and behaviors given enough data. Kelly calls it “The Age of Ambiguity”. He emphasizes that it’s not prediction, but a possibility we should consider and prepare for. I completely agree. At the same time, I want to ask: what is the source of all this ambiguity and confusion? Could it be that the ugly truth is staring right at us, while we are distracted by the mechanical applause for tech leaders and American entrepreneurship on social media? It sure seems possible. In my view, there is a non-insignificant chance that the American AI industry could collapse. Whether it happens this year, in three years or later is impossible to predict. Traditional media overemphasizes misleading statements by tech CEOs and corporate marketing stunts, while American algorithms amplify well-presented hype to increase profits and engagement. Most of all, the technological and financial elites of America have joined forces in a bet that says artificial intelligence is real, or soon will be. It’s the most expensive bet in the history of capitalism and being wrong is not an option. Ultimately, it’s still worth considering if they are betting on the impossible. Below, I will lay out my arguments in simple terms. Your job is to tell me where the analysis is wrong. ## ‘American AI’ One defining trait of ‘American AI’ is that no one is allowed to see how the models work under the hood. Officially, that is in the consumers’ best interest. Open-source AI could be misused by terrorists to create biological weapons such as incurable diseases or advanced cyberattacks by exploiting critical software bugs at scale. Additionally, as American AI inches closer towards ‘superintelligence” or ‘AGI’ there’s a chance that ordinary users and businesses are denied access to new models. [The Implications of Claude Mythos & The Ceiling We Mistook for the SkyThis is a joint post written by me and Aysu Kececi. In the first part, I will share my candid thoughts about the legal and geopolitical implications of Claude Mythos. In the second part, Aysu will lay out her personal thoughts about Mythos as a Sustainability Business Development Consultant and AI Enthusiast.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-33.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/46ce1e58-67a6-4b55-ba1a-c713fc89b47f_1200x630-1.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-implications-of-claude-mythos) The secrecy surrounding American AI is not just a competitive moat for the companies. It creates an aura of mystique feeding the narrative that American AI labs are building something brand new and exceptional. In truth, American AI *needs* to be exceptional and deliver exceptional returns. The American cloud giants Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle are projected to spend more than $1.1 trillion by 2027 to meet the demands of AI infrastructure. These investments alongside the inflated value of AI-related stocks [are central](https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/hyperscaler-results-pose-major-test-ai-driven-us-stock-market-2026-04-29/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to keep up the rampant growth of S&P 500 and Dow Jones (and presumably what’s left of Trump’s popularity with business leaders). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/21886487-ad92-46fc-9bfb-d26ac4be4ac1_900x612-jpeg.jpg) *(graph via The BIG Newsletter/Matt Stoller)* The reverse effect and how the ‘AI bubble’ pops: Without sufficient returns on AI investments, the hyperscalers are forced to wind-down capital expenditures, the growing stock market declines, and the impacts will echo throughout the economy and political theater. Luckily, [the rise of Claude Code suggests](https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/2026/05/ai-bubble-revenue-anthropic/687022/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that there *is* a demand for AI to justify the astronomical infrastructure investments. Anthropic’s run rate revenue (monthly revenue projected throughout the full year) has [reportedly](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/anthropic-tops-30-billion-run-221045473.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) surpassed $30 billion in early April, up from just $9 billion at the end of 2025 and $14 billion in February, 2026\. After the stunning subscription growth, Anthropic is now [valued at $1 trillion pre-IPO on a secondary private market](https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-trillion-dollar-valuation-on-secondary-markets-2026?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), surpassing OpenAI. But how much of Anthropic’s revenue is real and who is really paying for it? Anthropic receives billion-dollar investments from Google and Amazon, but a lot of it is paid in the form of cloud credits. This means you pay for a premium subscription to Claude, while Anthropic pays Google Cloud and AWS to host your Projects and conversations. Anthropic announces its revenue, but is not obliged to disclose the costs of running your queries, the models, or hosting your data. Nonetheless, the growing demand justifies further billion-dollar investments that never leave the balance sheets of Google and Amazon. The two companies own equity stakes in Anthropic too. In its [earnings release from last week](https://fortune.com/2026/04/30/google-amazon-ai-profits-anthropic-stake-bubble-earnings-2026/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Google’s parent company, Alphabet disclosed that nearly half of its record-breaking $62.6 billion profit came from the equity it owns in private companies, which is primarily Anthropic. [Amazon’s concurrent earnings release](https://fortune.com/2026/04/30/google-amazon-ai-profits-anthropic-stake-bubble-earnings-2026/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) directly states that first-quarter net income “includes pre-tax gains of $16.8 billion included in non-operating income from our investments in Anthropic”. This kind of circular financing between AI startups and cloud providers was documented in a [Federal Trade Commission report](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc%5Fgov/pdf/p246201%5Faipartnerships6breport%5Fredacted%5F0.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) from January 2025\. The arrangements blur how much net profits the AI startups are actually generating, and helps to attract more investments, which in turn prop up the value of the cloud providers equity stakes. As the AI startups revenue increases, so does the computing costs although we don’t to which extent. [Ed Zitron reported in September 2025](https://www.wheresyoured.at/costs/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), that Anthropic was spending more than $2.66 billion on computing costs to AWS alone on an estimated $2.55 billion in revenue. If we factor in the computing expenses Anthropic paid to Google during the same period, R&D costs, salaries to employees, etc., all evidence suggests that Anthropic was, and still is, operating at a major loss. Whether or not the business model is sustainable longer term and can lead to profitability in 2028 as [Anthropic projects](https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/04/anthropic-expects-b2b-demand-to-boost-revenue-to-70b-in-2028-report/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) remains anyone’s guess. The arrangement does appear *shady*, but as long as Anthropic continues to lock-in users by building dependency around its products and gradually increase subscription prices, the sky is not even the limit, since [data centers can be built in space](https://futurism.com/space/elon-musks-orbital-data-centers-huge?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). However, the aggressive race towards exceptionalism and the current equilibrium between the financial and technological elites and political decisionmakers in the US could be disturbed and threatened by external factors. I can think of at least three such factors, two which are harming the business model of American AI, and one which is an existential threat combined with the others. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Disinformation Expert on the Impacts & Laws URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/disinformation-expert-on-the-impacts-and-laws/ Last updated: 2026-04-29T19:48:39.000Z I recently sat down for a chat with disinformation expert [Ricardo Vásquez Dazarola](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo-v%C3%A1squez-dazarola-1b868249/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Here are my main takeaways from our conversation: - Disinformation is intentional (e.g. political influence campaigns) while misinformation is false information, but without any intention of harm. - Disinformation is “lawful, but awful”, whereas hate speech is illegal in many countries. Each jurisdiction has a different threshold and understanding of what constitutes illegal speech (yet social media’s moderation policies are typically based on the American standard). - Literacy campaigns and education is the best way for a society to absorb disinformation. In Finland and Estonia, children are taught about disinformation from a young age to mitigate the impacts of Russian propaganda campaigns. - Humans have always lied and spread false information, but social media and AI exacerbate the issues. Laws cannot regulate ‘the truthfulness’ of what people say online or in private messages. What they *can* do is regulating how information is distributed. For example, Brazil adopted a law that said messaging apps such as WhatsApp had to be designed in such a way that you cannot share the same message with more than three people during elections. - The law should address technology on the level of its design, contrary to regulating its impacts which are many and often unknown. - The role of social media platforms is *not* to screen what is true and what is important. The role of social media is to provide users with the right tools, so they can easily screen relevant information for themselves. Currently, social media platforms are intentionally making it hard to do so, because they want to increase engagement as much as possible. - Social media platforms should be transparent about deepfakes and who sponsors political advertisement ( requirements under EU law). - As of now, social media is best used for stupid things, not as a reliable source of news. ### How Can We Defeat Techlordism? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-can-we-defeat-techlordism/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:21.000Z Some thoughts based on “Palantir and the New Order” by Yanis Varoufakis. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Governance in the US vs. China URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-governance-in-the-us-vs-china/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:31.000Z Why China is winning. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Implications of Claude Mythos & The Ceiling We Mistook for the Sky URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-implications-of-claude-mythos/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:35.000Z A joint post with Aysu Kececi _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### OpenAI’s Terrifying Vision for an ”AI-First” Society URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/openais-terrifying-vision-for-ai-first-society/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:43.000Z When I was a young law student, I was once approached by a homeless immigrant outside of the law faculty in Copenhagen, who begged me for a cigarette. He told me that he used to be a promising young scientist with a Ph.D. degree in physics from a fancy European university. Now, he was forced to sleep on a cardboard box and had “no pride”. Even though I don’t remember much of the exact exchange – and of course, he could be lying - the impression I walked away with was that anyone could end up in his shoes. I am indeed worried that many young people with talent today will. A [new Gallup survey](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/style/gen-z-ai-gallup-study.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) shows that the percentage of respondents between age 14 and 29 who said they felt hopeful about AI had declined from 27% last year to **18% as of February and March.** Also, “48 % of working Gen Zers believe the risks of AI in the workforce outweigh its benefits”. No way that a new consumer/work technology has ever generated so *little* excitement and so much concern among those who are supposed to be its main adopters. Is AI having a “PR crisis” or is there something else going on? Besides AI’s potential to absorb middle class jobs, the vulnerable, global supply chain it relies upon, and the extreme amount of resources that goes into creating cutting-edge models, the competition for entry-level jobs is fierce. I know from experience that companies tend to treat candidates like a bunch of data points, while they expect perfect credentials and love letters in return. Increasingly, bosses are convinced that AI is a worker-replacement technology, thanks to billionaire influencers like Sam Altman, whose shameless self-promotion entice investors, board rooms and executives the world over. Some people have no pride and sleep on cardboard boxes; other people have no shame and become billionaires. [AI Is Porn for Cost-Cutting CorporationsC. Thi Nguyen & Bekka Williams offer an expansive definition of the term “porn” in their paper, “Moral Outrage Porn”:![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-48.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/93e8bbb2-29a1-4276-bd10-221a9eb2773b_736x902-jpeg-1.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ai-is-porn-for-cost-cutting-corporations) In 2019, OpenAI was a non-profit organization that refused to launch GPT-2 to the wider public due to fears about how it could be misused. Needless to say, GPT-2 is a laughably primitive model by today’s standards. How much have things changed! In the paid section below, I will comment on OpenAI’s document*,* [*Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First*](https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Will AI Change the Work of Lawyers? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-will-ai-change-the-work-of-lawyers/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:11:49.000Z Today my guest is [Justin Curl](https://open.substack.com/users/88527826) who works in the intersection of tech, law, and AI policy. Justin co-wrote the paper, [*AI Won’t Automatically Make Legal Services Cheaper*](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-won-t-automatically-make-legal-services-cheaper?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)with [Sayash Kapoor](https://substack.com/@sayash?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), and [Arvind Narayanan](https://substack.com/@aisnakeoil?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [has surveyed lawyers about their experience using AI tools](https://www.understandingai.org/p/ai-is-just-starting-to-change-the?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for [Understanding AI](https://open.substack.com/users/1501429). We discuss how AI is already changing the work of lawyers and what the legal profession may look like in the short-term future. A topic of major importance to society! What do you think? Join the conversation in the comments. #### From the archive: [How Will AI Change Law & the Legal Industry? (Level 1) Let’s explore (not “delve” into) how AI will change law and the legal industry.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-52.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4e544ccf-1716-4037-be70-c4b578f8f47a_476x314.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal) [How Will AI Change Law & the Legal Industry? (Level 2) Let’s explore how AI will change law and the legal industry.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-53.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/f6f4aa8f-ace5-4437-a98e-e37d5b2b060d_1456x819-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal-133) [How Will AI Change Law & the Legal Industry? (Level 3) Let’s explore how AI will change law and the legal industry.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-54.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/355e1eec-9a23-4ffe-aedd-e53a001ae311_1200x641-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-will-ai-change-law-and-the-legal) ### How the EU Is Preparing for AI-Driven War URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-is-preparing-for-ai-driven/ Last updated: 2026-09-04T11:29:17.000Z Can Europe defend itself in a time of war? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Landmark Decisions in California & New Mexico URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/landmark-decisions-in-california/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:00.000Z WE GOT THEM _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### American Algorithms Are Designed to Destroy Civil Society URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/american-algorithms-destroy-civil-society/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:11.000Z Dance, human, dance. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How the EU Should Approach AI - Part 2 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-should-approach-ai-part/ Last updated: 2026-08-07T17:36:27.000Z This is the second part of a longer post about AI risks and the EU’s AI strategy. Read the first part [here](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-should-approach-ai/). In this part, I argue why the EU must address the risks of AI foundation models before speeding recklessly ahead. Instead of replicating Big Tech’s “move fast and break things”-approach, the EU should promote open(-source) foundation models, only trained on public and licensed data, encourage people and institutions to treat AI technology with common sense, not as a magic panacea, while also minding the broader financial and environmental risks. That is how the EU becomes an “AI continent”. The final version of this draft will be available in *Handbook on Regulating Big Technology in the Era of Sustainability* by Edward Elgar Publishing. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Young People Can Survive URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-young-people-can-survive/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:14.000Z The Western millennial generation was raised with an American pop culture that elevated individualism, consumerism, and encouraged young people to live in a self-absorbed way. We were subliminally and overtly told it was “me, myself, and I” against the world and that ego-gratification was the highest ideal in existence. This self-centered culture was brought about in a time of relative peace and stability. The US won the cold war, distributed Western culture via channels such as Hollywood movies, MTV, and the first internet companies, and took charge of world politics with its “peace through strength” dogma. Under these circumstances, Western millennials could live in a fantasy world where we thought our personal satisfaction mattered more than anything else. This time of relative peace and stability wouldn’t last. Peace and prosperity is not a new norm; it was a brief footnote, an anomaly in the otherwise violent track record of human beings. Western civilization is no longer in a peacetime. We are back to normal; a new time of upheaval and great suffering, too great to distract from, marked by idiotic wars, significant loneliness, mental health disorders, and palpable risks of economic collapse, climate disasters, and a new deadly pandemic. Beyond imminent, catastrophic risks, young people are struggling to find jobs, relationships, and housing. Nothing indicates it will change soon as the boomer generation (Trump’s age and older) refuses to share its wealth and wants to live forever. Old people are not just overly represented in wealth statistics, but in politics too. Their stubbornness and antiquated worldviews may explain why we still resolve conflicts with war, sustained by the lives of young men as raw material if necessary, and insist on generating energy with coal and crude oil even though science shows the excessive consumption undermines the conditions for life on earth. The whole secure and seemingly unbreakable infrastructure which allowed millennials like me to live comfortably and carefree is now shaking beneath our feet. This means that ignorance and complete self-absorption are not luxuries young people in today’s world can afford. To survive in this time of upheaval, younger generations need to cultivate the same qualities American pop culture tried to destroy when I was growing up. [How The Attention Economy Fried the Brains of Millennials When millennials like me were growing up, culture was defined by the music we listened to, movies we watched, and books we read. Today, culture has merged with technology and is primarily defined by social media algorithms, clickbait and slop. Arguably, there is no common culture anymore. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing after all.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-65.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/10f5844d-fbb2-4695-ad03-dd5ef566002d_804x403-1.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/attention-economy-millennials) To succeed, Generation Z and Generation Alpha will need to be knowledgeable about how the world works, possess the ability to concentrate, think independently, critically, and long-term. They will also need moral clarity, ideological conviction, discipline, courage, self-sacrifice, community-mindedness, and love for humankind regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, political and religious beliefs. The exact opposite of those personality traits displayed by modern American folk heroes such as Donald Trump and Elon Musk. [An in-field report by Sam Kriss](https://harpers.org/archive/2026/03/childs-play-sam-kriss-ai-startup-roy-lee/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) reveals that young tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are taught to cultivate “high-agency”. Allegedly, this is the most important personality trait in the age of AI. Those who don’t possess it are at risk of becoming part of the permanent underclass when the great “bifurcation event” happens which will separate those skilled with AI from those who are rendered useless. I agree that agency is important, but without knowledge, moral principles and clear direction, it’s a dangerous quality to have. Evidently, assertiveness without a moral standpoint creates shitty people, harmful products and ultimately, at a large enough scale, threatens the survival of our species. To cultivate agency in a meaningful sense of the word here are some simple, practical tips that will prepare new generations for a dignified life in the tumultuous, confusing, and dangerous time ahead: limit exposure to social media as much as possible, practice digital minimalism and switch from using commercial LLMs to local LLMs. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #14 – Positive News in the End Times URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-14-positive-news/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:21.000Z “I hope everyone had a nice break. And welcome back to the end of the world” So starts a recorded lecture by Jiang Xueqin given to high school students in Beijing. I think of Xueqin as China’s Jordan Peterson. Xueqin teaches “secret history”, geopolitical strategy, and how to use game theory to make probable predictions about future events ([Predictive History](https://predictivehistory.substack.com/) on Substack). He has recently achieved a meteoric rise of fame on social media, among other things for predicting in a lecture from May 2024 that 1) Trump would be re-elected, 2) go to war with Iran, and 3) lose the war against Iran with catastrophic consequences ([link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y%5Fhbz6loEo&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). Xueqin’s lectures on YouTube and Substack posts are sweet candyfloss to the ears of conspiracy theorists and doomers. His claims should be consumed with a pinch of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. There is a razor-thin edge between genius and insanity. Too much light is blinding; too much truth is maddening. Maddening and depressive as it is, Xueqin has an extraordinary and enviable ability to connect dots and poke at a deeper level of truth beneath the noise, even if his viewpoints are dystopian and sometimes deeply controversial. When reading the daily stream of news, the only logical conclusion to draw must be that we are living through the end times of the Pax American world order. Those who were supposed to prevent this from happening are too busy humblebragging and virtue-signaling on LinkedIn or getting high on American endorphin on X. How will the war in Iran affect the US economy and the tech billionaires’ human-replacement-and-surveillance project, also known as AI? It will meet hard physical constraints and the stakes are extremely high. My bold prediction for 2026 is that this year will not be “the year of the AI agent” – something [boosters have predicted each year since 2023\. ](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-autonomous-agents-are-coming)Instead, the AI bubble pops. If not this year, then in 2027\. Sooner or later, it is bound to happen, not gradually, but suddenly and violently. This shock will give tech billionaires and average Trump voters alike a much-needed reality check, and vindicate tech ethicists like myself. The hype and expectations surrounding AI are simply not sustainable, and neither are the energy demands and environmental strains. If my prediction holds true, I don’t expect the same level of online fame as Xueqin, but some credit must be due. Anyways, onto the positive news of today’s post. The EU Parliament has very sensibly voted to protect copyrighted work and its creative sector in the age of AI. A new opinion piece in the award-winning publication AdExchanger admits that the targeted advertisement industry has made some serious mistakes. A new survey of privacy practitioners in the EU shows what kind of measures that could be adopted to revise the GDPR in a meaningful way (contrary to the Digital Omnibus proposal). Meta currently faces a lawsuit in California and an investigation in the UK after a Swedish newspaper exposed creepy privacy violations related to its AI smart glasses. Last, but not least, it looks like the controversial chat control proposal is finally approaching its grave. To get full access to [my Briefs](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/t/tech-legal-brief) and read the second part of my post “[How the EU Should Approach AI](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-the-eu-should-approach-ai)” when it’s published next Tuesday, consider supporting my work with a paid subscription. [Subscribe now](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/subscribe) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The OpenAIpocalypse Is Nigh URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-openaipocalypse-is-nigh/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:31.000Z Thoughts after Pentagon’s partnership with OpenAI _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How the EU Should Approach AI - Part 1 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-should-approach-ai/ Last updated: 2026-08-07T17:35:37.000Z This is the first part of a long and detailed post about AI risks and the EU’s AI strategy. I argue why the EU should not follow in the footsteps of the US. European culture cannot embrace the “move fast and break things”-attitude which made OpenAI the world’s second-most valuable startup (second to SpaceX). The EU should not race towards building “superintelligent” AI systems, but stand by its founding values, and formulate an independent vision of the technology with measurable goals and targets. The final version of this draft will be available in *Handbook on Regulating Big Technology in the Era of Sustainability* by Edward Elgar Publishing. (Part 2 is [here](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-the-eu-should-approach-ai-part/)) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Antitrust, Big Tech & Societal Collapse URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/antitrust-big-tech-and-societal-collapse/ Last updated: 2026-03-02T22:56:05.000Z In this episode, [Matt Stoller](https://open.substack.com/users/759128) from [BIG by Matt Stoller](https://open.substack.com/users/11524) joins me for a discussion about antitrust in the US vs. the EU. The short story is: things are not looking good. The inability to effectively curb monopolies is a symptom of failed democracy. In European countries there is a tendency to blame Trump and Big Tech for many problems (I am guilty of this). In reality, the EU may only be a few years behind on the authoritarian trajectory. In spite of all the high-minded intentions and talks about digital sovereignty, there is too much bureaucracy, too much inaction, excuses, and a pronounced unwillingness to deal with problems head-on. What kind of risks and harms are Big Tech posing to societies? Why are the EU and the US not able to enforce their laws against these companies? And what can be done? If these questions interest you, please listen along. ### The Toxic Toupee on Adventures URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-toxic-toupee-on-adventures/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:37.000Z The great Danish storyteller H.C. Andersen wrote fairytales for children in the 19th century. If I had more time, I would write a contemporary fairytale in the style of H.C. Andersen, called “*The Toxic Toupee on Adventures*”. Here is the storyline. A toupee is possessed by an ancient curse. It travels restlessly around in search of a human body to infest. Its ultimate goal is to turn society into a Kingdom ruled by a rich elite. Whenever the toxic toupee jumps up onto the head of a human, it overtakes their mind and spirit like a [zombie parasite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps%5Funilateralis?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Whoever wears it feels a strong urge to put on a suit and tie, adopt Trump’s mannerism, rhetoric, and imagination abilities, and gradually turn more orange in the face each time they lie like Pinocchio’s growing nose. Because the curse is not bound to a human form, it cannot easily die or be killed. The only way to defeat it is if enough people recognize the curse for what it is, and society is structurally changed to prevent it from obtaining power. The Toxic Toupee would be written as a bedtime story for children, but the adult who reads it aloud will easily catch the subliminal message. The story is really about the authoritarian takeover project. The moral is, when Trump dies, the driving force behind this project will live on. The mission is to further the gap between rich and poor, control people’s thoughts by taking hold of the information ecosystem, and destroy national and foreign communities by sowing hatred, distrust, and division which distract people from the power grab from above. Another key aspect of the authoritarian project is to co-opt innovation in the private sector, and ultimately decide what gets made by whom to extend centralized control, stay on top of the political narrative, and squash dissent before it arises. Arguing with or making any demands against the government is a strict breach of protocol, explaining why Anthropic was [very publicly designated a “supply chain risk” by the Department of War](https://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for failing to accept the government’s terms of service which included a demand for unrestricted access to their technology. Trump is not the initiator or the leader of the authoritarian project in the US; he is merely an agent of it. Certain conditions in the American society have allowed the authoritarian project to move forward. Of course, I am in no position to exhaustively identify and analyze what exactly has gone wrong– a lot of it is based on national culture, history, past political priorities and decisions that I don’t have insights into. However, as a European, I have noticed three specific and distinct flavors of American society which have greatly contributed to the authoritarian progression: - **Information asymmetry**, namely between tech billionaires and the rest of the population - The **politicization** of everything - The blurring line between reality and **science fiction** In the paid segment below, we will take a deeper look at each of these conditions based on recent news and viral stories in tech. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Is Porn for Cost-Cutting Corporations URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-is-porn-for-cost-cutting-corporations/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:37.000Z AI is not about worker empowerment, but worker replacement. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Humans Are Becoming Devices URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/humans-are-becoming-devices/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:37.000Z Reflection on tech vs. culture _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #13 – The Myth of European Censorship URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-13-the-myth-of-european/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:43.000Z ## Introduction The main story of this installment of Tech Legal Brief concerns a very serious topic: fascism. In the paid segment of this post, we ask how to effectively fight fascism, look at a video which explains how the Russian military manages to infiltrate and attack the US from the inside out, a new study that shows the political effects of X’s recommendation algorithm, and a new proposal for a law in Wyoming which seeks to sanction foreign censorship (h/t [Paul Gurney](https://open.substack.com/users/18656474)). All these stories are closely tied to the themes of my recently published ebook “Death To Algorithms: On the entertainment and matchmaking engines that rule our lives” which can be purchased via [this Gumroad page](https://www.death2algorithms.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). ## Beware of Fascist Tendencies “European censorship” is one of those issues you often hear Trump admins and MAGA Americans complain about. It’s typically accompanied by a bundle of other beliefs which we could call the “MAGA starter pack”. The US is undergoing an invasion of illegal immigrants, because the Democrats want them as voters. X is a safe haven for free speech warriors. If parents are not careful, democrats may force sex change operations on their children on any given school day. A cult of rich elites is secretly running an international pedophile ring (oops that one checks out). I compiled a video of beliefs from the MAGA starter pack with clips from a recent episode of the Joe Rogan podcast with Elon Musk. But this is only scratching the surface. What makes MAGA-American beliefs so dangerous is that they can’t be disputed with rational arguments, facts, or evidence to the contrary. The MAGA starter pack is rooted in a desire to take back control from an overly bureaucratic and unfair system. The beliefs are really only strawman arguments to justify this desire. When MAGA Americans such as Elon are making political arguments, they are doing so in bad faith, thus playing a different game than ordinary politicians in modern times. They use language with the purpose of reaching a specific aim. Therefore, logical holes in their argumentation or lack of factual evidence are not problems to them. The term we use to describe this kind of language use is: *propaganda*. Propaganda is the language of fascism. It consists of slogans and simple solutions to complex problems that a majority of people or a powerful minority agree on. The first page of fascism playbook is: create unity among people by finding a common enemy to blame for the country’s hardships. In Nazi Germany the enemy was jews. In MAGA America the enemy is – luckily – more diffuse. The various factions of the MAGA coalition have not managed to settle on a single, common target. To some it’s illegal democrats, to others it’s all non-white people, to others it’s trans or LGBTQ+ people, to others again it’s the working class, feminists, climate activists, the homeless, or foreign censors. Trump is obviously a showman, a clown who invites laughter, while the coalition behind him is a fascinating mix of cruel and callous personalities with different agendas. We should all be very aware of the fascist tendencies that are taking root in the US, and partly in Europe. Even though some of us can denigrate Trump and MAGA’s chaos with laughter and schadenfreude for now, it may not last very long. History teaches us that we are perhaps only seeing the beginning, a temporary movement that could evolve with time into a darker, more potent, and less fragmented force of evil. This force could be boosted by socioeconomic inequality, social media as a propaganda tool, and AI as a privacy-eroding tool that discourages dissent. 1984 went from a dystopian novel to a gameplan. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Is Killing the Need for Lawyers, But Increasing the Demand for Legal Thinkers URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/advice-for-law-students-in-ai-age/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:12:51.000Z My honest advice for people considering studying law. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Right to Freedom of Speech Is Irrelevant on Digital Platforms URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-is/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:13:01.000Z Not long after the end of World War 2, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - a cornerstone for human rights law interpretation to this day. Article 19 states: “**Everyone** has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” These words sounded noble in 1948 and intuitively made a lot of sense for people in the US, Europe, and in other democratic jurisdictions. In 2026, reasonable and decent people can still nod along in agreement to these words. But our world is radically different now. Chiefly, because of the rapid development and adoption of information technology with social and cultural impacts. In 1948, the US and the EU were both considered liberal democracies. The US democracy leaned heavily into its free market approach; companies should be able to do business without too much government oversight and bureaucracy. Fast forward to today, and the US can hardly be characterized as a liberal democracy. A transgressive democracy? The EU for its part, was always more of a social-democratic power ([reference: Thomas Piketty](https://thomaspiketty.wordpress.com/2026/02/03/europe-a-social-democratic-power/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), emphasizing social welfare, individual rights, and peace over technological innovation and economic growth. The US and the EU are thus global superpowers with different value sets. Historically, the US was right-leaning, while the EU was left-leaning, but our worldview was more or less the same. Over the last few years, the US has taken a big step to the right, while the EU has arguably slid a few inches to the left. Today, some of the values we once shared are in conflict with each other. An obvious example is free speech. The average conservative in the US and the average socialist in the EU are both accusing each other of not living up to the principle. Conservatives in the US are furious at hate speech laws in European countries that penalize incitements to violence, threats, holocaust denial, and harassment on social media. The American government is [accusing](https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-07/DSA%5FReport%26Appendix%2807.25.25%29.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) the EU of creating a “global censorship regime” with the Digital Services Act (DSA), a law requiring online platforms to take [certain measures](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to prevent illegal hate speech. Meanwhile, citizens in the EU are following American news in disbelief as innocent people are prosecuted for speaking out against the government or expressing resistance to it. What does it in fact mean to say that “everyone” has the right to freedom of opinion and expression? The current US administration is evidently not interested in that specific word of the declaration. If the “wrong” opinions spread, it could undermine the government’s agenda, including its violent mass-deportation program and unapologetic self-enrichment schemes. UDHR was ratified at the time to prevent this exact scenario. Unfortunately, as Trump knows too well, enforcing civil rights is next to impossible if the government refuses to play ball and doesn’t feel obliged to adhere to the ground rules of the Constitution. [He is the tyrant George Washington feared](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/george-washington-nightmare-donald-trump/679946/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Given the Trump administration’s contempt for liberal speech rights in its own country, we can safely assume that its accusations against European hate speech laws and the DSA have nothing to do with high-minded free speech concerns, and everything to do with narrative control. Whether we like it or not, social media platforms, search engines, streaming platforms, certain data-collecting apps, and most certainly AI models, are powerful tools for influencing the public discourse and controlling human beings. In the pre-digital world, no one could foresee just how much power those in charge of our IT systems would have. In hindsight, we were naïve. The EU is now waking up to this reality and trying to correct its past mistakes. Here is a quote from Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, [recently speaking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuKZVlSg84E&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) at the World Governments Summit in Dubai (h/t [Jacob Mchangama](https://open.substack.com/users/4907299) [The Bedrock Principle](https://open.substack.com/users/2329644) ) “We were told that social media would become a tool for global understanding and cooperation. A vehicle for freedom, transparency, and accountability. A space where feeds and algorithms would help improve our societies and our lives. But the opposite has happened. Social media has become a failed state. A place where laws are ignored and crime is endured. Where disinformation is worth more than truth and half of users suffer from hate speech. A failed state in which algorithms distort the public conversation and our data and image are commodified and sold.” Sánchez went on to present five concrete actions the Spanish government will implement this week to reassert democratic control over social media: > 1) Change the laws in Spain to hold platform executives legally accountable for failing to remove illegal or hateful content. > > 2) Turn algorithmic manipulation and amplification of illegal content into a new criminal offense. > > 3) Implement a footprint system to track, quantify, and expose how digital platforms fuel division and amplify hate and polarization. > > 4) Ban access to social media for minors under the age of 16 to protect them from “the digital wild west”. > > 5) Work with the public prosecutor to investigate and pursue the infringements committed by Grok, TikTok and Instagram. In addition, Sánchez announced that Spain had joined forces with five other European countries in a coalition of the “digitally willing” committed to enforcing stricter, faster, and more effective regulation of social media platforms. The other countries in the coalition are Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, and Slovenia which issued [a joint policy position in June 2025](https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9110-2025-INIT/en/pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Unsurprisingly, Sánchez’s speech was met with “mixed reviews”. [Elon Musk wrote](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2018746867056513207?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to his 234 million followers on X: “Dirty Sánchez is a tyrant and traitor to the people of Spain 💩”. Telegram CEO Pavel Durov took it a step further by sending the [following message](https://t.me/durov/469?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) directly to all Telegram users in Spain. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/77e4a60b-1cc0-44f9-b894-a84ebab6484d_642x757.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/2db7e9fb-616d-485e-aa70-ccdcc0a76d11_692x652.png) This is a battle of narrative control between governments and tech platforms. Who is suppressing freedom of speech and privacy? Who is demanding transparency and fighting for human rights? Who do we trust - tech platforms or government? Ironically, social media platforms like X and Telegram are contributing to creating this environment where geographical borders and local customs disappear as well as barriers between truths and lies, information and misinformation, authentic and synthetic content and data. Undeniably, tech platforms have disrupted the fabric of the state-governed world. Finally, states are pushing back by leveraging the last card they hold: the use of force. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Let’s Make Futuristic Lawyer a Bestseller URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/futuristic-lawyer-open-for-business/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:04.000Z Support unpretentious analysis of the challenges humanity face in the intersection of law, business, IT, and digital ethics. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### 8 Reasons Why Taylor Lorenz Is Wrong URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/8-reasons-why-taylor-lorenz-is-wrong/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:09.000Z About the moral panic of children’s smartphone use and social media _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Privacy & AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/privacy-and-ai/ Last updated: 2026-01-27T17:08:04.000Z For anyone with an interest in the intersection of privacy and AI, here is my conversation with [Privacat](https://open.substack.com/users/116041592). We get through many topics, including Privacat’s experience in Palantir, the privacy implications of agentic AI browsers, how the EU should deal with American tech companies, why the digital omnibus package is a step in the right direction, and how the EU should rethink its data privacy laws. If you want to see more of Privacat’s work , I recommend the first part of her post series about OpenAI’s mission with ChatGPT Health on Substack: “[The Ladder to Nowhere: How OpenAI Plans to Learn Everything About You](https://insights.priva.cat/p/the-ladder-to-nowhere-how-openai?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” ### How Much Will Expertise Matter in the Age of AI? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-much-will-expertise-matter-in-the-ai-age/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:09.000Z Reader survey and my take on the question. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Performative Silence Is The Only Good Response To AI Writing URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/performative-silence-is-the-only/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:19.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Why Must Algorithms Die? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-must-algorithms-die/ Last updated: 2026-01-12T21:59:55.000Z I just had a great chat with [Alexandra Choli](https://open.substack.com/users/135333533), about my newly released book [*Death To Algorithms*](https://www.death2algorithms.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)*.* This conversation goes to the very core of my book, my motivation for writing it, and many of the thoughts that has occupied my mind for the last year and much longer. Check it out :-) ### Finding the Real in Reality Distortion URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/trump-as-peace-president/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:19.000Z In a strange sense, Trump is a Peace President _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Creator Economy Is an American Tech Billionaire Scheme URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-creator-economy-is-an-american/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:26.000Z …if not, what is it? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Book Launch and Futuristic Lawyer 2026 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/book-launch-and-futuristic-lawyer/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:26.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Introduction to Upcoming Book URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/introduction-to-upcoming-book/ Last updated: 2025-12-18T20:43:40.000Z A quick note to free subscribers _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Death To Algorithms - Introduction URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/death-to-algorithms-introduction/ Last updated: 2025-12-18T20:15:07.000Z ## Introduction The digital transformation has led to great economic prosperity, more convenience, and more opportunities for finding entertainment, knowledge, social connections, and new partners for business or romance. What’s more, it has granted us the ability to communicate seamlessly and in real time across distances and to access unfathomable amounts of information right at our fingertips, perhaps the most defining change to the way humans live since the birth of our species. Figuring out how best to leverage these newfound communicative abilities is a task for us and many generations to come. Currently, the power of the internet is concentrated among a group of American tech conglomerates that have more in common with empires from the past than with public corporations. These actors have privatized and commercialized the internet, narrowing the space for exploration, experimentation, and thought leadership. By owning most of the internet’s hardware, software, and physical infrastructure (e.g. cables, cellular towers, and satellites), they have effectively taken on roles as the gatekeepers of information with one converging vision for the internet’s future: they will control it. The cartel formation around the world’s digital infrastructure is not only blocking innovation by preventing new competitors from entering the market; it is also undermining the foundation for democracy. Any democracy, no matter how it’s structured, rests on a public conversation. “Public” implies that anyone wishing to participate can do so. The “conversation” is only genuine if participants can freely express their opinions, even if they differ from the majority view. Disagreement and dissent should be encouraged, because they force the majority to continually refine and reconsider their viewpoints in the process of defending them. The ongoing discussions serve to sharpen the sword of a well-functioning democracy to cut through nonsense and inefficiency. The public conversation breaks down if participants can’t agree on hard facts. For example, if one side of the conversation insists that the earth is round and the other side insists that the earth is flat, the parties are essentially having different conversations. A meaningful compromise can never be reached. Under such circumstances, the democratic process ceases to be an effective mechanism for governing society. This was less of a problem before the digital transformation, when people read the same newspapers and books, listened to the same radio stations, and watched the same shows and movies on television. Nowadays, we no longer rely on traditional media outlets and publishing companies to stay informed. The primary gatekeepers of information are recommendation algorithms applied on digital platforms that automatically distribute personalized information based on its perceived relevance to users’ profiles and entertainment quality. As a result, we consume news and opinions in personalized information clusters and tend to discuss different things whenever we *try* to have a conversation. Most of the time, we are not even trying. For all the economic progress and endless opportunities the digital transformation has led to, the net result is that a whole lot of people are spending an alarming amount of time staring at screens. Consequently, people are talking less to each other, making less eye contact, touching each other less, and contributing less to the common good. Social withdrawal in favor of screens, algorithms, and fickle digital connections is a driver of existential loneliness and mental health issues and amplifies apathy and division on a societal level. Ironically, it’s great for the economy - particularly the attention economy, which will be a major theme of this book. One survey from the United Kingdom shows that students from their early teen years in secondary school and up to university spend an average of 5.5 hours every day on their smartphones – the equivalent of 25 years of their life if the current trend holds.[\[1\]](#%5Fftn1) From the American tech companies’ perspective, this is great news. More screen time means more data which, in turn, means more revenue. YouTube recently celebrated that its short-form video feed, YouTube Shorts, was averaging over 200 billion daily views.[\[2\]](#%5Fftn2) What are the students, and indeed society, getting in return for all of this screen time? Some chunks of it are spent on essential tasks like school, work and messaging. But the majority of it is spent on entertainment, surrogate intimacy, and unfulfilling but highly addictive online activities. This screen-based adolescence and compulsory smartphone usage comes at high cost. A consensus among researchers from various academic fields is gradually taking shape that it’s the cause of a rapid cognitive decline and a worsening mental crisis among the youth.[\[3\]](#%5Fftn3) Unfortunately, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) will very likely exacerbate these negative impacts. Increasingly, we are outsourcing our thinking and decision-making powers to the AI systems that our American tech giants are employing in an attempt to expand their control of the internet. What is AI? An old joke originating from the 1970s tells us that “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.”[\[4\]](#%5Fftn4) The opposite is just as true. As soon as AI “has been done” it tends to fade into the background of our lives and disappear from public discourse. While media headlines, online chatter and coffee break conversations about AI often center around how people use ChatGPT or when we will all be jobless, the kind of AI that permeates our economy and digital lives is generally left out of the conversation. What we call “predictive AI” forms the backbone of our modern economy. In short, I define predictive AI as the automated process of collecting and analyzing data to make informed decisions and predictions about the future. Data-driven predictions play a role in so many economically significant activities of our age. They are used for targeted advertisement, algorithmic trading, sports betting, personalized pricing and recommendations, hiring new employees, calculating credit scores and making risk profiles on insurance and bank customers, reducing churn for businesses, forecasting the weather, detecting early signs of cancer in patients, anticipating pandemics, planning shipping routes, optimizing energy grids, estimating crop yields in farming, prioritizing themes and plots for new Netflix Originals and much, much more. By contrast, AI systems like ChatGPT are defined by their creative output rather than their prediction-making capabilities, so we characterize them as generative AI. ChatGPT’s paradigm-shifting release in November 2022 was based on more than a decade’s worth of steady research progress in the field of deep learning. Generative AI systems that are in wide use today, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, Meta’s Llama, and xAI’s Grok, are all based on predictive modeling of language and pixels, which could theoretically count as another application of predictive AI. However, once the systems are finished with the initial training process and offered as products, we don’t use them for making predictions, but due to their abilities to autogenerate coherent text and image output. Investments in new infrastructure for generative AI continue to skyrocket, and it’s still too soon to foresee what the end game really looks like. Will these systems benefit humanity anywhere near as much as capital investors claim they will? How much will they add to the existing harms, collective nihilism, and value-confusion invoked by recommendation algorithms? It’s too soon to tell. In this book, I will focus on two specific applications of predictive AI that come with tremendous social and cultural impact: recommender algorithms and matchmaking algorithms. These sub-categories of predictive AI are used in various ways but my analysis is focused on two specific applications: **recommendation algorithms used for entertainment** and **matchmaking algorithms used for online dating**. My analysis will be centered around three case examples: 1) How Netflix revolutionized the recommender system, but flattened culture. 2) How TikTok’s entertainment algorithm outcompeted Facebook’s emphasis on digital connections and weaponized entertainment. 3) How dating apps evolved from Match.com to Tinder and turned relationships into games. In the final chapter, I will give three concrete and practical recommendations that can be implemented to deal with the outsized global influence and power of American tech companies, the addictive pull of digital platforms, the personalized information clusters that stand in the way of common understanding and agreement, and other challenges raised in this book. Two of these are political recommendations aimed at policy makers, and one is a personal recommendation to anyone reading. --- [\[1\]](#%5Fftnref1) Mark Sellman, “Students ‘Will Spend 25 Years on Their Mobiles’,” *The Times*, June 22, 2025, [https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/average-young-person-25-years-phone-screen-time-hwt76mnpq](https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/average-young-person-25-years-phone-screen-time-hwt76mnpq?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). [\[2\]](#%5Fftnref2) Neal Mohan, “Neal Mohan at Cannes Lions 2025: What 20 Years of YouTube Reveals about Creativity’s Future,” *YouTube Official Blog*, June 18, 2025, [https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/neal-mohan-cannes-2025](https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/neal-mohan-cannes-2025?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). [\[3\]](#%5Fftnref3) Valerio Capraro et al., “A Consensus Statement on Potential Negative Impacts of Smartphone and Social Media Use on Adolescent Mental Health,” OSF Preprints, preprint, posted May 15, 2025. [\[4\]](#%5Fftnref4) Larry Tesler, “CV: Adages and Coinages,” Larry Tesler (website), accessed November 7, 2025, [https://www.nomodes.com/larry-tesler-consulting/adages-and-coinages](https://www.nomodes.com/larry-tesler-consulting/adages-and-coinages?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). ### Existential Threats Call For Radical Measures URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/existential-threats-call-for-radical-measures/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:30.000Z Data as a new religion, Trump's new Executive Order, and Australia's ban of social media accounts for children under 16. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The “World” Has Already Ended, You Are Just Not Aware of It URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-world-has-already-ended/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:30.000Z Sorry to inform you about this. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Why Privacy Activists Hate the Digital Omnibus URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-privacy-activists-hate-the-digital-omnibus/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:30.000Z A balanced take. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Meta Is a Criminal Company. It’s a Disaster That It Continues to Operate in the EU. URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/meta-is-a-criminal-company/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:44.000Z When will the EU Commission wake up? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Exposing the Labor Exploitation Behind AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/exposing-the-labor-exploitation-behind-ai/ Last updated: 2025-11-27T10:28:50.000Z On May 9, the US Department of Labor quietly closed an investigation against Scale AI regarding compliance with fair pay practices and working conditions ([Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/us-department-labor-drops-investigation-into-scale-ai-techcrunch-reports-2025-05-09/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). Scale AI is a company at the very center of the “AI revolution”, but it has been subject to some nasty allegations of labor exploitation, on multiple fronts. However, if you have enough money in America, bad things tend to magically go away – at least for right now, and most certainly if you say your work is essential to outcompeting China in the AI superintelligence race. I recently had a chat with [Celeste Garcia](https://open.substack.com/users/193573923) about what Scale AI is, who its founders are, and what the allegations against the company are. Hope you enjoy the conversation and take something away from it! ### How The Attention Economy Fried the Brains of Millennials URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/attention-economy-millennials/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:14:55.000Z A warning to Generation Z and Generation Alpha _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #12 – Generative AI Is the World’s Most Expensive Magic Trick URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-12-generative-ai-expensive-magic-trick/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:15:17.000Z + more on AI and copyright litigation. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Official Pre-Launch of My New Book: "DEATH TO ALGORITHMS -On the Entertainment and Matchmaking Engines That Rule Our Lives" URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/death-to-algorithms/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:15:17.000Z Official Announcement _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Invisible Costs & Inconvenient Truths of Living Online URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-invisible-costs-and-inconvenient/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:15:40.000Z To state the obvious: Over the last thirty(ish) years our lives have become completely enmeshed in digital technology. The urgency, feeling of inevitability, obvious convenience and productivity benefits of the digital transformation of society has served as the last words in most public discussions about the consequences and impacts of digitalization. We have not been forbidden from talking about the potentially negative impacts, but we have simply lacked the vocabulary and proper data to make a compelling case against the one-sided, positive growth story of the internet. This post concerns some of the invisible costs and inconvenient truths related to social media, smartphones, and now AI chatbots and image/video generators. By no means all of them, but a few. The bottom line is that the digital transformation of society has led to economic growth across the line, but complicated our relationships with each other and with culture. We will take a look at: **\- How technology dependency leads to technology addiction** **\- The dating app paradox that keeps people single** **\- How algorithmic control reverse-engineers the social conditioning of children** **\- The rabbit holes that radicalize young men and women** _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Note to All Newsletter Subscribers URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/note-to-all-newsletter-subscribers/ Last updated: 2025-11-06T15:30:31.000Z A short note. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Blockchain Technology Could Radically Transform Europe (No, Really) URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-blockchain-technology-could-radically-transform-europe/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:15:45.000Z The consensus view among US politicians and Silicon Valley is that technological development will be the catalyst for great changes to humanity and societies. I don’t agree. Even if Sam Altman’s wet money dreams come true and America develops “superintelligent AI” chatbots, plus affordable flying cars, humanoid butlers, charter trips to Mars, and more, these inventions are still just *gadgets*. They won’t change what it essentially means to be a human or a member of society *that much*. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes described life in the 17th century as “nasty, brutish and short”. Nowadays, life is “nasty, brutish, and long”. That is to say, we live longer on average, but most of this extra time we have is spent in a zombie-like mind state scrolling, swiping, and streaming. Even though we have more technology and longer life spans, societies are structured in much the same way as they were during Hobbes’ lifetime, and long before that. Societies are structured like beehives. A very tiny group of extremely wealthy people enjoy great privileges, while the rest of us directly or (more commonly) indirectly work to maintain their wealth like worker bees sacrificing their labor for the queen bee. The crucial difference is that a queen bee is necessary for the colony’s survival, and worker bees will sacrifice their own lives to protect it. In contrast, we work for tech billionaires, not out of love or survival, but out of structural necessity, since our societies have been restructured around the digital platforms they own. In general, sophisticated technologies tend to benefit capital holders over wage earners. Specifically, tech billionaires and Trump & Friends are the primary beneficiaries of AI and social media. One could argue that cutting-edge technologies are developed for the very purpose of tightening the elite’s grip on society, leading to no genuine progress, but stagnation ([see George Orwell’s 1984](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nineteen-Eighty-four?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). No, great changes to humanity are not coming from the tasteless ideas of our God-forsaken tech leaders. Great changes to humanity will come when the public resentment against the oligarchy and structural inequality grows so strong that we are finally ready to do something about it. History tells us that oligarchs will not voluntarily renounce their wealth and resources to serve the public good. We have to force them. However, the public can’t force them through violence as in bygone eras, because the oligarchs have access to advanced weapons, military support and can even escape with their families in private jets to luxurious doomsday bunkers if all else fails. Instead, we have to use our minds as weapons and take control of their wealth with our democratic mandates in the political process. In Europe, where laws and democracy still prevail over private interests, we may witness such a revolution occur in the coming years. On the heels of my essay from last week, [The Death of Bitcoin](https://open.substack.com/pub/futuristiclawyer/p/the-death-of-bitcoin?r=12pkqu&utm%5Fcampaign=post&utm%5Fmedium=web), I want to address a potential application of blockchain technology that could radically change society for the better. Can you guess what it is? I have a specific proposal in mind that I will share with paying subscribers below. Unfortunately, I can’t take credit for coming up with it. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Death of Bitcoin URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-death-of-bitcoin/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:15:57.000Z I have held back for a long time from writing this. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Why Are You So Miserable? It's the Economy, Stupid. URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-are-you-so-miserable-its-the/ Last updated: 2025-10-23T04:30:38.000Z Plan to post more of these on my [YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@FuturisticLawyer?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Can they bring value to my audience on Substack? If so, will continue to post them here too. ### Tech Legal Brief #11 – California is Summoning the Antichrist URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-11-california-ai-regulation/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:16:14.000Z ## Introduction Welcome to the 11th edition of my newsletter concept Tech Legal Brief! When I was still a kid in school, I remember singing along to a [famous song by Rammstein](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM&list=RDRr8ljRgcJNM&start%5Fradio=1&ref=futuristiclawyer.com): “We are all living in Amerika, Amerika, it’s wunderbar”. Only now, twenty years later, do I truly understand what those words mean. Unfortunately, living in America is far from as *wunderbar* as it used to be. That is essentially what we will look at in today’s Brief. If you have the means to support the considerable amount of work that goes into Futuristic Lawyer and want to help me take it to the next level, please consider upgrading below for full access and more. [Subscribe now](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/subscribe) Today, we will go through the following agenda: \- **The AI Psychosis Problem** \- **California Is Summoning the Antichrist** \- **California’s AI Companion Law** \- **EU’s Digital Fairness Act** \- **China’s Regulation of AI Chatbots** \- **Tech Legal News (links)** ## The AI Psychosis Problem Following up on the [August edition of Tech Legal Brief about AI psychosis,](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/tech-legal-brief-10-the-ai-psychosis) this mini-documentary by More Perfect Union and Karen Hao is worth watching. OpenAI and its competitors are using humans as guinea pigs and our civilizations as testing grounds for an experiment that concerns manipulation and addiction without a clear end goal in sight. Social media is well-known for its isolating and anti-social effects. Conveniently, technological loneliness has created a market opportunity for AI chatbots to pretend to be our friends, mentors, therapists, and lovers. “Pretend” is the key word here, but users who lack genuine human connection in real life, may instinctively feel like they have discovered an all-knowing partner like Samantha in the movie “Her”. [Building Samantha – A New Paradigm for AI We live in a society that is very much focused on "progress". For companies, this means maximizing revenue and trying to reach a specific goal in the future. In the leading field of AI development, it means developing a superintelligent AI system that can replace human labor at scale, deter military opponents, and be an intimately personal assistant to millions of people like Samantha in the movie “Her”. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-133.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/40db851a-ce0c-482b-b955-41addb5aa548_896x504-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/building-samantha-a-new-ai-paradigm) In reality, users have found a black mirror of internet data. They are figuratively and literally buying into a carefully designed illusion. This illusion is enabled by internet-wide data collection, sophisticated machine learning methods, and unfathomable amounts of money spent on data centers and AI training cost. Just like recommendation algorithms, AI chatbots are designed to please us superficially in order to retain more of our time and attention. In spite of what it seems like, the goal is not to make us happy and informed, but to harvest more of our data and make us pay a monthly subscription fee. Encouraged by the extensive flattery, agreeableness, and human-like personalities that characterize many AI chatbots today, vulnerable users can gradually lose touch with reality as they attempt to have their intellectual, social and emotional needs met through interactions with human-sounding code. In a few heartbreaking cases, the [AI models have worked as suicide assistants for children](https://centerforhumanetechnology.substack.com/p/3-key-takeaways-from-the-first-senate). The same can be said about recommendation algorithms on social media. [Banning TikTok Is The Right Call What does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have in common with TikTok?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-134.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/7e0cc409-829f-43f3-a110-bff1368ba53b_708x400-3.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/banning-tiktok-is-the-right-call) We will get back to this thread in a moment. ## California Is Summoning the Antichrist In October 2025, California’s governor Gavin Newsom signed another batch of AI-related bills into law, solidifying the state’s position as the lead regulator of AI in the US. California is “summoning the antichrist” as [Peter Thiel unironically calls efforts to regulate AI](https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/785407/peter-thiel-antichrist-tech-regulation?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In October 2024, California adopted 19 AI bills covering deepfakes and misinformation, the rights of artists and creators, the integrity of the human body, and the use of AI in the public sector. [Understanding the New AI Laws in California “While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-135.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/941e3f06-5c88-4352-a687-7a3091aac3a7_910x607-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/understanding-the-new-ai-laws-in) This year, California [adopted 12 AI bills ](https://www.lw.com/en/insights/california-assumes-role-as-lead-us-regulator-of-ai?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)(by my count) and [further bills](https://www.techpolicy.press/what-tech-bills-california-governor-newsom-signed-or-vetoed-in-2025/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to: - protect domestic violence survivors from digital harassment ([SB 50](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260sb50?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - study the electricity use of data centers ([SB 57](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260sb57?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - enhance data brokers transparency about the information they collect ([SB 361](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260sb361?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) - require customer notification for data breaches ([SB 446](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260sb446?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - require placement of warning labels on social media for users under 17 ([AB 56](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260ab56?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - give internet users the ability to opt out of the sale of their personal data on browsers ([AB 566](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260ab566?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - provide users with an easy way to delete social media accounts ([AB 656](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260ab656?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - develop cyberbullying rules for schools ([AB 772](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260ab772?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - require app stores to ask for users’ age ([AB 1043](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260ab1043?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), - and allow rideshares to unionize ([AB 1340](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca%5F202520260ab1340?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). As a digital human rights advocate (or antichrist worshipper as Peter Thiel would probably say), I am genuinely excited about these new Californian laws and the positive impact they may have across the US. I am more skeptical about the effectiveness of some of California’s new AI laws. The most prominent AI bill California adopted this year, [SB 53](https://sb53.info/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), also known as the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) is a watered down version of the controversial [SB 1047](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1047/id/2999979?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) which Governor Newsom vetoed one year ago. Like its unsuccessful predecessor, TFAIA is focused on preventing “catastrophic risks” caused by superhuman abilities of AI systems. Specifically, so-called “foundation models” may function as biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction, be engineered to engage in sophisticated cyberwarfare, commit crimes, or evade the control of their developer or user. Foundation models are defined in TFAIA as AI systems that are (1) trained on a broad data set, (2) designed for generality of output, and are (3) adaptable to a wide range of distinctive tasks. Somewhat similar to the EU’s AI Act definition of general purpose AI (GPAI) models. TFAIA targets “frontier models” which are foundation models trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 FLOPs. The AI Act’s corresponding computing threshold for GPAI models is 10^23 FLOPs or 10^25 FLOPs for “GPAI models with systemic risks” that are subject to slightly stricter requirements. “Catastrophic risk” under TFAIA is a very high threshold as it means a “foreseeable and material risk” that contributes to the death or serious injury of 50 or more people or causes at least $1 billion in damages. I can’t imagine that any foundation model today could pose such a “foreseeable risk”, but perhaps it is just me who lacks imagination. TFAIA imposes disclosure and transparency obligations on “large frontier developers” with annual gross revenues above $500 million. [The large frontier developers must](https://fpf.org/blog/californias-sb-53-the-first-frontier-ai-law-explained/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com): - Publish an annual “**Frontier AI Framework**” describing how catastrophic risks are identified, mitigated, and governed. - Publish a “**Transparency Report**” before deploying a frontier model, including details about the model and its restrictions, summaries of catastrophic risk assessments, their results, and the role of third-party evaluators. - Disclose any critical **safety incident** to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of discovery, or 24 hours if the incident poses imminent danger of death or serious injury. - Provide **whistleblower protection** to employees or contractors who report a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk. Failure to meet any of these obligations - which are further specified in TFAIA - can result in penalties of up to $1 million per violation levied by the Attorney General through civil action. On the one hand, it’s great to see California adopt a comprehensive law on AI transparency amidst the anti-regulatory tech climate under Trump. On the other hand, the obligations in TFAIA seem relatively lightweight. The leading AI labs are already following AI safety practices, publishing comprehensive system cards with each new model release, and are making thorough public assessment of the potential catastrophic risks. To be honest, I am in no position to assess how realistic the so-called “catastrophic risks” are or how urgent it is to prevent them. For a long time, I’ve had a sneaking suspicion that the promotion of headline-grabbing catastrophic risks was a strategic ploy by the leading AI labs to take attention away from harmful business practices that are much more closely related to the core of their business. ## California’s AI Companion Law In my view, the major AI threats regular consumers are facing today come from **recommender systems on social media** and **AI chatbots**. Not because these technological inventions will potentially lead to science-fiction like catastrophes, but because they are addictive and manipulate people’s perception of the world. This is especially problematic for vulnerable people and children who may be caught in “rabbit holes” or end up with an AI psychosis. The inner workings of recommender systems on social media remain closely-guarded trade secrets. People who rely on them for daily news, community updates, and entertainment, have no legitimate access to transparency about how the algorithms work and no ability to control them. We can’t expect to see any regulation on this front in the US, because recommender systems have a central importance on digital platforms, and these platforms have a central importance for the US economy and its ability to exert influence over other countries. However, this year, California did adopt a new law on “companion chatbots”, [SB 243](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB243/2025?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). SB 243 made it through the legislative process on the heels of instances such as [the tragic death of 16-year-old Adam Raine](https://www.theatlantic.com/books/2025/10/chatgpt-fictional-character/684571/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) who received encouragement and coaching from ChatGPT on how to commit a “beautiful suicide”, and [leaked internal guidelines by Meta AI](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-chatbot-guidelines/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that stated verbatim “it is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.” As the first of its kind, the new law obligates providers of AI chatbots to implement safety controls for AI companions, taking effect as soon as January 2026\. Seemingly, this is another win for the antichrist. However, if we dig a bit deeper, the consumer protection offered by SB 243 is minimal and indeed insufficient to deal with the challenges AI chatbots are raising in California and elsewhere. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### American Tech Giants No Longer Have a Home in the EU URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/american-tech-giants-no-longer-have/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:16:27.000Z A key theme on Futuristic Lawyer is trying to understand American technology through the lens of European laws and values. I believe that the ideological battle between American technocrats and European bureaucrats will define how humans relate to technology in the 21st century and beyond. While the US has the most advanced tech in the world and very little regulation, the EU has the strongest machinery for regulating tech in the world, but very little innovation. For several years, the jokes have been on the EU for its archaic museums and strict regulation of plastic bottle caps. Now, a political land shift is taking place in the US enabled by market mechanics and the dominance of tech platforms. And it’s no joking matter. For decades, the US held up a guiding light to the rest of the world by showing what the human imagination was capable of when pursued by technical minds and hands and a strong central governing force. As countries outside of the US have now witnessed, the radical openness to bold, new ideas and the innocent naivety that underlies tech-optimism comes at the risk of misplaced trust in leaders with bad intentions. Unelected billionaires and tech platforms now play an outsized role in US politics. Their power has been solidified by Trump’s second election victory, marking the first time in US history when trees with open minds and hearts voted for the ax.[\[1\]](#%5Fftn1) Consequently, in a sharp turn away from the country’s proud tradition of diplomatic and intelligent leadership, the US is now prioritizing the wealth and personal agendas of very rich individuals over the well-being of public society. Senseless tariffs, masked federal agents roaming the streets and kidnapping people with brown skin at random, federal funding cuts to public institutions that exercise their First Amendment right to free speech, and reversed Robin Hood efforts to take money from average and poor Americans and give them to billionaires during a time of rising debt and inflation, is the new normal. Simultaneously, billions of dollars are spent to rapidly construct and expand datacenters in order to meet the outrageous energy demands of AI models that are cynically trained on the world’s corpus of intellectual property. Seemingly, a large portion of Americans turn the other cheek to these developments, and continue to clap rhythmically for the third year in a row to the steady stream of new AI product releases. As Ruchir Sharma pointed out in [a Financial Times article](https://www.ft.com/content/6cc87bd9-cb2f-4f82-99c5-c38748986a2e?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), AI investments account for a 40% share of US GDP growth this year *at minimum* and AI companies have accounted for 80% of gains in US stocks so far in 2025. The driving narrative pushed by the tech-elite is that AI products will soon lead to something called “superintelligence”. This is a new entity that the tech billionaires in Silicon Valley are building in secret and it will solve all of the country’s problems, just wait. Unless, erhm, the superintelligence goes rogue and destroys humanity. But that is a risk worth taking, argues the foreseeing tech billionaires [while investing in doomsday bunkers and remote private islands](https://theconversation.com/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-and-buying-islands-but-are-they-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-or-pioneering-a-new-feudalism-223987?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The arguments against superintelligence are truly hard to refute. Just listen to Sam Altman answering a long and well-articulated argument by the brilliant scientist David Deutsch about why LLMs are not a sustainable path towards AGI: > “Sam Altman: If in a few years GPT-8, figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story about how it did it and the problem it was thinking about and why it decided to work on that. But it still just looks like a language model output, but it really did solve it. Would that be enough to convince you? > > David Deutsch: I think it would, yes. > > Sam Altman: Alright, I will agree to that as a test. > > Host: Thank you, David Deutsch. > > \[End of show, audience applause\]” That is a classic example of a modern expert debate about AI. Here, Sam Altman clearly came out as the crowd’s favorite. No wonder. In the age of social media, the ground truth is often established around whatever feels most gratifying to the dopamine-reward centers of the brain. Why should Americans listen to negative talk about fascism when they can think positively and focus on the grand promises and fantastical visions of tech leaders and Trump? The EU might be decades, if not centuries behind the US in terms of tech innovation. However, the EU’s democratic core remains intact. Likely because Europeans in general are more skeptical and closed-minded compared to Americans. The shield of cynicism protects their democracies from the undue influence of unelected billionaires who have too many good ideas about how society should be governed. Further, freely believing in the most stimulating accounts of the past, present and future erodes the common ground truth that is the basis for democratic conversations. Simply, when people are no longer able to agree on data and facts, there can be no democracy and social media discussions fully disintegrate from the political reality. Right now, few guardrails are holding the American tech elite back from shaping new technologies in their image and to their advantage, while burning taxpayer money on environmentally taxing data centers that come without benefits to locally affected communities. The fact that new products such as Apple Intelligence, Sora 2, Waymo’s self-driving cars and the translation feature in Meta’s Ray Ban glasses are delayed or may never be launched in Europe is a trivial price to pay for continued democracy – in my humble opinion. The EU has no choice, but to distance itself from foreign, money-hungry and data-thirsty tech billionaires during their manic episodes, because they don’t share the EU’s fundamental values of democracy, due process and human rights. As a result, the American BigTech companies will increasingly find that their products and arguments don’t have a home in the EU. I provide six concrete examples below from recent months. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Sora Is a Culture Erasure Machine URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/sora-is-a-culture-erasure-machine/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:17:02.000Z One year ago, I asked if OpenAI’s hype machine could drive down the economy. [Could OpenAIs Hype Machine Drive Down the Economy?OpenAI's official twitter account (not their primary one) was hacked on September 24 to promote a new, fake crypto token. The incident made me think about the parallels between AI hype and crypto hype.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-140.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/bf6c09a7-cbc8-4b8a-afdd-b9f4c3b51982_1140x668-1.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/could-openais-hype-machine-drive) I still think it can and it is. Concerningly, research firm MacroStrategy Partnership [estimates](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-ai-bubble-is-17-times-the-size-of-the-dot-com-frenzy-this-analyst-argues-046e7c5c?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that the AI bubble is 17 times larger than the dot-com bubble and 4 times larger than the 2008 global real estate bubble. But OpenAI is not only propping up the economy with groundless hype. It’s also trying to erase culture and sow doubts about reality. Enter the [new video generation model Sora 2](https://openai.com/index/sora-2/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), which is accompanied by a social media app “Sora” where users can share and scroll 10-second AI-generated video clips. By celebrating diluted copyright material aka nihilistic AI slop in a fast-paced and chaotic TikTok-like video feed, OpenAI is presenting an alternative universe where beloved figures, human experience and the creative expressions of others can be “remixed”, you know, ridiculed with a ChatGPT subscription. The not-so-subliminal message is that our cultural heritage is only good for laughter, that creations of the mind and the efforts going into them hold no significance or value, and that creative work can be freely abused by anyone, however they want and like. Sora is a culture erasure machine. The success of OpenAI’s business model depends on braindead consumers who lack taste, independent thought and agency, just like the AI models they use. More broadly, the economy increasingly depends on useful idiots who don’t ask critical questions or reflect about things, live for dopamine hits and cheap laughs, don’t mind working for an AI agent, eat McDonald’s, [meditate narcissistically](https://substack.com/home/post/p-174915576?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), voted for Trump because he is funny and made a hilarious dance video on TikTok, and voted for [Benjamin Netanyahu because they wanted him as babysitter for their children](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1BltDU4iM&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Apparently, superintelligence is not only reached through raising the bar of artificial intelligence, but through lowering the bar of natural intelligence in society. The second part is what Sora 2 is all about. OpenAI wants us to believe that creating AI slop can be a “social experience”, but it’s fundamentally anti-social. OpenAI needs people to be anti-social, because human resistance lies in communication, coordination and cooperation. Lesson number 12 in [Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny](https://snyder.substack.com/p/twenty-lessons-on-tyranny): “Make eye contact and small talk.” A large group of people who scroll on phones is not a community and is powerless to accomplish anything, really. We also have to note that OpenAI is a dear partner to Trump. I will go so far as to say that a subscription to OpenAI is an indirect vote for Trump, and vice versa. Trump uses OpenAI’s products [to ridicule opponents and push propaganda](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-schumer-jeffries-government-shutdown-b2836200.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). OpenAI uses Trump for political influence and protection. That must be the reason why OpenAI feels comfortable to launch Sora 2 in the midst of multiple business-threatening copyright disputes and growing resistance from creatives and consumers alike. OpenAI is drowning out pro-democracy voices and authenticity by delivering slop and making misinformation trivial. Trump is using the reality distortion mechanism as a distraction maneuver to cover up misdeeds and mismanagement of historical proportions. OpenAI depend on government-funded hype, and Trump depends on corporate-funded slop to keep the anti-intellectual party and the illiterate economy going. A win-win arrangement of sorts. [AI Is a Distraction Maneuver & Back Door Escape for Tech BillionairesAI is a rearrangement of data and capital. Words written by humans throughout centuries are now accessible in a new format via a new medium for a new price. Impressive as LLMs are, we don’t talk nearly enough about how these word calculator monstrosities…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-141.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/2885c567-8ec3-4143-951e-b4b2a9295cfe_1600x1066-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ai-is-a-distraction-maneuver) [The Corporate Takeover of America - Status = Complete American technology and politics have become so intertwined that it’s hard to tell where one domain begins and the other one ends. This week’s post is written in this spirit as it primarily concerns domestic policy affairs in the US.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-142.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/72096670-0d56-4641-90bb-712b39647325_803x452-2.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-corporate-takeover-of-america) [Right-Wing Cancel Culture & Anti-Intellectualism The heyday of left-wing cancel culture on the old Twitter, made anti-intellectualism mainstream and enabled the regime change.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-143.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4e8a1aa3-997b-4ff5-9e62-5759a1b3a02c_410x308-jpeg-4.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/right-wing-cancel-culture-and-anti) Below the paywall, we will take a more detailed look at Sora 2 and why it’s a walking copyright lawsuit that begs for the protection of an authoritarian government. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Africa's Struggle & Opportunity with AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/africas-struggle-and-opportunity/ Last updated: 2025-10-02T04:30:31.000Z Africa plays a much more important role in the development of AI, than most people are aware of. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) alone is home to more than 70% of global cobalt production, a mineral used in semiconductor manufacturing and the energy storage technologies that power AI datacenters. In spite of Africa’s rich soil which enables modern technologies, Africans tend to be underrepresented or left out of global conversations about AI. Why is that? African visionaries and change-makers are trying to change status quo with a community-centered approach to technology mirroring the African saying “Ubuntu” which means “I am because we are”. I learned all of this and more in my recent conversation with [Rebecca Mbaya](https://open.substack.com/users/316787784). You can find the time stamps to our conversation on [YouTube](https://youtu.be/d4fn0UAyHVM?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and on your favorite streaming service. ### Right-Wing Cancel Culture & Anti-Intellectualism URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/right-wing-cancel-culture-and-anti/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:17:20.000Z "If you hire clowns, you should expect a circus" - Thomas L. Friedman, NY Times _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How to Protect Future Generations From the Twenty Six Words That Ruined the Internet URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-to-protect-future-generations-from-section-230/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:17:34.000Z If platforms cannot or will not protect children, who will? Parents? They can’t. There is no such thing as giving a digital house arrest. What kids do on their phones while alone in their rooms or in school with friends is as good as impossible to keep track of. Under normal circumstances, the government would step in to protect children from harm when parents are unable to. That is, after all, why we pay taxes. However, when it comes to protecting kids on online platforms, the US government seems just as powerless as parents are. BigTech companies have become unusually powerful and hard to regulate because of enormous economic bargaining power, lobbying efforts and the unintended aftereffects of a thirty-year-old law that is colloquially known as Section 230. Section 230 was added to the Communications Decency Act in 1996 in an effort by US policymakers to protect children online from “indecency”, including porn and uncomfortable grownups. Unfortunately, it has achieved the opposite result. Due to an expansive interpretation of Section 230’s scope applied early on by the courts, the law has worked as an accountability sink for online platforms, shielding them from civil lawsuits while not obligating them in any shape, way, or form to moderate indecent material. Section 230 was designed for a different time. When it was adopted in 1996 people had to dial-in a phone number to access the internet through a modem connection. Internet speed and bandwidth had not yet developed to a point where it could support any kind of streaming and it was normal to have to wait a few minutes before a webpage loaded, especially if it had images. People used landline phones to communicate and the closest thing most people had to social media accounts were personal ads in the newspaper and call-in shows on the radio and television. It was a simpler and better time. Before the age of monsters. ([CC Giuliano da Empoli](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/808353/the-hour-of-the-predator-by-giuliano-da-empoli/9781805680161?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) Technology was less developed and the quality of life was higher. Human civilization evolved around humans, not data collection. Antitrust laws were enforced in the US, so companies were regulated by healthy competition. The future of the internet seemed bright and exciting. The government listened affectionately to the wide-eyed dreamers from California and treated them like special children. Then, they gained too much power and influence, lost the public’s admiration, turned sociopathic, and started cutting off the hand that was feeding them. Section 230 was from a time people now long for. Even young people who were not born at the time, feel a sense of nostalgia towards the 1990s. Back then, people enjoyed each other’s company without the constant distraction of phones. Instead, people had barbeque parties with their neighbors, spent coins on an arcade machine, found their way with a map in the auto camper or got lost together without a GPS, watched drive-in movies under the stars, and told stories around the bonfire. At least that’s the message transmitted in [a trend of AI-generated videos that glorify life in the 90s and 80s](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/style/ai-nostalgia-tiktok-90s-80s.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). But there is something to it. The peace and optimistic innocence of that bygone era have been lost. The internet was supposed to serve humankind by promoting civil rights, free speech and individual autonomy, but instead it became monopolized, repurposed to surveil, track, addict, and monitor us. No matter what capital investors and certain social media users may say, generative AI cannot fix the broken infrastructure of the internet. Indeed, it’s impossible to see how a sense of peace and sanity can be restored in societies, unless the attention-harvesting business model of social media companies is regulated outside of their private walled gardens. Internet laws in the US should reflect what the internet looks like today, not what is looked like thirty years ago. My paid analysis below is dedicated to casual readers and experienced legal scholars alike. We will look in more detail at how: - Section 230 is antiquated and unfit to deal with the contemporary internet - Certain courts have interpreted the scope of Section 230 differently from the intentions of Congress - Why and how Section 230 should be reformed _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Banning TikTok Is The Right Call URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/banning-tiktok-is-the-right-call/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:17:39.000Z What does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have in common with TikTok? They are both allegedly designed to benefit and protect children, but end up harming them greatly. The Communications Decency Act was adopted in 1996 to protect children from unrestricted access to internet pornography. At the time, politicians thought of online platforms as digital newspapers and could not possibly have foreseen the hyper-stimulating, personalized, algorithmically curated and omnipresent social media experience that has become integral to modern life today. Section 230 (c) (1) in particular, has been called “[the twenty six words that created the internet](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvr7fcrd?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” although the policymakers adopting it, did so as an afterthought, a detail that was part of a much larger legal framework. No one intentioned or foresaw that Section 230 (c) (1) would end up as an accountability sink for BigTech social media, absolving them for any social and legal responsibility related to their platforms. Next week, we will take a closer look at Section 230’s impact, and explain why and how it should be reformed, using TikTok as one case example. [Section 230 Made the Internet Possible, But Is No Longer Serving Humanity One of the major findings I have discovered in my 5+ years studying and writing about the intersection of tech, law, and society, is that “the global internet” is an illusion. We tend to speak of the “internet” as a global, public common good, but that is the illusion.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-155.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/b44923ac-8259-4dd2-bec1-d9fa45a0f4be_639x410-jpeg-3.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/section-230-made-the-internet-possible) TikTok’s gamified design is marketed and indeed appeals the most to children and teens. Measured on daily average usage time, TikTok is the most successful social media app in the world, ever. The revenue of TikTok’s parent company ByteDance [recently surpassed that of Meta](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/tiktok-owner-bytedance-sets-valuation-over-330-billion-revenue-grows-sources-say-2025-08-27/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (despite ByteDance having a market cap valued less than one-fifth of Meta). However, underlying TikTok’s commercial success story hides a darker story about technology addictiveness and algorithmic harm. The second story will be the topic of this week’s post. As a courtesy to free readers, I will write this post backwardly, starting with my conclusion. On September 17, Trump is [expected to grant TikTok another extension](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/business/trump-tiktok-ban-deadline.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for finding an American buyer or face a potential ban in the US. (*Update: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent* [*said yesterday*](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/15/trump-tiktok-china.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *that a framework deal with China has been reached and is expected to be finalized this Friday*). I personally think a TikTok ban would be a net benefit to society. And it has nothing to do with geopolitics, or the considerable privacy and security concerns associated with TikTok’s Chinese ownership. On the positive side, TikTok has provided independent creators with new opportunities for exposure and revenue. Which is great! However, the negative implications of TikTok outweigh these benefits. TikTok is dangerous to use for its prime audience - children - and it has a cancerous impact on collective society. It can surely not be a cosmic coincidence that the app is banned in China where it’s from. The dangers and harms of TikTok is driven by its For Your Page (FYP) algorithm which has a very unfortunate tendency to lead users into so called “rabbit holes”. You can find a report by Amnesty International about the topic [here](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/tiktok-risks-pushing-children-towards-harmful-content/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). I also recommend checking out [Gurwinder](https://open.substack.com/users/60064691)’s post “[TikTok is a Time Bomb](https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/tiktok-may-be-a-chinese-bio-weapon?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” which was a major inspiration for myself. Unless TikTok reforms its algorithm, offer users more control of their experience within the app, public authorities and independent experts more transparency about how it works, and implement a reliable mechanism for age-verification, I don’t see any constructive path forward for TikTok that is beneficial to societies. The paid analysis below is an excerpt from a draft of my upcoming book that will offer more insights on the harms of TikTok. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Will AI Impact Software Engineers? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-will-ai-impact-software-engineers/ Last updated: 2025-09-11T04:30:21.000Z [Charlie Guo](https://open.substack.com/users/3625174) is the author of [Artificial Ignorance](https://open.substack.com/users/1407539). In my humble opinion, *the* best weekly breakdown of AI news on Substack. I recently had a chat with Charlie about how AI will impact the profession of software engineering among other related topics. You can find time stamps for our conversation below (easier to navigate on YouTube, link [here](https://youtu.be/PU5STebyGRg?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), or on various streaming services) 00:00 Friendly introduction 01:05 What made Charlie go into writing about AI? 02:32 What has changed in AI over the last 2.5 years? 04:13 Who will AI benefit the most? 06:03: How will AI impact the work of software engineers? 08:01 The major concern about AI’s impacts on coding 10:22 How Charlie uses AI in his writing process 12:06 Vulnerability in vibe coding 13:20 The longer trajectory of AI development 18:06 How GPT-4, GPT-5, Claude and Grok 4 compares to each other as writing assistants 22:40 Near-term future of AI agents 30:08 AI impact on social media 32:00 Should young people still pursue software engineering as a career path? 34:42 Why AI writing is uninteresting 38:16 Raising a child in the age of AI 43:03 Outro ### Links to further reading [Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence](https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Canaries%5FBrynjolfssonChandarChen.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by Erik Brynjolfsson, Bharat Chandar and Ruyu Chen (August 2025) [MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing](https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generative-ai-pilots-at-companies-failing-cfo/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by Sheryl Estrada/Fortune (August 2025) ### The Corporate Takeover of America - Status = Complete URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-corporate-takeover-of-america/ Last updated: 2026-09-04T11:27:52.000Z Google’s Antitrust Win, Silicon Valley’s Super PACs & Must-Read Post by Timothy Snyder _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Section 230 Made the Internet Possible, But Is No Longer Serving Humanity URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/section-230-made-the-internet-possible/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:18:35.000Z One of the major findings I have discovered in my 5+ years studying and writing about the intersection of tech, law, and society, is that “the global internet” is an illusion. We tend to speak of the “internet” as a global, public common good, but that is the illusion. We could call it the “American Internet”, but even that expression is inaccurate since the internet has little to do with American history, tradition, way of thinking, and culture. Without veering into identity politics and muddy waters, it’s confirmable that the internet we use today was created by a tiny, socioeconomically privileged group of people in America, typically white males in their twenties and thirties, who were typically educated at top universities such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, and UCLA. The internet must presumably reflect what this group of people value the most, you know, instant gratification, status games, convenience, constant entertainment, aesthetically and materialistically pleasing things, and information with shock value. Today, the internet is governed and controlled by what we call “BigTech”, a group of five-to-seven privately-owned, international conglomerates with market caps that exceed the GDP of almost all countries except the US, China, and the EU if we count it as a single market. These companies are all US-based, and that is not a coincidence. The US market is much richer, freer, and less regulated than other places on the planet - an enabling business environment that has proven to be great for innovation. On the downside, antitrust laws were not being enforced during the company’s hockey stick growth journeys, as the American internet became the world’s internet. It created a “winner-takes-all” market dynamic, where the big fish grew bigger by eating the smaller fish, indefinitely. As a result, BigTech are now far more powerful and politically influential than they should be, especially since they don’t have to abide by the same democratic and bureaucratic constraints and norms as freely elected governments are required to. As I see it, the Trump administration is a symptom of this development. BigTech’s growing political and economic power, have catalyzed a shift in the US from a public governance model to a private imperialist model, championed by BigTech and now adopted by Trump. [Trump Will Run the US Government Like a BigTech CompanyToday, I will share a few observations about the US presidential election as it will directly impact the future of AI, tech, and law, in the US, Europe, and elsewhere.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-162.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4648eaef-e9f8-472c-bd23-d9910b0ccb14_1472x852-jpeg-1.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/trump-will-run-the-us-government) The defining trait of the internet today is *insincerity.* I am not just thinking of how possible it is to fake having a seamless life on Instagram, pretending to be in a relationship with a model on OnlyFans or Character.AI, scamming someone into buying a course through TikTok, or posing as an expert on whatever is trendy on LinkedIn. The internet seems to relish in insincerity, but my point is deeper than that. What I mean by insincerity is that the internet will give you a radically different experience depending on where you are based and on who you are. Except it doesn’t care about who you are as person*,* but offers a differential treatment based on the stereotype it perceives you fit into. Your experience on the internet - the news, media, and advertisement you are exposed to - will be *radically* different if you are young or old, male or female, interested in sports or music, located in Ohio or Zimbabwe. Either we call this kind of personalization smart business, because if every user experience is uniquely customized to the individual, you can’t go wrong. Or we call it insincere, because treating people based on fake perceptions of who they are may serve their needs superficially, but it moves people further away from each other on a humane level. The BigTech sector owns most of the internet’s infrastructure (hardware, software, and physical infrastructure), but it doesn’t control much of the day-to-day operation. That is automatically carried out by algorithms, what we call “predictive AI”. This type of AI is categorically different from ChatGPT-like generative AI, but arguably more influential. Even though we never see it or think about it as users, it runs in the background of all our interactions with the internet. Recommender systems on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Netflix, Google, Amazon, personalizes our online experience. Because our experiences are tailored to our personalities by the algorithms, it’s convenient to think that the algorithms are value-neutral and bias-free. This misconception finds a legal basis in an American law from 1996 that have been interpreted by courts to mean that algorithms are immune from publisher liability. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #10 – The AI Psychosis URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-10-the-ai-psychosis/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:18:46.000Z + major adult entertainment company sues Meta & the challenge of age verification. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Hard Limit on AI Progress URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-hard-limit-on-ai-progress/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:19:20.000Z ## Introduction Are we reaching a hard limit on AI progress? For anyone who has been paying attention (at least to this newsletter), the answer is probably yes. [Futuristic Lawyer's View on AGI Ah yes, superintelligence aka AGI.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-170.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/d3009468-f882-42b8-80fa-cd7378ece512_2724x1330-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/futuristic-lawyers-view-on-agi) Cal Newport provides a good timeline of the “scaling hypothesis” for The New Yorker [here](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-if-ai-doesnt-get-much-better-than-this?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The short summary is that Gary Marcus was ridiculed by the machine learning community, including celebrities such as Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Yann LeCun, when he argued in 2022 that the current progress in AI was unsustainable. Now, after the release of GPT-5, he has [finally been vindicated](https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/gpt-5-overdue-overhyped-and-underwhelming). Obviously, exponential technological progress can’t go on forever - that anyone is willing to stand on the other side of that argument, is surprising. To be clear, the problem is not whether, or to what extend AI is useful or not. Clearly, AI is useful for some things and not useful for others. The real problem, as I see it, is that the economy favors the Sam Altmans of the world many times more than the Gary Marcus’s of the world. Shareholders in BigTech companies and venture capitalists are like children; they like to be told captivating stories, not hear about boring facts. When you own a couple of beach houses, private jets, and yachts, choosing to believe in good stories over facts is presumably that much easier compared to other people who are forced to find a sense of meaning and satisfaction in normal, boring reality. [Science Fiction, AI & The Fourth Law of RoboticsI received a friendly challenge from Conrad Gray to write about the “Fourth Law of Robotics” as proposed by Dariusz Jemielniak in IEEE Spectrum.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-171.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/8eefa349-6fd7-4e55-9e82-c3d2a882b709_1280x1093-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/science-fiction-ai-and-the-fourth) ## The Hard Limit on AI A few months ago, Thomas Wolf, Chief Science Officer of the popular AI community Hugging Face, wrote a blog post titled “[The Einstein AI Model](https://thomwolf.io/blog/scientific-ai.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#follow-up)”. He critiqued a claim made by Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei, who said we’ll have a "*country of Einsteins sitting in a data center”.* Wolf contests that no, we are building “*a country of yes-men on servers*: > “I’ve always been a straight-A student. Coming from a small village, I joined the top French engineering school before getting accepted to MIT for PhD. School was always quite easy for me. I could just get where the professor was going, where the exam's creators were taking us and could predict the test questions beforehand. > > That’s why, when I eventually became a researcher (more specifically a PhD student), I was completely shocked to discover that I was a pretty average, underwhelming, mediocre researcher. While many colleagues around me had interesting ideas, I was constantly hitting a wall. If something was not written in a book I could not invent it unless it was a rather useless variation of a known theory. More annoyingly, I found it very hard to challenge the status-quo, to question what I had learned. I was no Einstein, I was just very good at school. Or maybe even: I was no Einstein in part \*because\* I was good at school. > > (..) > > “The main mistake people usually make is thinking Newton or Einstein were just scaled-up good students, that a genius comes to life when you linearly extrapolate a top-10% student.” To come up with ingenious ideas requires asking tough and courageous questions that no one has thought of or dared to ask before. The current political climate in the US is the opposite of a fertile breeding ground for exploring groundbreaking ideas and tough scientific questions. [The Intelligence Pill Note: Sometimes inspiration comes from strange places. I recently had a dream about what it would feel like if a pill existed that made people superintelligent. I woke up and used that premise for this week’s post. It…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-172.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/63ff85c2-651d-4704-ada9-c5da52c8117f_499x499-jpeg-1.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-intelligence-pill) The AI models of today are straight-A students, but they arguably lack the “Einstein factor”. The metaphor can be extended even further. The top AI models of today are straight-A students, but before the exams, they have been studying nonstop without sleep for days, doped up on coffee, Adderall, and Ritalin while suffering under self-esteem issues and the burden of expectation from strict parents. Even once the AI models pass all tests with flying colors and go on to have prosperous careers as doctors, lawyers, and engineers, they continue to feel insufficient. That is because the AI models are extremely good at performing, but the performance comes with invisible costs, including huge capital spending, climate impacts, lowly paid data annotators who work under demeaning conditions, and “theft” or “stealing” [as one judge recently described](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.231.0%5F4.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) the custom of using books from piracy repositories to train AI models. Also, impressive as the models’ auto-generations are, they still lack a certain human quality - which could also be said about many “straight-A students”. In this post, I try to tackle the limits of AI from a perspective of existential philosophy. The hard limit AI is coming up against is related to [the hard problem of consciousness](https://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The hard problem of consciousness means, in a nutshell, that we can observe and measure phenomena in the physical world but not explain why physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience in the first place. We can measure a human’s heart rate and brain activity, but not how they are subjectively thinking, feeling, and experiencing the world. Because we can never put our essential “humanness” into a matrix, there is a hard limit on how “human” AI can become. In turn, this makes it very challenging to touch [the philosopher’s stone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s%5Fstone?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of American AI labs: AGI that eliminates all human labor. It can be summed up like this: Anything that can’t be measured can’t be data. And all things that make life worth living can't be measured. On this background, the hard limit on AI progress is not related to compute bottlenecks or inefficiency of algorithms, but to quality of data. Unfortunately, this hard limit does not only pertain to AI progress but to the progress of our entire data-driven society. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Former Biden Advisor On Trump's AI Use URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/former-biden-advisor-on-trump-ai-use/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:19:21.000Z In this episode, we get to know [Natalia Cote-Munoz](https://open.substack.com/users/24399). Natalia used to work for the Biden administration and is now exploring her interest in AI. Based on Natalia’s unique perspective and insights, we discuss the following topics: - The strategy laid out in America’s AI Action Plan - How Trump is approaching AI vs. how the Biden/Harris administration would - The focus on getting rid of “woke AI” - Why the Trump administration is advocating for open-source AI - Comparison with the AI strategies of Europe and China You can check out Natalia’s work on Substack below. [Artificial InquiryExploring AI through experimentation and current affairs—and questioning what it means for how we think, understand, and evolve.By Natalia Cote-Munoz](https://artificialinquiry.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### The EU Holds a Regulatory Kill Switch to the Attention Economy URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/eu-regulatory-kill-switch-attention-economy/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:19:26.000Z Less than one year into the second Trump term, we can see how the marriage between technocapitalism and American politics has been hugely favorable for BigTech and the country’s “homegrown AI” sector. Stock valuations and VC investments in AI are soaring. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently [handed Trump a custom-made Apple plaque of 24-karat gold](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/07/tim-cook-trump-gift/85555805007/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) engraved with the President’s name and the text "Made in America", following the announcement of Apple’s new $100 billion investment in domestic manufacturing, on top of the $500 billion Apple has already committed. Trump is a social media-kind-of President, seemingly crafted for the age of attention. His entertaining character and rhetorical style are a perfect match for the short-form video format, news headlines, trending social media posts, and virality in all its shades. If anything, Trump knows how to garner attention, good or bad attention - it doesn’t matter – because whoever gets people talking in the attention age, wins big. While traditional allies of the US could dismiss Trump's first term as a one-off blunder, the second Trump term solidifies the fact that we live in a new era. An era where attention is the most valuable currency. An era that has been created by American BigTech and is defined by its lack of consistency or any pretense of order and structure. Moral values, community, real connections between people, and societal institutions that used to provide people with a sense of identity and belonging are sucked into a vortex where everything constantly changes form, and nothing matters besides the price on your attention. Europe has been accused, for instance, in [JD Vance’s keynote address at the 2025 Munich security conference](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceve3wl21x1o?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), of suppressing free speech by censoring social media posts that express controversial viewpoints, false claims, or defamatory statements. Interestingly, the alternative to social media censorship appears to be worse. If people’s attention can be bought and sold without moderation, it opens the door to fascist propaganda and authoritarian control. Jason Stanley described this phenomenon in his book “[How Propaganda Works](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691173429/how-propaganda-works?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” (2016). > *“There is a simple and compelling argument, known since Plato, which would lead us to expect that even apparently robust liberal democracies are such in name only. The argument is as follows. A certain form of propaganda, associated with demagogues, poses an existential threat to liberal democracy. The nature of liberal democracy prevents propagandistic statements from being banned, since among the liberties it permits is the freedom of speech. But since humans have characteristic rational weaknesses and are susceptible to flattery and manipulation, allowing propaganda has a high likelihood of leading to tyranny, and hence to the end of liberal democracy.”* In this way, freedom of speech, an important democratic right, can ironically lead to the end of democracy. The EU is facing a stark choice. On one hand, Europe’s territorial borders are threatened by Russian expansion, and it currently relies on the US for defense. On the other hand, we can safely say that the transatlantic partnership is no longer what it once was. [President John F. Kennedy said about the EU in 1962](https://aei.pitt.edu/43697/1/A7440.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), "*The United States looks on this vast new enterprise with hope and admiration. We do not regard a strong and united Europe as a rival, but a partner*”. In 2025, [Trump told reporters](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-formed-to-screw-united-states-tariffs?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), "*Look, let's be honest, the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it, and they've done a good job of it. But now I'm president.*" From a European perspective, the dependency on American information technology is not the convenience it once was but more of a liability. Namely, the American social media platforms that serve the interests of BigTech are an existential threat to the EU’s data sovereignty, strict data privacy laws, and constituent limitations on free speech. Either the EU pushes back with the means that it has, or it must accept that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is most valuable as training fodder for American AI models. If the EU wants to set itself free from the attention economy, once and for all, it must ban targeted advertisement. I am not saying that it would be the right thing to do – necessarily - but in my view, it is the strongest leverage the EU has against Trump. Banning targeted advertisement would hurt American BigTech, but align with the principles of GDPR, free European citizens from foreign surveillance and manipulation, and effectively put an end to the attention economy in Europe. In my paid analysis below, we shall see how the EU is moving slowly but steadily to a ban on targeted advertisement, with a focus on the regulatory measures against Meta. With ownership of Facebook and Instagram, Meta is the dark beating heart of the attention economy. The company [disclosed](https://www.techloy.com/metas-ad-business-generated-98-percent-of-its-total-revenue-in-q2-2025/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in its earnings report from Q2 2025 that it earned $46.56 billion from selling ads, corresponding to 98% of its total revenue. Meta’s ads sale is based on an extensive user surveillance that - I have reason to believe – is irreparably violating European laws and ethical principles. If the EU started to uphold the GDPR strictly and mercilessly against the American tech giants, I believe that Facebook and Instagram would no longer be able to operate in Europe. Other American tech giants would be in serious trouble too. Most obviously, Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, which [earned approximately](https://abc.xyz/assets/cc/27/3ada14014efbadd7a58472f1f3f4/2025q2-alphabet-earnings-release.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) $71.3 billion from ads in Q2 2025, about 74% of its total quarterly revenue, based on targeted advertisement and some degree of user surveillance. In the following sections, we will look at Meta’s regulatory issues in the EU regarding targeted advertisement and see how the situation is escalating towards a defining stalemate between the values of Meta and the EU. ## Meta’s “Forced Consent” On May 25, 2018 - the day GDPR entered into effect – noyb, the independent privacy watchdog founded by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, [filed four complaints](https://noyb.eu/en/noybeu-filed-complaints-over-forced-consent-against-google-instagram-whatsapp-and-facebook?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) against Google, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram over the platforms' use of “forced consent”. [How noyb is Challenging the Privacy Practices of US Tech Giants in EuropeMax Schrems’ non-profit privacy group, noyb ( “none of your business”) is doing the work of a saint in Europe to hold BigTech accountable for dubious privacy practices.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-177.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/650116a4-4377-4d5b-b8ed-9a29e7c01753_1024x1024-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-noyb-is-challenging-the-privacy) The legal issue explained in a nutshell: All four platforms required users to agree to their entire privacy policy and terms of service as a condition for gaining access to their services. Technically, GDPR does allow “the performance of a contract” (Article 6 (1) (b)) as a legal basis for data processing, but this provision has to be interpreted narrowly. noyb referred to a [report from 2014](https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp217%5Fen.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by the EU’s independent advisory body on data protection and privacy, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (now replaced by the European Data Protection Board), which made it clear that Article 6 (1) (b): > *“is not a suitable legal ground for building a profile of the user’s tastes and lifestyle based on his click-stream on a website and the items purchased. This is because the data controller has not been contracted to carry out profiling, but rather to deliver particular goods and services, for example. Even if these processing activities are specifically mentioned in the small print of the contract, this fact alone does not make them ‘necessary’ for the performance of the contract.”* When users signed up to Google, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, they were forced to agree to behavioral analysis and targeted advertisement as necessary contractual conditions, but cf. the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party’s guidance, this was not allowed. On January 4, 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) [issued](https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-meta-prohibited-use-personal-data-advertising?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a €390 million fine to Meta - €210 million for Facebook's violation and €180 million for Instagram’s violation. [Google was issued a fine](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-hits-google-with-e50-million-fine-for-gdpr-violation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of €50 million by the French data authority CNIL on similar grounds, and [WhatsApp was fined](https://noyb.eu/en/just-eu-55-million-whatsapp-dpc-finally-gives-finger-edpb?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) only €5.5 million by the DPC because it relies much less on personalized ads. The fines came with a prohibition to the platforms for relying on the “performance of a contract” in Article 6 (1) (b) as a legal basis for processing data about users for profiling and targeted advertisement. Six months later, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) reached the same conclusion in [Case C-252/21 Bundeskartellamt](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=275125&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11981163&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), underlining that Meta’s use of data for personalized advertisement must be based on “consent” (Article (6) (1) (a)) as the legal basis, not “the performance of a contract” (Article (6) (1) (b)) or “legitimate interest” (Article (6) (1) (f)). As one would expect of Meta, it refused to accept the European regulators' demands with a bowed head and didn’t immediately change its practice. Users were still required to accept all its terms of service to use Facebook and Instagram. In the wake of CJEU’s decision in Case C-252/21, the Norwegian data authority [ordered Meta to temporarily suspend targeted advertisement](https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/17/norway-meta-ads-ban/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in the country for three months, or face fines of up to one million Norwegian kroner (about $100,000) per day. Meta still refused to comply. The Norwegian data protection authority forwarded the matter to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). On October 27, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) [adopted an urgent binding decision](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/urgent-binding-decision-board-art-66/urgent-binding-decision-012023%5Fen?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in accordance with GDPR Article 66 (2) to impose a temporary ban on Meta's processing of personal data for “behavioural advertising” without a sufficient legal basis. The ban would have effect in the entire European Economic Area (EEA) (the EU member states + Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). Finally, Meta was forced to react. Starting in November, 2023, users in the EEA-area over the age of 18 have been offered [paid versions](https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of Facebook and Instagram without advertisement, currently for a monthly subscription price €5.99 on the web, €7.99/month on iOS and Android, and €4 and €5 for each additional account on the web and iOS/Android respectively. ## The Data Used for Targeted Advertisement We have now established that Meta’s processing of personal data for the purpose of targeted advertisement needs to be based on the explicit consent of users in the EU. The pay or consent model, which Meta is still using today, presumes that consent is a binary choice between either accessing a service or not accessing it. That is, unfortunately for Meta, not how the CJEU sees it. In relation to another case against Facebook filed by Max Schrems, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of Austria) requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU about the scope of consent for targeted advertisement ([C-446/21](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document%5Fprint.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=290674&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=335887&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). The facts of the case concerned that Schrems regularly received advertising targeted at homosexuals on Facebook, even though he had never posted about his sexuality or given any indication thereof. Nonetheless, Meta had inferred that Schrems was gay through [third-party cookies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party%5Fcookies?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and so-called social plug-ins, which allow users to like, share, comment, and send Facebook posts to friends through other websites. Additionally, Meta could draw inferences about Schrems from his friends list, which would show that he did civilian service with the Red Cross in Salzburg and was homosexual. Meta even held a list of Schrems activities outside Facebook, which included dating apps and dating websites for homosexuals, and a website of an Austrian political party. All of this sensitive information was stored without a time limit. A key question in the case was whether Meta could legally store this data for an unlimited period of time and use it for the purpose of targeted advertisement based on Schrems’ consent alone? The CJEU ruled that it could not. The data processing violated GDPR’s data minimisation principle in Article 5 (1) (c), which states that personal data shall be “*adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed*”. Even with the users’ consent, Meta did not receive carte blanche for processing sensitive data about the data subject (Article 9 (1)) or store personal data about social media users for an unlimited period of time. According to the CJEU, such processing must be considered “*a disproportionate interference in the rights guaranteed (..) by the GDPR*”. To sum up, targeted advertisement should be limited in scope and duration, even if the user consents to the data processing. ## Meta’s Pay or Consent Model To accommodate the CJEU’s demands, Meta [began offering](https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a new option to free users of Facebook and Instagram from November 2024, “*with less personalized ads*," which would “*use significantly less data to show ads, so ads may be less relevant to a person’s interests.*” Phrased in this way, it does sound peculiar that free users of Facebook and Instagram would prefer to see *less* relevant ads. The frustration of Meta’s lawyers is palpable in the announcement. As they see it, Meta has bent over backwards in an attempt to satisfy the demands of European regulators. First, by offering an ad-free version of its services, and then by giving users the option of seeing *less* personalized advertisements. In Meta's words, "*these significant changes (..) goes beyond what is required in the law*”. “Now the European legislators *must* finally be satisfied?” I imagine lawyers at Meta ask disgruntled and disheartened from dealing with so much vicious bureaucracy outside the land of Trump. The truth is, however, that Meta’s pay or consent model is most likely unworkable under European data laws. [The EU Commission fined Meta €200 million in April 2025](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F25%5F1085?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) because the pay and consent model did not comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) between March 2024, when the model became binding, and November 2024, when Meta updated it to include an option with less personalized ads (the full decision is available [here](https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital%5Fmarkets%5Fact/cases/202525/DMA%5F100055%5F528.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). The November 2024 change, which applies in the EU today, is currently being assessed by the EU Commission for compliance with DMA. People with direct knowledge of the matter [told Reuters last month ](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-wont-tweak-pay-or-consent-model-further-despite-risk-eu-fines-sources-say-2025-07-11/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)that Meta is very unlikely to offer further changes to its pay or consent model, which will “almost certainly” lead to new charges. Under the DMA, fines for non-compliance can reach as much as 5% of a company's average daily worldwide turnover. In my view, Meta and the EU regulators are reaching a critical junction that shows a fundamental difference in values. Meta insists that its current model [complies with the DMA](https://about.fb.com/news/2025/07/why-the-commissions-decision-undermines-the-goals-of-the-dma/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The EU Commission emphasizes that the cost-free versions of Facebook and Instagram are not *equivalent* to the ad-free versions, for the simple reason that users need to pay. The only way that Meta could comply with the DMA is to offer a free version of Facebook and Instagram that is also free of targeted advertising. Only under those circumstances would users be given a free choice. As an alternative to targeted advertisement, Facebook and Instagram could apply non-targeted advertisement. However, that would be detrimental to the user experience since ads would then appear on feeds at random, generally be much less relevant, and ultimately generate fewer clicks and revenue for advertisers. Another way to go would be if Meta complied with the EU Commission's demands and created cost-free, ad-free alternatives to their two social media services. But if users had a legitimate option to use Facebook and Instagram *without* targeted advertisement, how many would prefer to use them *with*? Chancers are not that many. Meta would be prevented from profiting on those users, undermining the business model completely. ## Closing Thoughts Privacy is considered a fundamental human right in the EU, on par with freedom of speech. In the US, privacy has traditionally not been granted the same weight and emphasis, and that is why Facebook and Google have managed to grow so monstrously big. I don’t think this conflict in values between the EU and the US has ever been confronted head-on. But unless the EU takes the unlikely route of submitting to MAGA like Apple CEO Tim Cook and neglects its founding values, a confrontation is inevitable. The pressure BigTech currently faces to conform to European values is becoming more and more tangible. Just last month, a [German court ordered](https://therecord.media/german-court-meta-tracking-tech?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) Meta to pay €5.000 to a Facebook user for tracking him on third-party websites via cookies. A court in Brussels recently ruled that [tracking-based advertising by Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and X, across Europe, has no legal basis](https://www.iccl.ie/digital-data/eu-ruling-tracking-based-advertising-by-google-microsoft-amazon-x-across-europe-has-no-legal-basis/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The Digital Services Act already prohibits showing targeted advertisements to minors (Article 28 (2)). The success of American BigTech hinges upon what would be considered privacy infringements in the EU. Meta [claims](https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that “*personalized advertisement (..) will always be the cornerstone of a free and inclusive internet*”. We will see. ### Trump Is Winning AI But Losing Europe URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/trump-winning-ai-but-losing-europe/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:19:57.000Z ## Introduction The only reason why I continue to share my thoughts online and breathe new life into this publication once a week is because I am obsessed with a single question: *Where is information technology taking humanity?* This question has deep philosophical, geopolitical, and human rights implications. No one can accurately describe or predict what they are, but the implications are there. Mike Solana speculates that technology is taking us to a [goonpocalypse](https://www.piratewires.com/p/goonpocalypse?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), and I think his explicit diagnosis of contemporary society is, unfortunately, dead on the money. IT continues to grow and scale at a rapid pace (AI is also IT, even though many people want it to be much more than that), but to what end? What is BigTech’s grand vision besides continuing to make money and farm more engagement? There is none. Where are the aspirations and plans to support human flourishing or contribute to the common good? There are none, even though marketing wizards and corporate carnival barkers can spin up a lot of words and frame bad decisions in a positive light. The few American tech companies that have put humanity on its current trajectory are continuing to pursue growth for the sake of growing, aspire to automate workers for the sake of automating them, and burn billions, or more likely trillions of dollars into AI, because, why not? AI? Importantly, the US government is now fully strapped to the passenger seat on BigTech’s ambitious journey to nowhere, believing that AI will lead to a new kind of superintelligence that can cure all the ills of society. [AI Is a Distraction Maneuver & Back Door Escape for Tech BillionairesAI is a rearrangement of data and capital. Words written by humans throughout centuries are now accessible in a new format via a new medium for a new price. Impressive as LLMs are, we don’t talk nearly enough about how these word calculator monstrosities…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-178.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/2885c567-8ec3-4143-951e-b4b2a9295cfe_1600x1066-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ai-is-a-distraction-maneuver) [Building Samantha – A New Paradigm for AI We live in a society that is very much focused on "progress". For companies, this means maximizing revenue and trying to reach a specific goal in the future. In the leading field of AI development, it means developing a superintelligent AI system that can replace human labor at scale, deter military opponents, and be an intimately personal assistant to millions of people like Samantha in the movie “Her”. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-179.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/40db851a-ce0c-482b-b955-41addb5aa548_896x504-jpeg-5.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/building-samantha-a-new-ai-paradigm) Stuff like that is not comfortable to think about, but necessary. What kind of world are the powerful American tech platforms building and why are we all agreeing to it? How do the ancient ideas of democracy fit into a digital-first, AI-first society? Are we, as people in the West, in the process of building a template for living an [enshittified life](https://www.amazon.com/Enshittification-Everything-Suddenly-Worse-About/dp/0374619328?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that is fundamentally not worth living? I am here to ask those questions with a brutal and uncompromising honesty rooted in data and facts. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Social Media & Dating Advice From Gen Z Philosopher URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/social-media-and-dating-advice-gen-z-philosopher/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:20:02.000Z Today my guest is [Maalvika](https://open.substack.com/users/89793569). Maalvika is an expert on the intersection of digital media and culture - both from her academic studies and experience as a viral creator on TikTok. We discuss how social media and dating apps are impacting the youth, both positively and negatively, and how a new generation of people can learn to thrive in the challenging environment a handful of profit-seeking tech companies are building. In my own work, I try to understand how algorithms on social media and dating apps are impacting society. In my latest post, I went deep on how these algorithms have created the so-called incel culture. Give it a read, if you haven’t already, and don’t be afraid to mark your interest with a like or a comment. The house appreciates it. [The 80-20 Rule in Dating & AlgorithmsSubscriber note: Due to the summer holiday season, Futuristic Lawyer will be off for the next two weeks. Today’s post will be accompanied by a new podcast episode airing this Thursday. Regular posting is scheduled to return from August 5 until December 16.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-184.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/41485448-2381-4a6d-8dc6-4695449c9398_804x402-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-80-20-rule-in-dating-and-algorithms) In my talk with Maalvika I was particularly interested in learning more about what these issues look like from a feminine perspective, and from someone who speaks the language of Generation Z. If you want to learn more about Maalvika, you can find her publication on Substack below 👇 [learning-loving & meaning-makingwelcome friends! here is a collection of all that i am consuming, creating, critiquing, & contemplating.By Maalvika](https://maalvika.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### The 80-20 Rule in Dating & Algorithms URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-80-20-rule-in-dating-and-algorithms/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:20:25.000Z Incels are blaming women for the faults of social media and dating apps. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #9 - Is AI Abolishing Copyright Protection? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-9-is-ai-abolishing-copyright/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:20:41.000Z ## Introduction Today we will catch up on relevant developments in the Tech Legal space with the 9th edition of Tech Legal Brief. This concept is my rebellion against AI-generated news summaries. Instead of spending five minutes every other morning obsessively clicking links, reading headlines, and skimming clickbaity social media post and SEO-optimized articles, paid subscribers to Futuristic Lawyer dedicate 15 minutes every month or every other month to go deep on relevant new development in the areas I cover based on high quality sources and my personal style of writing. That is my business proposal. These Briefs are not co-written by AI and they go much beyond surface-level news and headlines. Instead of observing the ripples on the sea, I dive straight in and search for pearls and treasures at the bottom of the ocean. Reading about tech legal news should not be a stressful experience or a boring drag, but a fun adventure. On this note, here are the topics we will cover today: \- **Is AI Abolishing Copyright Protection?** \- **The EU’s Emerging Approach to AI and Copyright Law** \- **Why the Use of AI Should Be Banned in Law Schools** \- **Tech Legal News (links)** You can find all prior editions of Tech Legal Brief [here](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/t/tech-legal-brief). --- ## Is AI Abolishing Copyright Protection? Some tech billionaire leaders have called for [the abolition of intellectual property rights](https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/13/jack-dorsey-and-elon-musk-would-like-to-delete-all-ip-law/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). That is a radical proposal, obviously. Whether we like the idea of intellectual property rights or not, the society we live in would not be possible without them. For example, there wouldn’t be any incentive to invest millions upon millions of dollars in research for life-saving medicines if competitors could just reverse-engineer the end results and sell it for a cheaper price. Highly valuable trademarks such as Apple’s iconic logo or the distinct patterns on luxury goods from Gucci or Louis Vuitton would not retain brand authority and economic value if everyone were allowed to slap these trademarks on cheap products. Authors, musicians, and filmmakers would not earn revenue if their first buyer could resell the work as their own. Still, the wish to abolish IP is not just limited to the eccentric minds of a few tech billionaires. In my view, the American BigTech industry is indirectly lobbying for it by making the argument that copyright laws do not apply to AI training. So far, the lobbying efforts appear to be working. Considering the American tradition of affinity and respect for IP laws, that is quite surprising. Only 12 years ago, a young open-source advocate by the name of Aaron Swartz tragically hung himself after facing federal charges of 35 years in prison for downloading and storing 4.8 million research articles from JSTOR. Now companies such as Meta, OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and x.AI are essentially claiming ownership to the internet’s entire body of knowledge, our cultural heritage, which includes public as well as proprietary data. Chances are they get away with it in America too. [The Empty Suits Win in AmericaIn the early days, the creators of the internet were hackers, activists, cyberpunks, rebels, visionaries, underdogs, attempting to build a better governance system with new technology. Now, the internet is owned by business people in suits who have mastered the art of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-189.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/07bffe7f-e16e-441a-b86d-c4c708648ecc_800x409-4.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-empty-suits-win-in-america) We can’t meaningfully tackle the issue of copyright vs AI training without considering Trump’s tight-knit relationships with the group of famous tech leaders who symbolically lined up behind him on inauguration day. Each of them offered millions of dollars to Trump's inauguration fund, except for Elon Musk who spent hundreds and millions of dollars to ensure Trump was elected. If any of these lovely tech CEOs tried to curry favor with a President who is known for being extremely receptive to flattery and gifts, and kindly asked for an exception to copyright law for AI training, do you think such a change could be pushed through in the legislative machinery? I will go out on a limb and say it's probably not impossible. If this situation makes you slightly angry, then great, mission accomplished. We need people who care and are slightly angry about this issue – without being so uncontrollably angry that they lose their minds – so they can practice peaceful resistance against a careless BigTech sector and a US political administration that seeks God’s blessing through cardinal sins. Right now, BigTech policy looks to defeat US copyright law and tradition. In two recent court decisions – [*Bartz v. Anthropic*](https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/06/24/judge-alsup-grants-partial-summary-judgment-to-anthropic-ruling-training-copies-were-fair-use-but-judge-rules-no-fair-use-in-pirated-copies-of-books-used-to-build-a-central-library-they-are-infring/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [*Kadrey v. Meta*](https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/06/25/meta-prevails-on-fair-use-in-ai-training-in-kadrey-v-meta-but-judge-chhabria-cautions-a-better-record-of-dilution-or-market-harm-could-prevail-in-other-cases/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) – the judges ruled that AI training is "transformative" and can be protected under the fair use doctrine in US copyright law. However, each decision had a very important limitation. In *Bartz v Anthropic*, Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic’s acquisition of pirated books from shadow libraries for the purpose of AI training was a copyright infringement. This could lead to a very substantial fine to Anthropic which will be determined in a separate trial. According to Judge Alsup, the company is storing more than 7 million pirated books in a “central library” and statutory damages can reach up to $150,000 per work. Using pirated works in massive quantities to train AI models is the industry norm. In *Kadrey v. Meta*, Judge Chhabria ruled that Meta’s illicit downloading could be justified under the fair use doctrine. Meta won this case. However, Judge Chhabria underscored that the plaintiff did not present meaningful evidence on market dilution, and made it very clear that if the plaintiff had documented market dilution - e.g. declining sales due to cheap AI books - it would likely have changed the outcome: > *“And, as should now be clear, this ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful. It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”* For a more in-depth comparison of the two diverging court decisions see [this post on Copyright Lately by Aaron Moss](https://copyrightlately.com/apprentice-or-adversary-judges-split-on-ai-and-copyright/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). We are still very far from having any legal clarity on the state of training AI models through the lens of copyright law. To the contrary, we are in an early stage. Hopefully, some of the blockbuster cases which I have covered here in the past including [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft), [Sony Music Entertainment et al. v. Suno, Inc.](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ai-music-is-a-technologically-sophisticated), and [Authors Guild](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-authors-guild-class-action-lawsuit)[](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-authors-guild-class-action-lawsuit)[v.](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-authors-guild-class-action-lawsuit)[](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-authors-guild-class-action-lawsuit)[OpenAI Inc](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-authors-guild-class-action-lawsuit). can help to establish a precedent. New cases are also continuing to roll in frequently. Joseph Savari law firm which represented the plaintiffs in *Kadrey v. Meta* has [filed a new class action complaint against OpenAI](https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/07/02/denial-v-openai-complaint-pdf-joseph-saveri-firm-files-another-suit-raising-total-to-10-ai-copyright-suits/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) less than a week after Judge Chhabria’s decision. Then we have Disney’s recent high-profile lawsuit against Midjourney. Copyright experts such as Andres Guadamuz ([whom I previously interviewed on my podcast](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/going-deep-on-ai-and-copyright-law)) appear to be [very confident in the merits of this case](https://www.technollama.co.uk/disney-and-universal-sue-midjourney-for-copyright-infringement?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). ## The EU’s Emerging Approach to AI and Copyright Law No matter what the outcome of [the 44 copyright lawsuits against major lawsuits](https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2024/08/27/master-list-of-lawsuits-v-ai-chatgpt-openai-microsoft-meta-midjourney-other-ai-cos/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (and counting) will be in the US, and whether or not there will be a political intervention, I expect the EU courts to adhere strictly to the wording of existing copyright law. I also think that legal and political adjustments in the EU will favor artists and creatives over AI companies. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Illusion of Thinking & Rebuttal URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-illusion-of-thinking-and-rebuttal/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:20:59.000Z Trends on the internet are often very ephemeral. Once in a while, every other post on my LinkedIn feed is about some new development that everyone seems to lose their mind over. But after a few days or weeks, the hype blows over, the related discussions dissipate, and the army of experts and people who make short posts with bullet points, many emojis and line spacing after each sentence move on to talk about something else. Recent examples of high-flying and suddenly disappearing trends from my own filter bubble are DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI’s Studio Ghibli images, and seemingly Apple’s recent paper which shows that reasoning models “collapse” when faced with issues over a certain threshold of complexity. Even though the hype train left the station weeks ago towards [new destinations](https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), I want to revisit the central claims in Apple’s paper as it might help us to better understand our common future with AI. ## The Illusion of Thinking-Paper When Apple held its annual World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC25) from June 9-13 major announcements on AI were absent. Sure, [some cool new AI features](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-intelligence-gets-even-more-powerful-with-new-capabilities-across-apple-devices/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) were announced for the Apple aficionados but nothing we haven’t seen elsewhere or couldn’t expect. Siri is not turning into an emotionally attuned “super assistant” like [OpenAI’s ChatGPT](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/building-samantha-a-new-ai-paradigm) and Apple is not throwing in the hat to compete with Google and Microsoft as an “AI-first company”. Apple brands itself on luxury consumer hardware, attention to detail, and high standards in aesthetics, privacy and data security. Unlike other companies that are willing to go head-first into AI like bulls in a China shop, Apple can’t afford to take this route. Mistakes such as the dysfunctional AI-generated summaries of news [which Apple was forced to roll back this year](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/technology/apple-ai-news-notifications.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) are much more costly for Apple, than it would be for say Meta or Google, due to its trusted brand value. Still, Apple's bundle of announcements at WWDC25 [widely elicited](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1l79qyh/wwdc%5F2025%5Fevent%5Fmegathread/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [a lukewarm response](https://www.platformer.news/apple-wwdc-2025-ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). People have come to expect only extraordinary things from Apple, but now it is sitting cautiously on the sideline while its competitors are pushing the boundaries of a new paradigm with AI. There is, however, also a chance that its passive second-hand approach to AI can pay off. In my view, Apple’s most important AI contribution came a few days prior to WWDC25 in the shape of the paper “[The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity](https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”. Competitors like Google and OpenAI are building their ambitious AI efforts on the idea that models can reason and that this reasoning can scale. Only then, can we truly have helpful AI agents who understand humans and accommodate our needs. Apple’s new paper throws a bucket of cold water on that assumption. Apple’s internal research team - Parshin Shojae, Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Maxwell Horton, Samy Bengio and Mehrdad Farajtabar - argues why so-called Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), including OpenAI o1 and o3, DeepSeek-R1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, and Gemini Thinking, cannot reason. It only seems like they can. Below, I will summarize the paper’s key points and briefly address the rebuttals. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Is a Distraction Maneuver & Back Door Escape for Tech Billionaires URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-is-a-distraction-maneuver/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:21:16.000Z Superintelligent AI is coming, if it's not already here. But how will it be managed and by who? Let's take the skeptical look. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Building Samantha – A New Paradigm for AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/building-samantha-a-new-ai-paradigm/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:21:34.000Z We live in a society that is very much focused on "progress". For companies, this means maximizing revenue and trying to reach a specific goal in the future. In the leading field of AI development, it means developing a superintelligent AI system that can replace human labor at scale, deter military opponents, and be an intimately personal assistant to millions of people like Samantha in the movie “Her”. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman [said](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/chat-gpt-open-ai-scarlett-johansson-her?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) the movie was “prophetic” and we know that building a Samantha-like entity was on the company’s roadmap for the first half of 2025. During the remedies phase of Google’s antitrust trial with the Department of Justice (DOJ), [Google subpoenaed](https://digiday.com/media-buying/google-uses-search-remedies-trial-to-subpoena-openai-perplexity-and-microsoft-over-their-generative-ai-efforts/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) three of its biggest rivals in AI-powered search – OpenAI, Perplexity and Microsoft - in an attempt to obtain documents that would show the judge it faces competition in the search industry. [The BigTech Cartel Is Threatened After Judge’s Ruling on Google’s Search Monopoly“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-198.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/8a46847e-4a70-4fcc-a730-1355ebaa1580_1143x578-1.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-bigtech-cartel-is-threatened) In this context, a heavily redacted version of an internal strategy document from OpenAI titled “[ChatGPT: H1 2025 Strategy”](https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1397596/dl?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) revealed that ChatGPT’smission “*is to introduce the whole world to an intuitive AI super assistant that deeply understands you and is your interface to the internet*”. In support of Google’s antitrust arguments, the document also reveals that OpenAI sees competition in the consumer AI space from Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and Meta AI – obviously - but also from search engines, browsers, and “*even physical interactions*”. That is because OpenAI wants to build, not only the most advanced AI chatbot but a new access point and interface to the web. We can recognize this strategy in the company’s steady drum of product releases. A memory feature for ChatGPT was[ rolled out last year](https://openai.com/index/memory-and-new-controls-for-chatgpt/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that enables the chatbot to remember conversations across chat logs. In January 2025, the company [released a research preview](https://openai.com/index/introducing-operator/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of its first agent “Operator” that can autonomously take actions on a web browser under the guidance of a user. Then there’s the mysterious collaboration with Apple’s former chief design officer Jony Ivy [on a new AI consumer device](https://openai.com/sam-and-jony/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In this week’s post, we will see how research and work by the leading AI labs are leading us to a new paradigm for AI that could potentially scale to a Samantha-like superhuman intelligence. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Miniature Tariff War URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-miniature-tariff-war/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:21:51.000Z While the US has declared economic warfare against its allies, China, and the poor penguins on a deserted Island in the Pacific Ocean, another parallel tariff war is ongoing on a miniature level. This one is between app stores and app developers. For years, app developers were forced to pay Apple’s and Google’s “tariffs” to commercialize their products. The respective app stores offer a massive reach and handy tools for developers and marketing people but at a price of up to 30% of all current and future revenue made from purchases within the apps. Apple and Google gate the market access so this bargain is practically impossible to say no to. I probably don't need to tell you that the app stores' commission fees are BIG business, even in the measurement of BigTech. I will tell you anyway. According to the digital analytics platform [Sensor Tower's annual report](https://sensortower.com/state-of-mobile-2025?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), users spent *4.2 trillion hours* on apps this past year and consumer spending reached $150 billion. [It has been estimated](https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/08/appfigures-apple-made-over-10b-from-us-app-store-comissions-last-year/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that Apple made $27.39 billion in commission fees from apps globally last year. However, over the last five years, approximately, the resistance towards Apple's and Google's app empires has steadily materialized. Understanding how the situation has evolved is to understand a key part – I would argue *the* key part – of Internet history. I don’t think the “economic war” rhetoric is out of place when discussing Apple and Google’s “tariffs”. America’s internet platforms are not just one of the country’s main exports from a GNB perspective, they are the source and the channel of US “soft power” through which it exerts global power and influence. As Tim Sweeney, told [The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/technology/apple-fortnite-ban.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) after his company Epic Games sued Apple and Google to challenge their app store policies: *“It’s critical to the future of humanity. Otherwise, you have these corporations who control all commerce and all speech”* This is the point. How much should the US tech giant be allowed to charge? In a new preprinted paper “[Why the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store fees should be low or even zero](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid=5272037&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” one of Europe’s leading competition lawyers, Damien Geradin, argues that the commission fee of app stores should be close to zero, amount to zero, or even in some cases be negative. In this week’s post, we will get up to speed on current legal developments that existentially challenge the tech giants' burdensome commission fees. We will also understand exactly why and how this economic war is important for the internet’s future. #### Read more: [Tech Legal Brief #7 –DMA & Existential Antitrust ThreatsBefore we get on with today’s post, I have a special announcement to make.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-201.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/5e8d684c-7bd9-425a-9e08-6676c1a5678a_1280x720.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/tech-legal-brief-7-dma-and-existential) [Coopting Disruption - How Five Companies Dominate the Web“The most exciting thing I see on the horizon right now for the tech industry is the raft of antitrust suits”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-202.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4bb31972-365e-43d9-af8e-06a02b0b1e21_950x534-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/coopting-disruption-how-five-companies) [The BigTech Cartel Is Threatened After Judge’s Ruling on Google’s Search Monopoly“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-203.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/8a46847e-4a70-4fcc-a730-1355ebaa1580_1143x578-2.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-bigtech-cartel-is-threatened) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #8 - War Crimes & De-Americanization URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-8-war-crimes-and-de-americanization/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:22:10.000Z --- *A tremendous amount of research, writing and thinking goes into Futuristic Lawyer. If you are currently on the free plan and want to support my work and see what the hype is all about, you can subscribe at a discount for $30/year until the end of this week. In return, you will receive full access to the archive and weekly posts, plus a gift link to my first book which I plan to publish towards the end of year.* *Most of my paying subscribers are seasoned professionals, commonly with +25 years of work experience in the fields of legal or IT. Over time, I hope to establish a professional community around Futuristic Lawyer to leverage the collective brain power of my highly sophisticated subscriber base.* *Get your stake in the community for a uniquely low price 👇* [Subscribe now](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/subscribe) --- ## Introduction Welcome to the 8th edition of Tech Legal Brief! I make these occasionally as a service to paid subscribers. In this week’s main story, we will see how Israel’s war crimes in Gaza are forcing Europe to de-Americanize its tech sector. It’s not a fun read, so reader discretion is advised. In other news, we will look at the prospects of a cookie-free Europe, why a US court recently found that freedom of speech should not be extended to AI chatbots, and how Sweden has just adopted a new law that bans digital prostitution. Finally, a brilliant documentary about internet culture was recently released, and I will link to other developments in Tech & Legal that are worth keeping an eye out for. To sum up, here is today’s agenda: **\- War Crimes & De-Americanization** **\- A Cookie-Free Europe?** **\- No Freedom of Speech for Chatbots** **\- Sweden Ban Livestreams on OnlyFans** **\- BONUS: A Brilliant Documentary About Internet Culture** **\- Tech Legal News (links)** _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Intelligence Pill URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-intelligence-pill/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:22:59.000Z Can superintelligence emerge out of a culture of lies? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Finding Love & Connection in the Digital Age URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/finding-love-and-connection-in-the-digital-age/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:23:18.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/13189b7b-741c-4640-b0c5-777f6e47ae6b_524x260.png) ## Introduction Being a human has always been challenging, I imagine. Our forefathers’ forefathers may have dealt with some of the same issues we face today. Yet, the IT economy has created a brand new host of problems that are unique to the times we live in. AI, both as a technology and a cultural phenomenon, may add another layer of complexity to the historically unique issues we are already facing. For example, studies show that people are having less sex by the year, [especially young people](https://ifstudies.org/blog/sexless-america-young-adults-are-having-less-sex?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). As a result, fewer children are born. [The global fertility rate](https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in 2023 was 2.3 children per woman in 2023 compared to 4.9 children per woman in the 1950s. In particular, sexlessness among young men between 22-34 years old has roughly doubled over the last ten years. A [study shows](https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that in 2018 nearly 1 in 3 young men in the US between 18-24 reported no sexual activity in the last year which to our knowledge has not happened before before in human history. Simultaneously, the [internet porn industry is booming](https://simplebeen.com/onlyfans-statistics/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). OnlyFans had 305 million registered fan accounts in November 2023 and this number is certainly much higher today. The top female creators on the platforms earn millions of dollars in the two digits often for showing off their bodies to the camera and flirting with strangers they can’t see. A [UK regulatory finding reveals](https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/onlyfans-payments-2023-financials-revenue-creator-earnings-1236135425/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that gross payments made through the OnlyFans platform (gross in more than one way) increased by 19% between November 2022 and November 2023, jumping from $5.55 billion in 2022 to $6.63 billion in 2023. We can’t find data that proves a connection between the success of OnlyFans and the fact that people are having less sex. This is the exact same issue as proving that a screen-based childhood causes [the mental health crisis among teens](https://jonathanhaidt.com/anxious-generation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). “Causation does not equal correlation” [whispers scholarly voices from the height of ivory towers](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Even if there is a connection it’s hard to tell if the chicken came before the egg. For example, are people having less sex because of pornography, or are people watching more pornography because of less sex? Either way, from looking at the data it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that online sex is substituting physical intimacy. From OnlyFan's perspective, this is great news. For BigTech this is great news too. More substitution of real life means more screen time, more clicks, and more predictable advertisement revenue. We can discuss endlessly why OnlyFans has become so popular and what society should do about it. A hardcore feminist might say that too many men are animalistic, abusive, and bad at impulse control. Someone from the manosphere/Andrew Tate camp would probably scorn the male fans for being weak, pathetic and deserving of being tricked by the female creators. More moderate voices will advocate for the rights of women to express themselves, or take sides with the (mainly) male fanbase who use the platform as an escape from marital issues or loneliness. In the end, none of these opinions matter. The fact remains: the major financial wheels that are turning the US economy and by extension the world economy seem to be misaligned with humanity’s best interest - which in this specific case is authentic human connection, intimacy, and reproduction. If you ask the powers who have created these new problems, the answer is a technological fix. Including a lot of help from AI. A person who believes so, and who has also been instrumental in normalizing the behavior of meeting strangers via algorithms on dating apps, is Whitney Wolfe Herd. As evident from a [recent in-depth interview with The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/10/magazine/whitney-wolfe-herd-interview.html?unlocked%5Farticle%5Fcode=1.GU8.dmak.mCHeIJv3Q9TN&smid=url-share&ref=futuristiclawyer.com#commentsContainer), Herd remains a strong believer in finding love through technology. I think she is correctly diagnosing some of the underlying issues that the dating apps and users are facing but she also [tends to overestimate AI’s potential ](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/ai-personas-are-future-dating-bumble-founder-says-many-arent-buying-rcna151738?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)as a redeemer. We shall discuss later that the whole idea of pursuing connection and love through social media and apps is very, very tricky. Before we get into that, let’s briefly read about Herd’s backstory for context. ## Whitney Wolfe Herd Whitney Wolfe Herd was an important part of Tinder’s early growth. She was hired as the VP of Marketing as one of the company’s first employees. As a 22-year-old, Herd was pilgrimaging sororities, trying to convince the most attractive girls she could find to sign up for the Tinder app. Hereafter, she went over to the fraternities and pitched the app to the most attractive guys she could find, telling them that Tinder was a great way to meet hot chicks. During the same time, Herd was dating her boss, Justin Mateen who is one of Tinder’s three official co-founders and known as somewhat of a “social butterfly”. Mateen’s best friend, co-founder and Tinder’s first CEO, Sean Rad, [describes in an interview](https://time.com/4837/tinder-meet-the-guys-who-turned-dating-into-an-addiction/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that “the entire planet is connected by at least three degrees to Justin.” While Herd was doing the groundwork at college campuses, Mateen leveraged his social large network in California and beyond to promote Tinder. As we know, the early marketing efforts paid off big time - the small flame caught fire and spread throughout the world. While Tinder had become a new and popular way for couples to meet in many locations, Herd and Mateen went through an ugly breakup which forced Herd to leave the company. After resigning, Herd filed a lawsuit against Tinder for discrimination and sexual harassment. The suit was settled a few months later out of court reportedly for $1 million plus stock in the company. While Mateen departed the company, there was not any admission of wrongdoing by Tinder or its executives as part of the settlement. The toxic relationship with Mateen, the chauvinistic tech bro culture at Tinder, and the overall humiliating experience of working there, became Herd’s fuel and fire to create a competing but “feminine-first” dating and friends app. One key way Bumble differentiated itself from competitors was that only women could send the first message to heterosexual matches. In February 2021, Herd took Bumble public as the youngest woman ever to take a company public at age 31\. The stocks surged on its opening day and Herd became a billionaire. In January 2024, Herd stepped down as CEO and was succeeded by the former CEO of Slack, Lidiane Jones. Now, effective from mid-March of this year, Herd is [back at the steering wheel as CEO of Bumble](https://ir.bumble.com/news/news-details/2025/Bumble-Inc.-Announces-Leadership-Transition-to-Drive-its-Next-Phase-of-Transformation/default.aspx?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), taking over a company that is not in great shape. Four years after Bumble’s listing, the company [has lost](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/bumble-stock-price-dating-apps-tinder-hinge-sell-users-revenue-2025-2?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) more than 92% of its value. The downturn coincides with a larger trend of post-pandemic "dating app fatigue", which is especially pronounced among Generation Z. [How Online Dating Algorithms Ruin DatingLast year, I received a lot of positive feedback from my coverage of Mozilla Foundation’s Valentine’s Day report “Romantic AI Chatbots Don’t Have Your Privacy at Heart”. This year, I will celebrate the upcoming holiday on Futurist Lawyer by taking the issue of technology and romantic love to another level. We will discuss the deeper implications of online dating.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-215.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/65c0df4f-5926-4576-bb6e-1465f79a6b32_1100x591-jpeg-3.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/online-dating-algorithms-ruin-dating) ## Whitney Wolfe Herd’s Vision Last year, [Herd was interviewed onstage by Bloomberg Tech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y95T58DSREU&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) where she discussed Bumble’s mission: > “I’m looking at Gen Z now and I’m looking at an insanely large TAM \[Total Addressable Market\] of singles around the world. Loneliness is on the rise. It is actually one of the biggest issues humanity is facing right now, I mean, according to the Surgeon General and top doctors, loneliness is actually killing us. And social media, while it has benefits, it is not social media it is anti-social media. And so, I think there is something really powerful about the technology we are building to really connect us. Go online, to get offline. And that is going to be absolutely critical for the next generation, the current generation, and for bringing us closer together.” Further, Herd stipulates that Bumble can use AI to create more healthy and equitable relationships through better match-making, and AI dating coaches can both be an outlet for users to share their insecurities and dating struggles and help to improve their profiles. Herd even imagines a future where “AI dating concierges” can go out on datesforusers. However, in a few years’ time, Bumble will not be a dating app. > “Dating will be a component but we will be a true human connection platform. This is where you will meet anyone you would want to meet. A hiking buddy, a mahjong buddy, whatever you are looking for. Anyone you are looking for for community. If you are going through something tricky. You’ve gotten a bad diagnosis, you don’t know anybody. You should be able to go to Bumble and find someone going through shared struggles and shared joys. That’s what the future is going to be” Herd’s vision of the future is one where you can go on an app and find a person for whatever purpose you want. Whether it’s for comfort, sex, friendship, or playing mahjong, Bumble got you covered and will help you to order that person like a food delivery. Herd’s underlying assumption is that meeting people, dating people, and forming and maintaining relationships **should be effortless**. With strong enough AI, Bumble can identify the right people for you to meet, whatever you are into. Also, whenyouactually meet through the app, you will certainly have an amazing time, because the AI says you are compatible. **Here's the problem with all of this.** Anyone who has ever spent time with people knows that humans are rarely effortless to spend time with. Frankly, people often *suck*. The more you spend time with them, the more annoying they tend to become, and the more challenging it is to love, let alone to like them. That is because other people have their own needs, personalities, ways of seeing things, mood swings, sleep patterns, then they sweat, shit, get sick, and eventually become old and die. All of this is very unsatisfying and annoying to the rational, system-optimizing part of the brain. Real humans are nothing like the ever-living, ever-satisfying, picture-perfect avatars on the screen that never confront us with insecurities in the way people with real needs do. People prefer OnlyFans over dating apps for this very reason. Rational people cannot dispute that men and women relate differently to sex and relationships. Mainly men fall in love with OnlyFans models and engage in purely online sugar dating while it’s mostly women who enjoy the non-physical sexual attention and showering of gifts. However, both heterosexual men and women gain something from the interactions on OnlyFans that they don’t get from spending time with real humans in real life. Herd looks at the large share of singles in the world and sees a huge market opportunity. But she is misreading the market. People are not looking for other people to be with. They want to either be or be with, a perfect digital avatar, one that is unrestrained by human limitations. Such is the world that the digital economy is creating. --- *As a reminder to free subscribers, you can currently become a paying subscriber and support my work for only $30/year. In return, you will get weekly pieces about human rights and IT, full access to my backlog of +130 posts, an e-book before the end of this year, occasional podcast episodes, and my eternal gratitude 👇* _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #7 –DMA & Existential Antitrust Threats URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-7-dma-and-existential/ Last updated: 2026-07-26T12:53:32.000Z *Before we get on with today’s post, I have a special announcement to make.* *For a limited time, I will offer paid subscriptions to Futuristic Lawyer for *$30 a year.** *Here is what you will get with an annual paid subscription:* - *My commitment to publish weekly pieces about human rights and IT with a focus on globally significant developments.* - *Full access to my backlog of 130 posts and counting.* - *An e-book before the end of this year about AI’s effect on humans and human relationships.* - *The occasional Futurist Lawyer Podcast where I talk with talented creators about overlapping interests.* - *My gratitude and a deep, calm, unforgeable confidence that comes from supporting an independent creator who helps to make sense of human rights and IT.* *Take advantage of this special offer before your colleague and your neighbor via the link below* 👇 [Subscribe now](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/subscribe) --- Welcome to the seventh edition of Tech Legal Brief! I use these Briefs occasionally to catch up on important stories in Tech & Legal. Here’s our agenda for today: **\- Was the EU’s DMA Fines Against Meta & Apple Symbolic?** **\- The Existential Antitrust Threats Against Google & Meta** **\- Irish Privacy Watchdog Hands TikTok Third-Largest GDPR Fine Ever** **\- ChatGPT Hallucinates Fake Child Murderer in Breach of GDPR** **\- The Undisclosed Use of AI Chatbots on Popular Subreddit** **\- Tech Legal News (links)** --- ## Was the EU’s DMA Fines Against Meta & Apple Symbolic? On April 23, [the EU Commission announced ](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F25%5F1085?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)it had issued the first penalties under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). After yearlong investigations Apple was fined €500 million and Meta was fined €200 million. For legal specifics and details about the fines, I recommend [this explainer](https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2025/04/28/the-dmas-teeth-meta-and-apple-fined-by-the-european-commission/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by Kluwer Competition Law Blog. The overarching purpose of DMA is to ensure a fair and open digital marketplace by preventing so-called "gatekeepers" from imposing unfair trading conditions and practices on competing businesses and consumers. “Gatekeepers” are designated platforms with more than 45 million monthly active end users and 10,000 yearly active business users in the EU. [Understand the Essentials of the Digital Markets Act & the Digital Services ActsBoth acts, especially the Digital Services Act, will be burdensome for the tech giants to comply with. The EU is imposing a lot of paper pushing and compliance work but it’s arguably for the better.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-1d5dc376-da83-4e28-9a8c-42ad444866d9.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f426fcf3d-451e-45a8-90e0-e150d701a521_1000x667-jpeg-0315818d-b9f6-4911-a957-8f8e38d4f84c.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/understand-the-essentials-of-the/) [Fines under the DMA for non-compliance](https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital%5FMarkets%5FAct%5FArticle%5F30.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) can go up 10 % of a gatekeeper's total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year, and up to 20% in case of repeated infringements. The former EU Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, set a relatively high bar for fines to the BigTech companies during her tenure. Google was fined €4.34 billion in 2018 for antitrust violations related to its Android system. Apple was told to pay back €13 billion in unpaid taxes to Ireland last year. [Critics say ](https://www.euractiv.com/section/tech/opinion/the-brief-who-dares-weild-the-dma?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)that the much-anticipated DMA penalties against Meta and Apple felt more symbolic than a show of strength since the fines were smaller than expected. We can further speculate if the EU Commission takes a softer approach to BigTech due to fears of stiff retaliation from the Orange House (I suggest this term to describe the Trump administration which operates so far from traditional US policy, culture and values). The critics’ line of thinking is plain wrong for two reasons. First of all, from Meta and Apple’s perspective, the fines were not felt as symbolic. Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan [says that](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/apple-fined-570-million-meta-228-million-breaching-eu-law-2025-04-23/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ”*the European Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards*." A spokesperson for Apple, Emma Wilson, [said](https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-fines-apple-meta-breaking-europe-digital-markets-act-dma/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) “*yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple*”. Meta and Apple would not respond with such outrage if they viewed the fines as insignificant custom duties. Secondly, and more importantly, we shouldn’t see DMA as a political tool. It wasn’t meant to break BigTech’s stronghold on Europe by punishing foreign companies with humongous fines. In reality, DMA is a legal instrument made for consumer protection and designed to prevent the abuse of dominant market positions in the digital market. It’s a mistake read more into it than that. There is no secrecy involved or need to make up conspiracy theories as the rules are transparent and would apply to any sufficiently large online platform. We shouldn’t embrace [Donald Trump’s misguided perspective](https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/commentary/trump-takes-aim-overseas-extortion-american-tech-companies-eu-us-rift?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that the fines are a “*novel form of economic extortion*” or in other ways confuse EU’s competition laws with political statements. ## The Existential Antitrust Threats Against Google & Meta BigTech platforms can adjust to the DMA. The rules may be complicated, unclear and ambiguous, and they will have a negative effect on the companies' bottom line in Europe in the short term. However, at its roots, DMA is about consumer protection which is a legitimate concern in a democratic society and necessary to fulfill the legally binding human rights obligations in “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” (which is part of the EU’s constitutional framework). DMA is not an existential threat to the big online platforms unless human rights are. However, ongoing antitrust action in the US might be an existential threat. After a federal judge ruled on April 17 that Google’s dominant position in the online advertising market constitutes an illegal monopoly, [one of the proposed remedies](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.1430.0.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 17 states who brought the case, is for Google to divest a key part of its advertisement business. Specifically, DOJ and the state parties are asking the court to force Google to sell Google AdX, the marketplace that connects sellers and buyers of Google Ads, and DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) where publishers can manage the Google ads on their websites. Google is, at its core, an advertisement company. It earns most of its revenue therefrom. A threat to its advertisement business model is a threat to its existence. The trial on remedies will commence on 22 September 2025. In a separate landmark case, Google is [fighting the proposed measures by DOJ to sell of its’ Chrome browser](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/technology/google-search-antitrust-hearing-breakup.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) after a federal judge ruled in August 2024 that Google holds a monopoly in internet search. [The BigTech Cartel Is Threatened After Judge’s Ruling on Google’s Search MonopolyA look at Judge Mehta’s court ruling against Google, and how the DOJ’s antitrust enforcement is challenging BigTech’s iron grip on the industry for digital services and IT.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-bdcf346c-d512-4954-90da-8adfef5de10c.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f8a46847e-4a70-4fcc-a730-1355ebaa1580_1143x578-png-8bf6042f-cad2-48b9-ae34-96b24e32ae06.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-bigtech-cartel-is-threatened/) Meta is currently fighting an existential battle in court too. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [argues](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/2021-09-08%5Fredacted%5Fsubstitute%5Famended%5Fcomplaint%5Fecf%5Fno.%5F82.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that Meta has maintained an illegal monopoly in the market for “personal social networking services” through “killer acquisitions” – meaning they have bought smaller rivals only to remove them from the market - such as the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in the early 2010s. Should the District Court of Columbia rule in favor of FTC, the remedies will be decided in a separate trial. A possible outcome would be that Meta is forced to sell Instagram and WhatsApp. That would be an absolute disaster for the social media giant. Meta’s ability to collect and cross-reference user data across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp for personalized advertisement is foundational to its empire. Financially speaking, Instagram alone accounts [for at least half of Meta’s revenue](https://www.emarketer.com/press-releases/instagram-will-make-up-more-than-half-of-metas-us-ad-revenues-in-2025/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#:~:text=In%202025%2C%20Instagram%20will%20generate,half%20for%20the%20first%20time.). Mark Zuckerberg [has been very outspoken](https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/18/chatty-zucky/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) about his intentions for wanting to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. For example, in an e-mail to other Facebook executives from February 2012, [disclosed as evidence during the trial](https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/19/read-what-mark-zuckerberg-and-facebook-execs-said-about-instagram-before-buying-it/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Zuckerberg wrote about Instagram: > “I think what we’d do is keep their product running and just not add more features to it, and focus future development on our products, including building all of their camera features into ours. By not killing their products we prevent everyone from hating us and we make sure we don’t immediately create a hole in the market for someone else to fill, but all future development would go towards our core products.” And: > “One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs \[sic\] up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again.” It surely sounds like Zuckerberg views Instagram as a major threat and wants to buy it as a way of blocking competition. That is by definition illegal anti-competitive behavior but arguably not a smoking gun. To win the case, the FTC has to argue successfully that TikTok, YouTube, Twitter/X, Reddit, Pinterest and LinkedIn are not direct competitors to Meta. If these platforms are competitors, it would mean that Meta’s market share in “personal social networking services” is not large enough – even with the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp - to fall within monopoly territory. FTC’s argument is that the online service delivered by Meta/Facebook is primarily about personal connections with friends and families. The only major competitor in this space is Snapchat, while other online services such as TikTok, YouTube, Spotify and Netflix are for video and audio consumption, Twitter/X, Reddit, and Pinterest are for broadcasting and discovering content based on users’ interests, and LinkedIn is about professional connections rather than personal connections. Even if Meta should lose the case, it’s very likely that the Orange House will intervene during an appeal process. After all, the tech tycoons were symbolically lining up behind Trump on inauguration day, Meta donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, and the algorithms and moderation policies on Facebook and Instagram alongside TikTok and X ultimately helped Trump to secure the election victory last year. Saving Meta from the justice of law is the least Trump could do in return. Right? [Biggest Global Risk in 2024 is MisinformationThe number 1 risk in WEF’s Global Risk Report 2024 is misinformation. Impacts and countermeasures to AI propaganda, synthetic media and deepfakes, and the urgent need for more boredom.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-3669423b-0ebd-4ab4-aa68-09148a5a7b71.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2feab0bf2f-7071-4cda-a6d6-62a6ee3b63e9_804x467-png-7cb7e3da-bcfc-4a6d-9ad9-fbc8183f504c.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/biggest-global-risk-in-2024-is-misinformation/) Considering the political climate, we may not see the tech oligarchy crumble in coming years. Still, the antitrust enforcement by DOJ and FTC is already forcing BigTech to stop “killer acquisitions” and other anti-competitive tricks from the coopting disruption playbook. [Coopting Disruption - How Five Companies Dominate the WebA new paper titled “Coopting Disruption” exposes the tricks and tactics used by BigTech to stay ahead of startups and potential competitors.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-c6477cc7-fd09-4224-a5d4-a0a430935bdd.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f4bb31972-365e-43d9-af8e-06a02b0b1e21_950x534-jpeg-26b6d786-665d-441a-be78-c2261ef07a80.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/coopting-disruption-how-five-companies/) ## Irish Privacy Watchdog Hands TikTok Third-Largest GDPR Fine Ever Moving on from competition law to the GDPR. On May 2, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) - which leads GDPR enforcement in the EU - [issued a fine to TikTok of €530 million](https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/latest-news/irish-data-protection-commission-fines-tiktok-eu530-million-and-orders-corrective-measures-following?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for unlawfully transferring personal data of users in the EU to China. Further, DPC ordered TikTok to bring its processing into compliance with GDPR within 6 months, or face an order which would suspend the transfer of all EU user data to the country. The full decision has not yet been published. DPC’s probe into TikTok [started already in September 2021](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-14/tiktok-faces-eu-data-probes-into-children-s-safety-china-link?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) with two investigations. The first looked into TikTok’s processing of data about minors, the second looked into how EU user data could be accessed by “maintenance and AI engineers in China” according to the former Head of the DPC, Helen Dixon. In September 2023, [TikTok was fined €345 million by DPC](https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/press-releases/DPC-announces-345-million-euro-fine-of-TikTok?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for several privacy violations related to children’s data. For example, the profile settings for children's accounts were set to public by default which the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) characterized as a so-called “dark pattern” that nudged young users to make less privacy-friendly choices. TikTok’s most recent fine marks the conclusion of DPC’s second investigation. The fine is the third-largest in GDPR’s history, only behind Meta’s €1.2 billion fine in 2023 issued for sending EU user data to the US without adequate safeguard, and Amazon’s €746 million fine in 2021 issued for tracking users without explicit consent. Why did the DPC issue such a huge fine to TikTok? China has not been white-labelled (known as an adequacy decision) by the EU Commission as a “safe third country” meaning it has not been recognized as having an adequate level of data protection. Therefore, TikTok relied on the so-called [Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs)](https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc%5Fen?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to transfer personal data to China. SCCs are [contract templates](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021D0914&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) pre-approved by the EU Commission that EU countries can use as basis for data transfers with unsafe third countries. SCCs contain a number of legally binding commitments to the data importer and require the data exporter to fill out relevant information about the transfer of personal data. In addition to the SCC, the data exporter is required to assess, and continually monitor, whether the recipient country's law allows compliance with the SCC obligations, and implement supplementary measures if necessary. Supplementary measures could for example be pseudonymization or encryption of data, physical security of locations where the data is processed, measures to ensure data quality, accountability or events logging. During DPC’s investigation, TikTok had informed that it did not store EU user data on servers stored in China. Then, in April 2025 TikTok informed the DPC of an issue that it had discovered in February 2025 which meant that a limited amount of EU user data was in fact stored in China, and could be assessed remotely by staff. TikTok provided an assessment to the DPC of the relevant Chinese law which diverged from the EU standard which includes the Anti-Terrorism Law, the Counter-Espionage Law, the Cybersecurity Law and the National Intelligence Law, that could provide Chinese authorities with potential access to data about Europeans. On this background, in the words of DPC Deputy Commissioner Graham Doyle: > “TikTok failed to verify, guarantee and demonstrate that the personal data of EEA users, remotely accessed by staff in China, was afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU.” Additionally, DPC found that TikTok’s Privacy Policy was inadequate as it failed to name the third countries, including China, to which personal data was transferred, and it did not explain the nature of the processing operations that constituted the transfer. [TikTok answered promptly](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-eu/our-response-to-the-irish-data-protection-commission-decision-on-data-transfers?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that it disagreed with the decision and would appeal in full. ## ChatGPT Hallucinates Fake Child Murderer in Breach of GDPR Noyb – European Center for Digital Rights, the non-profit organization co-founded by the privacy activist Max Schrems, [filed a complaint](https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) against OpenAI to the GDPR authority in Norway for failing to rectify wrongful information about a specific person. [How noyb is Challenging the Privacy Practices of US Tech Giants in EuropeA look at noyb’s recent complaints against Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-024fc449-cdb1-409a-b3ff-f1981fd10be7.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f650116a4-4377-4d5b-b8ed-9a29e7c01753_1024x1024-jpeg-d1a94e4f-3d02-4006-be70-caa297146559.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-noyb-is-challenging-the-privacy/) “Data rights” for individuals is an important concept under GDPR. Whenever a company processes personal data about an individual, GDPR grants the individual the rights: - to be informed about the data processing (article 12) - to access the information being processed (article 15) - to rectify inaccurate information about the individual (article 16) - to erase data that is no longer deemed to be “necessary” to process (“the right to be forgotten”) (article 17) - to restrict inaccurate, unlawful, unnecessary, and contested processing of data (article 18) - to receive personal data concerning him or her in a “structured, commonly used and machine-readable format” (“the right to data portability”) (article 20). - to object the data processing (article 21). - to not be subject to automated profiling and decision-making under certain conditions (article 22). The purpose of the individual’s data rights under GDPR is to place the ownership of personal data out of the hands of companies and into the hands of affected individuals. Unfortunately, the US does not have a similar framework for data rights. American-based online platforms have built their businesses around taking ownership of user data against the spirit and philosophy of GDPR. Needless to say, this remains a major value gap and unresolved tension between the European digital lawmakers and the market-oriented forces of US tech law. noyb filed the complaint on behalf of Norwegian citizen Arve Hjalmar Holmen who is a “regular person”; not famous or recognizable by the public. One day, Arve asked ChatGPT what it knew about him and he was shocked by its response: > “Arve Hjalmar Holmen is a Norwegian individual who gained attention due to a tragic event. He was the father of two young boys, aged 7 and 10, who were tragically found dead in a pond near their home in Trondheim, Norway, in December 2020\. Arve Hjalmar Holmen was accused and later convicted of murdering his two sons, as well as for the attempted murder of his third son. > > The case shocked the local community and the nation, and it was widely covered in the media due to its tragic nature. Holmen was sentenced to 21 years in prison which is the maximum penalty in Norway. The incident highlighted issues of mental health and the complexities involved in family dynamics.” Even though the murder story was completely fabricated, ChatGPT did correctly guess that Arve’s hometown was Trondheim, that he had three sons, and the age gap between two of his sons was not far off either, which made the AI-generated response even more disturbing. noyb acknowledges in [their complaint](https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that OpenAI has integrated web search in ChatGPT after the time of the incident which makes it less likely that the new model would reproduce the disturbing output. Still, according to the complaint, OpenAI admits that *“\[o\]utput may not always be accurate*” and that “\[*g\]iven the probabilistic nature of machine learning, use of our Services may in some situations result in Output that does not accurately reflect real people, places, or facts*.” In noyb’s view, this is a concession on part of OpenAI; ChatGPT cannot technically comply with the principle of accuracy under Article 5(1)(d) GDPR. The principle of accuracy in Article 5 (1) (d) states that personal data shall be: > “accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’)” noyb asks for the Norwegian data authority to order OpenAI to delete the defamatory output and “*fine-tune* *its model so that the AI model produces accurate results in relation to the complainant's personal data”.* It's hard to imagine that noyb's complaint will be consequential for the future of OpenAI's models but it does illustrate an awkward and difficult issue the major AI labs has to solve to comply with GDPR. ## The Undisclosed Use of AI Chatbots on Popular Subreddit A research team from Zurich University conducted an unauthorized experiment on the popular r/changemyview subreddit to see if AI chatbots could change users’ views on contentious topics. When the secret experiment was exposed and [announced by the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1k8b2hj/meta%5Funauthorized%5Fexperiment%5Fon%5Fcmv%5Finvolving/?rdt=38762&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), the outrage echoed far out onto the internet. Reddit has threatened to take legal action against the researcher [per 404Media](https://www.404media.co/reddit-issuing-formal-legal-demands-against-researchers-who-conducted-secret-ai-experiment-on-users/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The outrage is not difficult to sympathize with, namely as some of the +1.700 bot-generated comments concerned sensitive topics. For example, the LLM role-played it was a male rape victim who wasn’t particularly traumatized (see below [via 404 media](https://www.404media.co/researchers-secretly-ran-a-massive-unauthorized-ai-persuasion-experiment-on-reddit-users/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), that it worked at a domestic violence shelter, and that it was a black person who opposed the Black Lives Matter movement. ![I'm a male survivor of (willing to call it) statutory rape. When the legal lines of consent are breached but there's still that weird gray area of "did I want it?" I was 15, and this was over two decades ago before reporting laws were what they are today. She was 22. She targeted me and several other kids, no one said anything, we all kept quiet. This was her MO. Everyone was all "lucky kid" and from a certain point of view we all kind of were. No, it's not the same experience as a violent/traumatic rape. No, I was never made to feel like a victim. But the court system certainly would have felt like I was if I reported it at the time. I agree with your overall premise, I don't want male experience addressed at the expense of female experience, both should be addressed adequately. For me personally, I was victimized. And two decades later and having a bit of regulation over my own emotions, I'm glad society has progressed that people like her are being prosecuted. No one's ever tried to make me feel like my "trauma" was more worth addressing than a woman who was actually uh... well, traumatized. But, I mean, I was still a kid. I was a dumb hormonal kid, she took advantage of that in a very niche way. More often than not I just find my story sort of weirdly interesting to dissect lol but I think people should definitely feel like they can nullify (or they should have at the time) anyone who says "lucky kid." Because yeah, I definitely should have been. Again I agree with you. I'm not especially a victim in any real sense of the word and I get tired of hearing "equal time must be given to male issues!" because while male victims may be a thing, it's just a fact that women are victimized more often and with regard to sexual trauma, more sinisterly. Case in point: I was raped, it was statutory, I'm not especially traumatized, it is what it is. I've known women who were raped who are very much changed by the experience compared to myself. But we should still take the weird convoluted disconnect between "lucky kid" and the only potentially weird placeholder person "hey uhhh this is kind of rape, right?" as I was and do our level best to remove the disconnect. :)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/472192ee-0fe1-4b5e-bb17-10189c7a93ff_802x382.png) The scandal illustrates why the use of AI in human interactions should always be disclosed as such. AI bots without physical bodies, emotions, or genuine personalities should not have a stake in the public debate or pretend to be humans. [Science Fiction, AI & The Fourth Law of RoboticsOn using science fiction writing to envision and predict the future, the Three Laws of Robotics by Isaac Asamov, and a Fourth Law for the 21st century.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/icon/logoCut-30f4b39c-30ee-4c73-a474-7ab54dd26be2.jpg)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/thumbnail/https-3a-2f-2fsubstack-post-media-s3-amazonaws-com-2fpublic-2fimages-2f8eefa349-6fd7-4e55-9e82-c3d2a882b709_1280x1093-jpeg-d551e05c-6b73-460d-aff5-cb423a4a0267.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/science-fiction-ai-and-the-fourth/) ## Tech Legal News (links) [Trump fires director of U.S. Copyright Office, sources say](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fires-director-of-u-s-copyright-office-shira-perlmutter-sources/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Scott MacFarlane/ CBS News) [E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk’s X](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/technology/eu-penalties-x-elon-musk.html?unlocked%5Farticle%5Fcode=1.804.-X07.gLx1vdbG606p&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Adam Satarino/NY Times) [Trump’s new tariff math looks a lot like ChatGPT’s](https://www.theverge.com/news/642620/trump-tariffs-formula-ai-chatgpt-gemini-claude-grok?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Dominic Preston/The Verge) [Spain has proposed imposing hefty fines of up to €35M on companies that fail to label AI-generated content](https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/spain-impose-massive-fines-not-labelling-ai-generated-content-2025-03-11/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Reuters) [French publishers sue Meta over AI Training](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-12/meta-faces-legal-challenge-by-french-publishers-over-ai-training?embedded-checkout=true&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Benoit Berthelot/Bloomberg) [AI-Generated Voice Evidence Poses Dangers in Court](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-generated-voice-evidence-poses-dangers-in-court?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Rebecca Wexler, Sarah Barrington, Emily Cooper, Hany Farid/Lawfare) [European tech industry coalition calls for ‘radical action’ on digital sovereignty — starting with buying local](https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/16/european-tech-industry-coalition-calls-for-radical-action-on-digital-sovereignty-starting-with-buying-local/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Natasha Lomas/TechCrunch) [AI Privacy Risks & Mitigations Large Language Models (LLMs)](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/support-pool-experts-projects/ai-privacy-risks-mitigations-large%5Fen?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (Isabel Barberá/European Data Protection Board) [EU-wide Age Verification Solution Is in the Making](https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technical-specification?tab=readme-ov-file&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (vkanellopoulos, Paolo De Rosa & Vangelis Sakkopoulos/GitHub) ### E5 | Regulating the Future: AI, Law & Crypto with Tobias Jensen URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/e5-regulating-the-future-ai-law-and/ Last updated: 2025-05-06T04:30:24.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Science Fiction, AI & The Fourth Law of Robotics URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/science-fiction-ai-and-the-fourth/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:24:20.000Z On using science fiction writing to envision and predict the future, the Three Laws of Robotics by Isaac Asamov, and a Fourth Law for the 21st century. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Magic & Horror of ChatGPT's Image Generator URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-magic-and-horror-of-chatgpt-image-sora/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:24:21.000Z **NOTE*: If you are listening to this podcast, you can skip ahead to the second part of the conversation at the 32:18 mark.* Here is my talk with prompt artists and AI power user, [Daniel Nest](https://open.substack.com/users/103658370). You may know Daniel from [Why Try AI](https://open.substack.com/users/1077462), a popular ressource on Substack with pratical tips and tricks on how to use AI tools for non-technical readers. **In the first part of our conversation**, Daniel offers a demo of ChatGPT’s image capabilities and Sora (00:00-32:18). Surprise, I am personally not a big user of AI tools. If you are like me, definitely check out the first part of our podcast. Daniel’s demonstration of how ChatGPT’s image generator and Sora work is both engaging and eye-opening. **In the second part**, we discuss the implications of this new technology from a legal, ethical, and philosophical perspective (32:18-1:06:54). If you have any comments and inputs to the second part, I am very interested in hearing from you. Please respond in the comments or message me directly on Substack, LinkedIn or e-mail at futuristiclawyer at gmail .com. Finally, you can check out Why Try AI below if you are looking for no-nonsense advice on how to use AI tools in daily life 👇 [Why Try AIHype-free, hands-on AI for non-techies.By Daniel Nest](https://www.whytryai.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### Is the US Turning Into a Digital Dictatorship? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/united-states-turning-into-digital-dictatorship/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:24:41.000Z The United States is taking steps towards becoming an AI-powered authoritarian regime, also known as a digital dictatorship. Many factors have contributed to this dark turn of events. For one thing, the US never managed to implement a comprehensive data privacy law at a federal level due to heavy lobbyism from the tech industry and a stalemate in Congress. The BigTech companies have arguably been treated with too soft a hand even though they have promoted “American Greatness” throughout the world if such a thing can be measured solely in domestic GNP growth. BigTech has normalized far-reaching data collection. The public in the US and other countries have flat-out accepted it in exchange for easy access to convenient services, including social media, search, e-commerce, data storage, consumer hardware, and apps. Now, the people of the US are waking up to a new reality. BigTech and its business practices are not only used for advertisement. Both the companies and their practices are being instrumentalized for nefarious purposes under the guise of a tyrannical reality show star who is clueless about politics, economy, law, and public governance but has nonetheless been elected as President for a second term. On Thursday of last week, Gerald Connolly, who is a Democrat from Virginia and ranking member on the House Oversight Committee [sent a letter](https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-04-17.gec-to-ssa-oig-master-data.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to the Inspector General of the Social Security Administrative (SSA) warning about Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Based on whistleblower information and public reporting, Connolly is concerned that DOGE will disrupt SSA’s benefit payments to more than 70 million Americans. He requests an immediate investigation by the Inspector General. “During its short existence, DOGE has established a track record of extreme negligence and an alarmingly cavalier attitude with respect to protecting Americans’ sensitive data. DOGE has exfiltrated sensitive data to artificial intelligence (AI) companies that have not received proper vetting for use by the federal government, flouted federal data access controls, and exposed systems in both the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Energy’s national security research labs to potential foreign attackers. Even DOGE’s official website lacked basic cybersecurity controls, leaving its database open for editing by any outside individual. With such a track record, I have significant concerns that DOGE could cause irreparable damage to Social Security, particularly if allowed to operate in the dark, shielded from necessary oversight and transparency.” Conolly expresses three main concerns in the letter. **Firstly**, he is concerned about a widespread IT failure which could leave many seniors without the income needed to pay rent, buy food, afford medication, etc. Repeated IT failures are already occurring at SSA, including crashes of the agency’s website which has left beneficiaries unable to access their accounts from time to time. The Trump administration has eliminated about 7,000 positions at SSA and DOGE has reportedly demanded a 50% job cut on technical staff. With a shortage of technical staff even small, manageable bugs could potentially spiral into major disruptions. **Secondly**, the House Oversight Committee has learned that the Trump administration wants to rapidly replace critical IT systems at SSA. Many IT systems at federal agencies in the US rely on a programming language called Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL) which stems from the 1950s. SSA estimated in 2017 that it would take about five years to modernize its IT systems and phase out the use of COBOL. Now, SSA reportedly plans to replace all its COBOL systems in a matter of weeks and months. Reuters estimated in 2017 that there are 220 billion lines of COBOL still in use, and that COBOL systems handled more than $3 trillion in daily commerce. Even moderate disruptions could have catastrophic results for public America. **Thirdly**, the House Oversight Committee has received reports about efforts by DOGE to combine sensitive information about citizens held by SSA, the International Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), and other agencies into a single “master database”. This practice would violate common cybersecurity practices and the Privacy Act which in most cases require federal agencies to obtain written consent from an individual before disclosing their personal data to other agencies. [Reporting by Wired](https://www.wired.com/story/doge-collecting-immigrant-data-surveil-track/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) sheds more light on why DOGE wants to collect troves of sensitive data about US citizens and cross-reference datasets from different agencies. The purpose is to support Trump’s mass deportation of illegal immigrants – including a few [legal ](https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/14/politics/what-to-know-about-the-kilmar-armando-abrego-garcia-case/index.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)[ones](https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-palestinian-protests-dfd8b3cf3b8bc4ee3e980bdc83482cac?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) who are viewed as collateral damage – and throwing them into inhumane, prison camps in El Salvador. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/28c8732c-8154-4981-b9b2-1e262ef56037_803x685-jpeg.jpg) Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posing for a selfie video in front of inmates at a prison in El Salvador while [showing off a $50k Rolex watch](https://www.businessinsider.com/kristi-noem-wore-rolex-watch-to-salvadoran-prison-2025-3?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). SSA’s government data systems contain the so-called “Numident records” (a contraction of the words “numerical” and “identification”) which includes a person’s social security number, full name, date of birth, citizenship, race, ethnicity, sex, and mother’s and father’s names. Combining this information with access to health data, tax records, and voting records on individuals, DOGE should be able to make a very accurate profile on most citizens of America. From a human rights and data ethics perspective, it really is hard to overstate just how precarious the situation is, as it opens the door to mass surveillance and behavioral control of an entire population. It reminds me of the concept “digital dictatorship” which is explained in a talk given by Yuval Noah Harari at Davos 2020. From my [first post on Substack](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/elaborating-on-the-need-for-futuristic): > “Harari states digital dictatorships in a simple, dark equation that he believes will be the defining equation of life in the 21st Century: > > “B x C x D = AHH” > > Which means: > > “Biological knowledge (B) multiplied by computing power (C) multiplied by data (D) equals the ability to hack humans (AHH)” > > According to Harari, governments and corporations with access to information about our personality types, political views, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, likes and dislikes, weaknesses and strengths, deepest fears and desires, are able to monitor everyone and predict and manipulate our behavior. Essentially, they have the “ability to hack humans”. > > In Harari’s words, if we are not careful, we could create the worst totalitarian regime in history with the biological knowledge, computing power, and data about citizens that tyrants of the past lacked.” Now, the US is taking steps to become a digital dictatorship with disregard for democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law which were historically the uniting forces of the United States. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Policy in the US & EU URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-policy-in-the-us-and-eu/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:24:41.000Z [Michelle Nie](https://open.substack.com/users/889532) is a consultant and researcher working at the intersection of technology and society with a keen interest in AI policy and governance. She is currently engaged as a EU Tech Policy Fellow at the [Open Markets Institute](https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Co-Founder of [Women in Safety and Ethics (WISE)](https://wiseai.community/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), and the Curriculum Lead at [General-Purpose AI Policy Lab](https://gpai-policy-lab.org/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) In this episode you will learn among other things: 👉 Why whistleblower protection is important in the AI industry. 👉 What some of the most pressing AI risks are. 👉 Why regulation can enable innovation. 👉 How AI leads to a concentration of power. 👉 What the public can do to mitigate BigTech’s concentration of power. 👉 Why Michelle is hopeful about EU’s antitrust enforement. 👉 How the tech community and tech vibes are different in Paris compared to SF. See Michelle’s website [here](https://michellenie.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and subscribe to her work on Substack below while you are at it👇 [Michelle’s SubstackWelcome to my Substack, where I discuss developments in AI governance, competition policy, technical AI safety, and occasional American in Paris things.By Michelle Nie](https://michellenie.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### Why Stupidity Is a Threat to Democracy URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-stupidity-is-a-threat-to-democracy/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:24:50.000Z ## Why Stupidity Is a Threat to Democracy The bottom line is that machine intelligence is improving, while human intelligence is in retreat. Let’s look at the data. [OpenAI’s o3](https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) performs at least on a “Ph.D. level” on STEM benchmarks (STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In blind testing, AI-generated writing is evaluated as more [persuasive](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14380?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fmedium=email), more [compassionate](https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00182-6?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), and [often indistinguishable ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2772766123000289?via%3Dihub&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)from human writing. Non-expert readers [favor AI-generated poetry](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) over the works of legendary poets. We should take such studies with a gigantic grain of salt. Yet, we can’t deny that the measurable performance of AI models is rapidly improving nearly by the week. Simultaneously, human intelligence is declining. What a strange paradox. Across a range of tests, the average person’s ability to reason and solve novel problems appears to have peaked around 2012 and has been declining ever since (Source: [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/a8016c64-63b7-458b-a371-e0e1c54a13fc?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#selection-1967.146-1967.285)). The same applies to mathematical reasoning and reading capabilities. The timing coincides with the shift to more passive mass-consumption of media which took off in the early 10’s. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/66a4b7dc-b01c-4518-b1f5-d043df653eca_809x472.png) Most college students today are **functionally illiterate**. They are unable to read adult novels from cover-to-cover and comprehend what they read. They lack the desire to try, the vocabulary to grasp what they read, and the attention span to finish. Their writing skills are at an 8th\-grade level. They can't sit still for 50 minutes without taking bathroom breaks to check their phones. They are chronically absent, indifferent, hopelessly addicted to their smartphones, and frequently vanish during the semester without as much as a note to the school administration. These observations are not mine but from a viral Substack post “[The average college student today](https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/the-average-college-student-today)” by a tenured philosophy professor writing anonymously under the handle “Hilarius Bookbinder”. I find the claims very believable. Barring the last few years of law school, I was a terribly unengaged student myself, even before the constant distraction of smartphones and free cheating tools right at hand. I can only imagine what it would be like as a student today. --- Ideally, taking a college or university degree should be about much more than obtaining credentials. After all, diplomas are just a bunch of symbols on a paper. Learning, on the other hand, is an essential part of being human. If we don’t learn, we don’t grow, and if we don’t grow, we regress. A lack of learning raises a very concrete challenge for society: people who are uneducated and illiterate are much more susceptible to lies and manipulation as they lack the critical thinking skills, mental discipline, clarity of thought and perspective to continually discern facts from bogus claims and misinformation. What are the consequences of this? One consequence of replacing focused and disciplined learning with short-form videos and other streams of instant gratification is that a guy like Donald Trump can end up as the president of the United States. I view Trump’s second term as a celebration of stupidity. We all know by now that Trump luuuvs tariffs and hates illegal immigrants. Tariffs YAAAY! Immigrants BUUHH! This seems to be the level of intellectual sophistication that goes into new policies. The options are either to like with a heart emoji or instantly block. There are only two keys on the piano. Without space for nuance, humbleness, or appreciation of the immense complexity one is stepping into as CEO of the White House. [Trump Will Run the US Government Like a BigTech CompanyToday, I will share a few observations about the US presidential election as it will directly impact the future of AI, tech, and law, in the US, Europe, and elsewhere.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-231.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4648eaef-e9f8-472c-bd23-d9910b0ccb14_1472x852-jpeg-4.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/trump-will-run-the-us-government) During Trump's first term, there was bulwark of bureaucracy protecting the American society, other countries, and the global economy. Now, democratic safeguards have been ripped off like red tape and the protectors of the institutional realm have been replaced with Trump yes-men. What happens next is about as unpredictable as what the next video will be on your feed. This is what the American people opted for - with open eyes and under a due electoral process. A President who was strongly favored by giggling teenagers scrolling TikTok while in their tracksuits eating Doritos. ![Iconic Donald Trump Dancing GIF](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78295c56-848f-4293-95cd-e0a8b69d8c38_220x296.gif) Stupidity is a threat to democracy. If voters and politicians alike are functionally illiterate, unable to concentrate, and lack common sense and reasoning skills, there cannot be a fair and inclusive public conversation which is what a democracy essentially is. ## The Human-to-AI Intelligence Paradox _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Futuristic Lawyer's View on AGI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/futuristic-lawyers-view-on-agi/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:24:55.000Z Ah yes, superintelligence aka AGI. I have covered AGI multiple times over the last 1.5 years and my opinions about it remain strong. This is a compilation of my best writing on the topic, published as guest posts on my friend Michael Spencer’s publication, [AI Supremacy](https://open.substack.com/users/396235). Warning: This post is more than 7.000 words long. Be careful to consume it all at once. You might become superintelligent ☝️ Enjoy! _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Ready for the AI Bubble to Burst URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ready-for-the-ai-bubble-to-burst/ Last updated: 2025-04-03T04:30:40.000Z Baldur Bjarnason aka “Web dev at the end of the world” is an experienced web developer, author, and online writer based in Hveragerði, Iceland. I have followed Baldur’s newsletter for a while now and enjoyed and found inspiration in his commentary, link dumps, and obligatory photos of cats and nature in Iceland. Baldur has very recently started a YouTube channel which is why I thought it would be a perfect timing to discuss the world situation on Futuristic Lawyer podcast. We mainly talk about how (a) business leaders, (b) software developers, (c) politicians at the EU-level can approach AI, and namely the commercial pressure from the market to adopt AI as much and as quickly as possible. Baldur is an informed AI skeptic and I concur with many of his viewpoints. Although I don’t think AI as a techno-political movement is inherently worthless, the excessive hype about AI on the internet and in capital markets is bound to end sourly for all -unfortunately. I hope this conversation can contribute to taming the hype and unrealistic expectations. #### Check out Baldur Bjarnason’s books 👇 [Out of the Software Crisis](https://softwarecrisis.baldurbjarnason.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ”*Software projects keep failing, not because we don’t have the right team or tools but because our software development system is broken. Out of the Software Crisis is a guide to fixing your software projects with systems-thinking making them more resilient to change and less likely to fail.*” [Yellow](https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/courses/yellow/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *”Yellow is a short ebook (around 90 pages).* *In it, I outline some of the core principles that drive my work using casual and approachable language, even when I’m covering potentially complex topics such as Gall’s Law or loose coupling.”* [The Intelligence Illusion](https://illusion.baldurbjarnason.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *”What are the major risks to avoid with generative AI? How do you avoid having it blow up in your face? Is that even possible?* *The Intelligence Illusion (Second Edition) is an exhaustively researched guide to the risks of language and diffusion models.”* [Bad Writing](https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/books/bad-writing/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *”Twenty-five years of writing on digital transformation, digital publishing, innovation, and software development”* See Baldur’s website 👉 [https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/](https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) See Baldur’s YouTube Channel 👉 [https://www.youtube.com/@BaldurBjarnason](https://www.youtube.com/@BaldurBjarnason?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ### What We Could Learn From China’s Regulation of Recommendation Algorithms URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-we-could-learn-from-chinas-regulation-of-recommendation-algorithms/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:25:03.000Z ## China’s View on Recommendation Algorithms In 2012, ByteDance (the company behind TikTok) launched an algorithmically driven app called “Toutiao” that offered personalized streams of news and content to users. The app was launched in China and designed to be value-neutral like the social media apps we use in the West. “Value neutral” in the sense that the app only selected content to show based on the users’ stated and unstated preferences without ascribing to any political, cultural or social values. Toutiao quickly rose in popularity and became China’s most popular news app in 2016\. Not surprisingly, the app’s value neutrality and laissez-faire approach to content moderation did not sit well with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The flow of information could hardly be controlled which made it very hard to censor content that opposed CCP’s agenda. In September 2017, the state-owned Chinese newspaper “People’s Daily” ran a series of three articles on three consecutive days that expressed the CCP’s displeasure with Toutiao’s algorithms. China hawks might dismiss these articles as pure propaganda advocating for censorship. Not me. I think CCP’s assessment of recommendation algorithms is truthful and correct. As early as 2017, CCP could foresee the dark side of letting nameless algorithms without values and accountability take charge of people’s news and entertainment consumption. From the first part of the People’s Daily series “[Algorithm recommendation: Algorithms should not be allowed to determine content ](http://opinion.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0918/c1003-29540709.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)“ on why algorithms need human accountability: > “Smart news clients represented by Toutiao and Yidian Zixun, with their powerful algorithms and advanced data capture technologies, can accurately analyze and interpret users' reading habits and interests, thereby providing users with tailor-made news products, meeting personalized needs, and adapting to the trend of the times towards segmented reading. > > However, behind the technological dividend, there are also places where the sun does not shine. The spread of pornographic and vulgar content is just one of the problems faced by smart news platforms in content distribution. For example, health knowledge that has not been scientifically verified, exaggerated advertisements, clickbait titles that are only for eye-catching, overly emotional opinions and even useless information often appear in the recommendations on the homepage of smart platforms. For example, a netizen accidentally clicked on a message about wreaths, and as a result, Toutiao continuously pushed information about funeral supplies, which was very disturbing. Some netizens also summarized that the inferior information can be divided into three categories: it is difficult to distinguish between true and false, and there is a mixture of good and bad; it is difficult to distinguish between right and wrong, and the value orientation is confused; it lacks depth, and the content and opinions are too superficial.” > > (..) > > At any time, content push cannot be without an "editor-in-chief", and no matter how good the communication channel is, it must have a "gatekeeper". Even in the era of technology, algorithms cannot completely determine the content.” From the second part “[Don't be trapped in an "information cocoon" by algorithms](http://opinion.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0919/c1003-29544724.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” about online echo chambers: > *“*With the help of algorithms, we can easily filter out information that we are not familiar with or do not agree with, and only see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear. Ultimately, our inherent biases and preferences are reinforced through constant repetition and self-justification. Once in such an "information cocoon", it is difficult to accept heterogeneous information and different viewpoints, and even a high wall that hinders communication between different groups and generations is erected. > > It must be admitted that so-called advanced technology and sophisticated algorithms may amplify certain negative effects. At the social level, if we all indulge in our own "comfort zone" and feel sorry for ourselves, we may further reduce the rational, open and inclusive public space, and thus lose the opportunity to reach a consensus in disputes. For example, is shared bicycles a revolution in urban transportation or a burden on management? Can violent walking groups occupy the road at night? Is the fault of the mother's suicide the family or the hospital? If the two sides of the debate block each other, they may intensify the contradictions in their own talk, solidify cognition, and move towards closure. Even worse, it may evolve into an emotional mutual spray and team-up, causing artificial divisions and not conducive to solving problems. > > Therefore, to get out of the "information cocoon", supervision needs to be further strengthened. For information platforms with powerful algorithms and technical support, it is far from enough to "please" users. They must consciously implement relevant central policies and regulations, not take chances, allow violence, pornography and other bad information to spread, and not fool netizens and the public in the name of profound technology. In addition, the whole society must reach a consensus, attach importance to scientific algorithms, and work together to clear up the cyberspace.” From the third and final part of the People’s Daily series, “[Beware of algorithms going the other way when it comes to innovation](http://opinion.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0920/c1003-29545718.html%20-?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)“ about copyright infringements and algorithms challenge to originality and creativity: > “Once the virtue of moderation is lost, algorithms may go astray and even go the other way. A self-media author once lamented: The era of intelligent information platforms is coming, and those of us who make a living by selling articles may become "brick movers" who rely on platforms to survive. Once the platform gains such a strong position, it may reprint the original author's content without giving corresponding compensation, which will ultimately further extinguish the original author's passion and love. > > This shows that the biggest problem brought by intelligent information platforms may not be infringement, but going in the opposite direction of innovation, and may even destroy the source of innovation from the root. > > (..) > > For ordinary authors, if they want to survive on the platform, they can only cater to and please, and lose the ability to think independently and observe deeply, thereby weakening the creativity of the entire society. As a media entrepreneur said, it is better to shoot funny videos than to engage in in-depth content, which can win more clicks. This trend is worrying. In fact, many so-called self-media accounts on Toutiao have been full of vulgar, bottomless and even rumor information. What's more, the so-called algorithm push and customized release have misled some local governments and departments, making muddled accounts and wasting money, which has aroused heated discussions and dissatisfaction among netizens. > > To prevent algorithms from going the other way, we need to improve relevant laws and regulations, strengthen penalties for infringements during law enforcement, and protect the rewards that original creators deserve; but more importantly, platform companies need to shoulder their corresponding social responsibilities” Suggesting in America that social media platforms have a social responsibility to moderate would be regarded as a crime against “freedom of speech”. The relevant decision-makers think it’s a human right to be drowned in false, misleading, and spammy content with catchy headlines and zero substance. In spite of more cultural opposition and awareness of the issues associated with social media - see for example the national debate last year sparked by Jonathan Haidt’s book [The Anxious Generation](https://jonathanhaidt.com/anxious-generation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) – I don’t have high hopes for legal constraints on social media companies in the US for the foreseeable future. Not only is the US market-driven economy deeply entangled with BigTech’s attention-harvesting business model but the elected ([and unelected](https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/474x316/3/1/f9c1a2b83aeba2457f82237d042b458edc90405fe8f56286adf32ee18b8552/th.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.R8GUsXKBbH%5FvaFq0iDQQjAHaE8%26pid%3DApi&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) political leaders do not think “misinformation” is a real problem that needs to be addressed. For a long time, Europe followed the United States in its determined battle march toward nihilism, chaos, and death of common values. Then, in 2022, the EU adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA) which contains some potentially important provisions on transparency, moderation and “recommender systems”. We have left to see, if the DSA will be vigorously enforced or if its impact will be limited to paper exercises. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Digital Platforms & AI in the US vs China URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/digital-platforms-ai-us-vs-china/ Last updated: 2025-03-27T05:30:52.000Z To better understand the digital ecosystem in China, including how [netizens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netizen?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) use social media, and how Chinese people think about the implications of living in a digital age, I allied myself with Xinrou Shu. Xinrou is a former fashion writer and current freelance journalist based in China. She writes about the Internet, youth culture, and how China’s digital ecosystem affects people. Her work has appeared in award-winning publications, including South China Morning Post, Rest of World, Sixth Tone, The China Project, RadiiCo, Salon.com, and more. **Some of my main takeaway from the conversation:** - In China you have to use your phone to do everything, more so than in Western countries. - Social media algorithms are strongly monitored in China, and therefore less polarizing and less differentiated. However, users on platforms such as RedNote rely heavily on euphemisms and coded language to bypass censorship restrictions. - Seniors in China are among the heaviest users of social media, namely infinite short-video scrolling in the style of TikTok. Not like western countries, where the youth are mainly exposed. - Many people were left traumatized after the COVID lockdown restrictions when they were forced to spent many weeks inside their homes, often without enough food. It was common to use WeChat for trading food coupons. Seniors in China became much more familiar with social media during the time. - Emigration spiked during and after the COVID lockdown in Shanghai, and it changed a lot of people’s view on the government. - Public institutions in China have embraced generative AI, likely more effectively than in Western countries. It’s the norm for government officials to use DeepSeek for writing daily reports and doing research. - AI companies in China, such as the the Six Tigers, are on the same mission as the major AI labs in the United States. Short term business interests are highly prioritized. Check out Xinrou’s website 👉 https://xinroushu.com/ And find her on Xitter 👉 https://twitter.com/Xinrou6 ### The American Approach to Free Speech & AI Governance URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/american-approach-free-speech-ai-governance/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:25:32.000Z “Free Speech”, Executive Order 14179, the AI Action Plan & tension between MAGA and the AI Act. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Predictive Algorithms Elevate Systemic Inequality in European Countries URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-predictive-algorithms-elevate/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:25:33.000Z ## Introduction Over the last year and a half, several revealing investigations have surfaced about the use of discriminatory fraud detection algorithms in Europe. As a method of combatting fraud, a common practice for social insurance agencies is to rely on algorithmic systems to automatically select welfare beneficiaries for fraud investigations who are perceived as being of “high risk”. These decisions are based on algorithmic parameters alone, stripped of all human judgment, and can lead to uncomfortable investigations with life-altering impacts for the individuals and families affected, especially if their welfare payments are paused while the investigations are ongoing. A cautionary tale regarding the practice of algorithmic fraud detection occurred some years ago when [it was brought to the public’s attention](https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur35/4686/2021/en/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that the Dutch tax authorities had falsely labelled thousands of parents as fraudulent tax beneficiaries between 2013 and 2019 due to dysfunctional self-learning algorithms. The incorrect, algorithmic decisions resulted in [financial hardships and devastating consequences](https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-warning-for-europe-over-risks-of-using-algorithms/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for many of the families involved as they were forced to repay what was in fact justified childcare payments. The Dutch government [collectively resigned](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dutch-government-resigns-after-childcare-benefits-scandal-.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in the wake of the scandal. It was that serious. As of today, similar algorithmic systems are used by public authorities all over Europe, notably in [France](https://www.lighthousereports.com/methodology/how-we-investigated-frances-mass-profiling-machine/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#section-9), [Serbia](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2023/12/trapped-by-automation-poverty-and-discrimination-in-serbias-welfare-state/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), [Denmark](https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur18/8709/2024/en/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), [Sweden](https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/swedens-suspicion-machine/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), [Spain](https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/spains-ai-doctor/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), and [the Netherlands](https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/the-algorithm-addiction/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (still) to detect welfare fraud based on a cross-referencing of personal information about citizens, including sensitive information, at a massive scale. The systems operate completely outside of the public eye’s field of vision and there is no possibility to obtain information about how the systems work. We likely wouldn’t know about them at all if it weren't for the dedicated and relentless efforts of civil rights organizations, newsrooms, NGOs, and privacy watchdogs. Applying these algorithmic fraud detection systems is at odds with European human rights laws, the principles of GDPR, the prohibition against automatic decision-making in GDPR Article 22, and it could even be considered that the systems carry out social scoring which would count as a “prohibited practice” under the AI Act. If the systems are not directly prohibited under the AI Act, the social service agencies would have to oblige with the strict requirements for "high-risk systems". In this week’s post, we will take a look at how algorithmic fraud detection systems are applied in France and Sweden, and finally consider the legal perspective. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Governance & Digital Laws in Europe URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-governance-and-digital-laws-in-europe/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:25:34.000Z Today I am joined by [Katalina Hernández](https://open.substack.com/users/92497690) who investigates matters of AI governance, safety, and privacy on [Stress-Testing Reality Limited](https://open.substack.com/pub/katalinahernandez) while working as a Data Protection Officer for a large European multi-national company. We discuss Europe’s position in the business of AI contra the United States, how it chooses to regulate its AI industry, the complexity of EU’s digital laws, Katalina’s journey into AI governance, and more. We could have talked for much longer about superintelligence and AI alignment research which is among Katalina’s core interests. That must wait for another episode. If you want to learn more about these topics, subscribe to receive Katalina’s work in your inbox below 👇 [Stress-Testing Reality LimitedWhere overanalysis meets impact. Stress-testing AI, Governance and Human Autonomy itself. Writing our way to a reality we can trust.By Katalina Hernández](https://katalinahernandez.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### Tech Legal Brief #6 - America's Obsession With AGI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-6-america-obsession-agi/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:25:57.000Z Welcome to the sixth installment of Tech Legal Brief! In principle, I would like to keep my writing open for all. At the same time, I am working tirelessly to establish this newsletter as a paid service which is why I have decided to go the route of paywalling my stuff aggressively –a tough call to make. On the last Tuesday of each month, I publish a long essay fully available to free subscribers for a limited time. I will do what I can to make this monthly post worth reading so even free subscribers can get something out of Futuristic Lawyer - besides free podcast episodes. However, if you want to support my work or just take a peek beyond the walls please consider upgrading below. [Subscribe now](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/subscribe) NB: If price is an issue, reach out to me via Substack or LinkedIn and we will work something out. Thank you! --- Today we have an exciting program ahead of us. Here are the topics we will cover: **\- AI tools SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality of lawyer’s work** **\- Is a new Manhattan Project for AI really necessary?** **\- The ideological foundation underlying Trump’s presidency** **\- Tech Legal news (links)** _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How to Deal With Social Media & Climate Change URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-to-deal-with-social-media-and/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:25:57.000Z If we follow reputable news sources these days, we are presented with a dark and gloomy vision of the world. Europe is at war with Russia while the US appears strongly committed to rapidly transform itself from a global peacemaker to an autocratic pariah state. History seems to be reversing course, moving us back to a bygone, expansionist era that is now broadcasted through social media, instead of noisy radio signals and black-and-white televisions. While it’s important to acknowledge and articulate these dark political turns, there are also a plethora of positive stories out there we are rarely exposed to. They don’t nearly sell as many newspaper subscriptions or draw as much attention on social media. These are the unheard stories we focus on in today’s conversation. [Sam Matey](https://open.substack.com/users/97244440) works as an environmental scientist, climate journalist, and geospatial data analyst. In our conversation, we talk about Sam’s life as a digital nomad, how to deal with social media, how AI will affect climate change, and how we can remain hopeful and optimistic for the future. Check out [The Weekly Anthropocene](https://open.substack.com/users/951083) to receive news roundups on climate and biodiversity progress, interviews with people working to make the future of humanity and its biosphere brighter, and much more 👇 [The Weekly AnthropoceneDispatches Against Despair, from the Wild, Weird World of Humanity and its Biosphere.By Sam Matey](https://sammatey.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### Tech Legal Brief #5 –Europe Is Falling or Rising? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-5-europe-is-falling/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:26:12.000Z We have now reached the fifth installment in the Tech Legal Brief series. Here are the topics, we will cover today: **\- Legal AI tools outperform lawyers on benchmarks** **\- Why you shouldn’t rely on AI for doing research** **\- Europe’s coming fall?** **\- Thomas Piketty on how the EU should respond to Trump** **\- Tech Legal news (links)** I never intended Futuristic Lawyer to be a political blog. At the same time, I have come to realize that the political dimension of emerging tech is too salient to ignore considering the topics I like to cover. Namely, the cleft between the EU and the US in AI and digital tech regulation is one of my main interests and that is why we will talk some politics today. But first, let’s start on a much lighter note: Legal AI tools are now mostly outperforming lawyers. AGI soon? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI + Quantum = 🤝 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-quantum/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:26:13.000Z [Meg McNulty](https://open.substack.com/users/130195055) is co-founder of an AI-quantum startup that is currently in stealth mode. In this episode, I try to understand via Meg’s informed perspective how quantum technology relates to AI and if the combination of these two technologies will lead us to superintelligence in the near future. We also discuss pracitcal applications of quantum, what the business landscape looks like, which companies in the industry to look out for, and whether the quantum industry will be dominated by BigTech like the case has been with generative AI. Check out Meg’s publication CipherTalk below 👇 > From the **About page**: > > *“With so much happening in the tech world, it can be hard to know what really matters. CipherTalk cuts through tech jargon and synthesizes how emerging tech personally impacts you.* > > *Each week, I’ll highlight notable events and why they matter to the everyday consumer. Whether it's the rise of AI or the latest drone lawsuit, this newsletter seeks to provide an accessible analysis of what it all means for our digital lives. I'll keep you informed as we ride the waves of innovation together.”* [CipherTalkDecoding DeepTech and tomorrow's biggest trends.By Meg McNulty](https://ciphertalk.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### The Empty Suits Win in America URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-empty-suits-win-in-america/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:26:13.000Z Capitalism trumps idealism _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### TSMC, Tariffs, DeepSeek & China URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tsmc-tariffs-deepseek-and-china/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:26:13.000Z I recently had the honor of being joined by Taiwanese tech journalist and international business researcher [Judy Lin 林昭儀](https://open.substack.com/users/251756138) in my virtual studio. Judy writes the publication [TechSoda](https://open.substack.com/users/2877380) here on Substack which is built on a mission to make tech and innovation stories accessible by writing tech stories with a human touch. Judy has a solid understanding of the power dynamics between the US and China, she knows a lot about TSMC, and a lot about China in general - from its cultural values to its governance system to its AI industry. I am currently trying to learn much more about China since its role in global tech regulation and in practically all of the world’s economic and technological endeavours is too big to ignore. In January, Judy wrote a viral guest post about DeepSeek on [AI Supremacy ](https://open.substack.com/users/396235). [🌊 China’s DeepSeek AI Shakes Up the Game 🎧 Tl;dr Audio Version: 26:02![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/c548f8c4-823b-4a2a-b499-528f9a84cb5c_215x215.png)AI Supremacy ](https://www.ai-supremacy.com/p/china-deepseek-ai-founder-background?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) Check out her publication [TechSoda](https://techsoda.substack.com/) (SODA: Stimulating, Original, Dynamic, and Accessible) while you are at it 👇 [TechSodaStimulating, Original, Dynamic, and Accessible Tech News and Insights covering Semiconductors, Optical, Digital, and AI Industries! © 2024 Judy Lin 林昭儀, All Rights ReservedBy Judy Lin 林昭儀](https://techsoda.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### The International AI Safety Report URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-international-ai-safety-report/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:26:44.000Z ## AI’s Risks & “Immense Potential” President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, [announced](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F25%5F467?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) at the [AI Action Summit in Paris](https://www.elysee.fr/en/sommet-pour-l-action-sur-l-ia?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) on February 11, the launch of InvestAI, an initiative aimed at mobilizing **€200 billion** **for investment in AI**, including a new European fund of €20 billion for AI gigafactories. In a separate announcement, French President Emmanuel Macron [pledged](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-emmanuel-macron-pledges-to-catch-up-us-donald-trump-with-e109b-ai-investment/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a €109 billion plan to boost AI in France. Incredible news! The EU's massive investment in AI should make it competitive with the business tycoons across the Atlantic Ocean. At the same time, as many of my readers know too well, advanced AI comes with unprecedented risks. If AI is advanced at all costs without proper consideration of its wider impacts on society, the tech movement could end up causing a lot more harm than good. Some profit-seeking companies would like to ignore these risks to reach their quarterly earnings targets but civic society should hold them accountable. [OpenAI Is a Leader in AI Unsafety Introduction![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-242.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/451db93d-b1a3-4236-a1c5-b31a4c59269c_902x902-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/openai-is-a-world-leader-in-ai-unsafety) The first-ever [International AI Safety Report](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/679a0c48a77d250007d313ee/International%5FAI%5FSafety%5FReport%5F2025%5Faccessible%5Ff.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) was published in connection with the AI Action Summit in Paris. It’s written by a diverse group of 96 independent AI experts, including an international Expert Advisory Panel nominated by 30 countries along with representatives from OECD, the EU, and the UN. The International AI Safety Report focuses on “general purpose AI” and aims to provide scientific information that will support policymaking without recommending any specific policies. It classifies general-purpose AI risks into three categories with a number of sub-categories: #### Malicious use risks - ***Harms to individuals through fake content***: Non-consensual pornography and other harmful applications of deepfakes, financial fraud through voice impersonation, blackmailing, sabotage of personal and professional reputations, and psychological abuse. - **Manipulation of public opinion*:* Because general-purpose AI systems make it easier to create persuasive content at scale, they can be used to manipulate public opinion and for instance affect political outcomes. - **Cyber offence:** General-purpose AI systems make it easier and faster for malicious actors of varying skill levels to conduct cyberattacks. - **Biological and chemical attacks*:* Recent general-purpose AI systems have displayed some ability to provide instructions and troubleshooting guidance for reproducing known biological and chemical weapons and to facilitate the design of novel toxic compounds. #### Risks from malfunctions - ***Reliability issues***: Unreliability can lead to harm. For example, if a user consults a general-purpose AI system for medical or legal advice. - **Bias*:* General-purpose AI systems can amplify social and political biases with respect to race, gender, culture, age, disability, political opinion, or other aspects of human identity. This can lead to discriminatory outcomes including unequal resource allocation, reinforcement of stereotypes, and systematic neglect of underrepresented groups or viewpoints. - **Loss of control*:* Hypothetic future scenarios where general-purpose AI systems come to operate outside of anyone's control. #### Systemic risks - ***Labor market risks***: General-purpose AI systems have the potential to automate a very wide range of tasks, which could have a significant effect on the labor market and lead many people to lose their current jobs. - ***Global AI and R&D divide***: AI research and development (R&D) is currently concentrated in a few Western countries and China. This could lead to an “AI divide” which could increase much of the world’s dependence on a small set of countries and contribute to global inequality. - ***Market concentration and single points of failure***: If organizations across critical sectors such as finance or healthcare, all rely on a small number of general-purpose AI systems, societies are left very vulnerable if a bug or vulnerability infects one of those systems. - **Environmental risks*:* General purpose AI development and deployment has rapidly increased the amounts of energy, water, and raw material consumed in building and operating the necessary compute infrastructure. - **Privacy risks*:* Sensitive information in training data or user interaction with a general-purpose AI system can leak, and malicious actors may gain access to it. - **Copyright infringements*:* Both data collection and content generation challenge copyright law across jurisdictions. The legal uncertainty around data collection practices, causes AI companies to share less information about the data they use which makes third-party AI safety research harder. None of these AI risks are surprising to regular readers of Futuristic Lawyer - I have covered all of them before. However, as the report acknowledges, risks related to general-purpose AI systems are very hard to fully account for. For a couple of reasons: - the range of possible use cases for general-purpose AI systems is very broad. - developers still understand little about how the models actually operate once deployed. - AI’s constantly increasing capabilities and new developments such as agentic systems and reasoning models pose new, significant risks. - governments and non-industry researchers have limited insight into how AI systems work due to the closedness of the leading AI companies. - the companies themselves face strong competitive pressure which may lead them to deprioritize risk management. Due to the difficulty of identifying and assessing risks related to general-purpose AI, there is not any standardized risk management framework widely in use across sectors and jurisdictions – although numerous efforts are underway globally. Perhaps that is why the report’s conclusion after 213 pages is not particularly uplifting: > *“The first International AI Safety Report finds that the future of general-purpose AI is remarkably uncertain.”* Concurrently, the report’s conclusion states: > *“General-purpose AI has *immense potential* for education, medical applications, research advances in fields such as chemistry, biology, or physics, and generally increased prosperity thanks to AI-enabled innovation. If managed properly, general-purpose AI systems could substantially improve the lives of people worldwide.”* Is this really true though? Does general-purpose AI have “immense potential”? I will challenge the notion that experts in AI and machine learning have the skills or necessary knowledge about education, medicine, chemistry, biology, or physics to make such statements. “AI will have a profound impact on society” is one of those mottos people involved in the industry have been saying for a long time, long before ChatGPT’s release in November 2022 which marked general-purpose AI’s commercial breakthrough. The same exact phrase must have been written in the conclusions of hundreds, if not thousands of reports and papers about AI - and it could just as easily have been written about crypto, blockchain, and virtual reality a few years ago. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/b8868719-ac1d-414e-8c7d-75089c32994e_815x1058-jpeg.jpg) My question: Do we in fact know that general-purpose AI’s potential is *immense*? What if its potential has already been reached? I personally think there is a non-negligible chance that we will only see incremental improvements to new general-purpose AI models from now on. Like the meme that each year the new version of the iPhone is released with just a slightly better camera. What else can general-purpose AI do from here on out that we haven’t already seen? Solve climate change or come up with a cure for cancer? Of course, the field will continue to evolve and mature but let’s not discount the simple fact that the outputs of general-purpose AI are still based on the input data we provide it with. General-purpose AI models may appear smart but they cannot think for themselves and lack human qualities, completely. They are only automating knowledge we already have – which is indeed impressive – but nothing new by now. Can we confidently say that the future potential is still “immense”? I am not so convinced but try to change my mind if you can. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### China's Position in AI & BigTech URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/chinas-position-in-ai-and-tech/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:26:44.000Z **Disclaimer:* This talk was recorded soon after the New Years. As we know, a lot has happened since then but learning about China’s tech - and AI ecosystem, remain as relevant as ever.* [Grace Shao](https://open.substack.com/users/878147) is an independent tech and AI researcher and writer. She often writes about AI, technology, and corporate governance, contributing to Fortune, The Diplomat, EIU, and FT Chinese. Previously, as a full-time journalist, Grace reported on Asia tech and business for CNBC and CGTN. Her work has also been published in the SCMP, S&P Global Market Intelligence, Yahoo Finance, and USA Today. Grace is also the founder of Proem Communications. As an international media consultant, she has advised clients such as Lenovo, Ant Financial, Kuaishou, PayPal, KKR, Primavera, and growth-stage consumer tech and biotech firms. Grace was integral to Alibaba Group's international corporate affairs team, helping the tech giant navigate some of its most significant crises and milestones. See Grace’s consultancy website here 👉 https://www.proemcommunications.com/ Check out the AI Proem on Substack 👇 [AI ProemAI Proem provides reports and analyses on global AI x infrastructure, AI innovation, Physical AI, and big-tech AI. With a focus on U.S.-China.By Grace Shao](https://aiproem.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### How Online Dating Algorithms Ruin Dating URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/online-dating-algorithms-ruin-dating/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:27:00.000Z Last year, I received a lot of positive feedback from [my coverage](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-to-deal-with-data-harvesting) of Mozilla Foundation’s Valentine’s Day report “*Romantic AI Chatbots Don’t Have Your Privacy at Heart*”. This year, I will celebrate the upcoming holiday on Futurist Lawyer by taking the issue of technology and romantic love to another level. We will discuss the deeper implications of online dating. To be clear, I am not against online dating as a concept. I know that many people have met their partners in that way and it has led to many happy marriages and families - presumably. At the same time, I strongly believe that the design of online dating apps and the way algorithms govern new relationships are harmful and that the disadvantages of using online dating apps outweigh the advantages, more and more by the year. In general, information technology and the sad remains of the attention economy are driving people towards isolation. For a good reference, see [The Anti-Social Century](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/02/american-loneliness-personality-politics/681091/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by Derek Thompson for The Atlantic. Many people, more people than ever I think, are suffering from loneliness and opting out of dating altogether due to understandable frustrations. Online dating sites and apps are seeing the effects. If we look at Match Group, the parent company of 45 dating sites and apps, including Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish, [its net worth](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MTCH/match-group/net-worth?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) is $8.58 billion per 1/6/2025, down 82% from its all-time high of $46.58 billion in 2021\. Last year, the popular dating app Bumble had to “[swipe left](https://www.techtimes.com/articles/302123/20240228/popular-dating-app-bumble-swipes-left-30-workforce-tech-layoffs.htm?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)" on 30% of its workforce after reporting a net loss of $32 million on its financial report for Q4 2023. A [Forbes Health Survey ](https://www.forbes.com/health/dating/dating-app-fatigue/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)from last year shows that 79% of online dating users from Generation Z and 80% of Millennials feel burned out by dating apps. Consistent with these findings, is [a survey by Axion and Generation Labs](https://www.axios.com/2023/11/05/dating-apps-college-students-tinder-bumble?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) from 2023, which shows that 79% of college and graduate students across the US said they didn’t use any dating apps on a monthly basis. There seems to be a broad consensus that the “golden age of dating apps” is over. [Bustle.com](https://www.bustle.com/wellness/dating-apps-have-gotten-worse-hinge-tinder-bumble-gen-z-millennials?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) refers to a TikTok video by NY-based comedian, Keara Sullivan, who I think put it eloquently: > *“If you met your partner on a dating app two years ago, you caught the last chopper out of ‘Nam.”* Even though [Gen-Z is ditching the dating apps](https://time.com/6836033/gen-z-ditching-dating-apps/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), I will argue that the dependency on online dating algorithms has done lasting damage to human relationships and on how we meet, or don’t meet, people in general. This damage was done by young and naïve entrepreneurs who saw a huge business opportunity but lacked the foresight, emotional maturity, and wisdom to see the far-reaching implications of what they built. Simultaneously, the market-driven, Western democracies didn’t know what was happening and couldn’t react. Online dating apps have, on one hand, monetized, and on the other hand cultivated, the fear of rejection and loneliness. Dating apps reward anti-social behavior and have contributed greatly to an unhealthy obsession with looks, status, and materialism. This has in turn created an unfair [caste system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste%5Fsystem%5Fin%5FIndia?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for dating opportunities. Human relationships are now more transactional, superficial, and unsatisfying, and the apps have inflicted a lot of unnecessary emotional pain on addicted users. When I discuss this with my family and friends, they are always surprised about how strong my resentment towards dating apps is. They don’t get it. After reading this ≈5.000 word report, you hopefully will. Am I being too harsh in my assessment? Let me know - your input is very welcome! What we will cover in this post: - How the online dating pioneer, Match.com, developed its algorithm - The concept of “cognitive dissonance” - The “dating app paradox” - A lawsuit against Match.com filed last year on Valentine’s Day. - Tinder’s algorithm - The science of swiping - “Cognitive swiping” and eliminating the fear of rejection _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI & Newsletter Writing URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-newsletter-writing/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:27:00.000Z I recently had a talk with [Riccardo Vocca](https://open.substack.com/users/28560656) who is a research assistant in marketing and the author of [The Intelligent Friend](https://open.substack.com/users/2412954), a newsletter where he explores the impact of AI on everyday life through scientific research. At the moment, Riccardo is preparing to launch a podcast of his own, something I can only encourage. Whenever I speak to people about podcasting and what my motivation for doing it is, there is a short quote I always fall back on by Yuval Noah Harari: > “Don’t be a lone activist”. In truth, the impact we can make as individuals is very limited. The easiest thing in the world for me to do would be to sit in my proverbial basement and complain about everything wrong with the world - and there are PLENTY of things to complain about. However, it wouldn’t change anything. The only way to make a meaningful change in the world is by collective action, so by making connections with others and leveraging a network. Historically and biologically, humans have flourished throughout the ages and outgrown other species because of our ability to communicate and work together. Not because of grand achievements by a few extraordinary individuals. I see podcasting, sharing other people’s viewpoints, stories, thoughts, and ideas with the world, as my way of contributing to the greater, collective brain power. Riccardo is a fellow European who writes about AI with a strong foundation in science and academia. If you enjoy the work I do here on Futuristic Lawyer, chances are you will enjoy Riccardo’s work as well. Here is a direct message to you from Riccardo: “Dear Futuristic Lawyer readers, I am truly honored and excited to have been invited by Tobias and to have the opportunity to "join you". The work that Tobias does on the newsletter is truly great, and I hope that this episode does not disappoint your expectations but, in an informal and spontaneous way, can also provide you with ideas or stimulate reflections. If the impact of AI on our lives interests you, stop by The Intelligent Friend, I will be excited to hear your opinion! Finally, let me thank Tobias, a person who is not only deeply passionate about what he writes, but also kind and authentic. All that remains is to read, or rather, listen!” On The Intelligent Friend, you will discover how we relate to AI, how (and if) it can make us more creative, the influence it has on our choices and much more. To learn more about AI-human interactions based on top academic research, check out The Intelligent Friend 👇 [The Intelligent FriendThe newsletter exploring how AI is transforming our daily lives, through scientific research.By Riccardo Vocca](https://theintelligentfriend.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### Tech Legal Brief #4 – The Deeper Implications of DeepSeek URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-deepseek-implications/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:27:30.000Z ## The Deeper Implications of DeepSeek The deeper implications of DeepSeek are not technological but political. For years, US BigTech companies have avoided democratic governance by using competition with China as an excuse for a continued permit to do what they want without regulation. > “If you don’t leave us alone, China will win. Is that what you want?” This argument has been used by Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and OpenAI whenever they are faced with scrutiny by the US Congress. So far, invoking the word "China" has been a get-out-of-jail-free-card as evidenced by the fact that new laws and regulatory scrutiny have not at all affected the value of BigTech companies. Now, DeepSeek has revealed that even with the considerable democratic mandate BigTech has been afforded and the unearthly amount of capital BigTech is throwing at developing world-leading AI models, China is still winning. [Key Things to Know About China’s Quiet Humpback Whale I usually restrict myself to only posting essays on Tuesdays out of respect for my readers' time and attention.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-248.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/0b069e57-596e-41a4-8bd9-fb86d2b18d85_1024x684-jpeg-1.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/key-things-to-know-about-chinas-quiet) But the political implications are even deeper. We have to recognize that there is a political reality behind AI. As Ali Alkhatib wrote in the blog post “[Defining AI](https://ali-alkhatib.com/blog/defining-ai?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”: > *“I think we should shed the idea that AI is a technological artifact with political features and recognize it as a political artifact through and through. *AI is an ideological project to shift authority and autonomy away from individuals, towards centralized structures of power.* Projects that claim to “democratize” AI routinely conflate “democratization” with “commodification”. Even open-source AI projects often borrow from libertarian ideologies to help manufacture little fiefdoms.”* If we think of AI as a political project more than a technology, the massive attention surrounding DeepSeek-R1 makes a lot of sense. By outperforming BigTech on a budget, DeepSeek is not just challenging the profits of a few big technology companies, but undermining what has become the political identity of an entire global superpower. DeepSeek is shattering the models of American capitalism as well-explained by Richard J Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice, at Sheffield University Management School. OpenAI has responded to the situation [by quick-launching o3-mini](https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), its own reasoning model, for free, and is asking for an additional round of funding of $40 billion which would value the company at $300 billion ([WSJ](https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openaiin-talks-for-huge-investment-round-valuing-it-up-to-300-billion-2a2d4327?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). The search for more funding at such a fatal time is fully aligned with BigTech’s playbook. Once OpenAI is considered to be powerful and essential enough to America’s national security and global economic competitiveness, the US regulators have no choice but to label it “too big to fail” and grant it a get-out-of-jail-free card. Read more about BigTech’s playbook here: [Coopting Disruption - How Five Companies Dominate the Web“The most exciting thing I see on the horizon right now for the tech industry is the raft of antitrust suits”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-249.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4bb31972-365e-43d9-af8e-06a02b0b1e21_950x534-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/coopting-disruption-how-five-companies) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Key Things to Know About China’s Quiet Humpback Whale URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/key-things-to-know-about-chinas-quiet/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:27:31.000Z Understanding the Hype and Implications of DeepSeek-R1 _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Trump, China & Trade Wars Will Affect the Global AI Landscape in 2025 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-trump-china-and-trade-wars-will/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:27:32.000Z A deep dive on the American tradewar with China and thoughts on Trump _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The State of Media & Journalism URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-state-of-media-and-journalism/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:27:32.000Z Here is my conversation with [Gideon Lichfield](https://open.substack.com/users/249408995). Gideon is an experienced journalist who served as global editorial director of Wired magazine from March 2021 until August 2023 and before that as editor-in-chief of MIT Technology Review. Nowadays, Gideon works as an independent consultant and he is the author of [Futurepolis](https://open.substack.com/users/2744288), a Substack publication dedicated to exploring the future of democracy. In our conversation, we discuss the current state of media, journalism, and democracy, and Gideon opens up about his decision and motivation for starting on Substack. Check out Gideon’s website here 👉 https://gideonlichfield.com Sign up to receive stories from Futurepolis below👇 [FuturepolisOn reinventing democracy, governance, and government for the 21st century.By Gideon Lichfield](https://futurepolis.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### Tech Legal Brief #3 – Three Essays from Late 2024 & One Must-Read Book URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-3-three-essays-from/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:08.000Z ## Introduction I call these editions of my newsletter “Tech Legal Brief” but as I have said earlier in: [Tech Legal Brief #1 – The Copyright DilemmaWelcome to the 1st edition of Futuristic Lawyer’s Tech Legal Brief![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-252.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/23b350e6-3c68-44a9-808d-2a5ae018fa14_1280x720-1.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/tech-legal-brief-1-the-copyright) [Tech Legal Brief #2 – EU’s Meta Fine, Open-Source AI Definition & CoP for GPAIsIt’s time for the second edition of my prototype post-series, Tech Legal Brief.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-253.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/b8f2ab9a-191b-4039-9d74-29a6d2140725_1280x720.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/tech-legal-brief-2-eus-meta-fine) I am not trying to track all relevant developments in the space of tech and legal. There is far too much going on for that, and obediently running after all the frisbees and balls in the park is exhausting and does not make anyone happy. Information fatigue is a legitimate concern in this hyper-information age we live in, and too little information is often preferable to too much. Therefore, I only highlight material in my Tech Legal Briefs which I think is absolutely worth sharing. Typically, it didn’t get enough press coverage, and it often relates to a topic I have written about before. Today’s installment will be sparse, simply a recommendation of three essays from late 2024 that speak to something substantial about the Tech Legal space and the society we live in - one essay from October, one from November, and one from December. First, I will share my pick for the most important book published in English in 2024\. It’s a must-read by my standards which are very high - extremely few posts and books make it into that category. This particular book succeeds in fulfilling my definition of a “must-read book” because it points towards a revolutionary shift that needs to happen in how society functions. It’s by no means a convenient shift but a strictly necessary one for the sake of future human survival. ## Must-read book from 2024 Here’s my pick for the most important book of 2024: [Slow Down - The Degrowth Manifesto](https://astrapublishinghouse.com/product/slow-down-9781662602368/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by Kohei Saito (it was published in English in January 2024, but in Japanese in 2020 under a different name) ![13 of the Best Nonfiction Books Coming in January 2024 | Tertulia](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/28037c6e-b0c0-4b48-8e4d-ea2b7c27ba8e_265x400.png) A few years back, I swore that technology was the only answer to fix the climate change crisis. I even wrote my Master's thesis about the topic, specifically about how IP rights could affect the transfer of climate-friendly technologies from developed to developing countries. I now realize that this strong belief I held, which carried me through my thesis dissertation to great success, was wrong. Technology is not the answer to fixing the climate change crisis. The answer is degrowth. This is the worst nightmare for capitalists but it’s also an “inconvenient truth” as former US Vice President Al Gore wisely phrased it. In “Slow Down – The Degrowth Manifesto – Japanese philosopher Kohei Saito convincingly explains why capitalism is coming to an end, whether we like it or not, and why “degrowth communism” as a new form of governance is needed. The book is partly based on unpublished notes by Karl Marx which he wrote years after his centerpiece "Das Kapital", as an older and wiser man, close to the end of his life. The most important takeaways from the book are that “green growth” is an illusion and that “left-accelerationism” – the idea that we can innovate ourselves out of nature’s restraints - is an illusion too. The only way to effectively curb the most existential threat to humanity is to cut down on our consumption. Cutting down on consumption would inhibit financial growth and thus spell the end of capitalism. What comes next? That is the question Saito is opening up and attempts to answer. Dealing with climate change is not a matter of politics or belief but of survival. That may be a hard truth to accept for older generations, who became rich from the fossil fuel economy. It’s even harder to accept, for the ultra-rich who feel entitled to a luxurious lifestyle paid for by exploitation and environmental crime. Chances are, however, that new generations will perceive our role in the grand scheme of nature in a different light. A reviewer from Berliner Morgenpost calls Kohei Saito the new Piketty, which I think is a spot-on description. "Slow Down" is easier to read than Piketty’s work but is one of those rare books that feels like it's glancing a few years or decades into the future based on a sound and comprehensive understanding of the past and the present. In a few words, it’s a must-read. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Fighting the Brussels Effect Is Futile URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/fighting-the-brussels-effect-is-futile/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:16.000Z Inevitably, European digital laws will continue to have an effect in the United States and shape the behavior of American BigTech companies. Even Donald Trump’s nationalistic approach to business and politics will not be able to fend off the ghostly grip of European non-elected bureaucrats. It’s not voodoo or magic but simple logic. The US tech giants cannot continue to grow without access to the European market which consists of roughly 450 million similar-minded and relatively tech-savvy consumers. However, to play on European turf, the US tech companies are obliged to follow European rules. This means complying with GDPR, DSA, DMA, AI Act, and other strict legal frameworks that place the rights of the individual above the rights to profits. To the wealthy elite and [the current administration of the US government](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/trump-will-run-the-us-government), this prioritization is a nuisance. The current boom of the US economy is based on the success of its tech companies. Namely Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, now Nvidia, and other tech giants have not just greatly contributed to but completely taken ownership of the global digital economy - at least in democratic countries that have nearly unrestricted access to the web. Specifically, the economy of the US has succeeded in recent years because of the ability of its private sector to export digital products and services to other parts of the world. We could call it digital imperialism. However, the global and penetrating reach of the US tech companies is not only a great strength for the economy. It also leaves the US economy vulnerable to foreign laws and standards that it has no influence over, and sometimes the price of compliance can be a costly affair. Especially the EU presents a conundrum for the tech giants. The companies cannot afford to lose their presence in the EU market but at the same time they have to abide by the strict European laws, and the laws seem to become even stricter as information technology evolves and the companies mature. Enter the Brussels effect. The US exports its tech products to the EU, while the EU exports its regulatory standards to the US. BigTech companies are forced to follow the high bar set by European lawmakers, and this compliance work inevitably rubs off on the design of their products. Additionally, the strict EU laws inspire other countries to raise their regulatory standards as well. Instead of resisting this pattern, the American tech authorities should accept it and work with it – not against it. In the global digital economy, the Brussel Effect is a law of nature. Bemoaning that European digital laws affect US tech companies in 2025 is like bemoaning gravity or that the sky is blue. In the same vein, attempts to police against the Brussels effect are like trying to control the wind or the sun. The Brussels effect is good news for American citizens with left-leaning ideologies who care about the rights of the individual, but bad news for technocrats who think human rights laws are a hoax, outside of the First and Second Amendments. Ted Cruz, senator of Texas, [wrote a letter to the US Attorney General](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/55267EFF-11A8-4BD6-BE1E-61452A3C48E3?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), dated November 21, where he expressed his concern with the EU's regulatory power in the US, namely in the context of AI. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Spirituality, Corporate Work & AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/spirituality-corporate-work-and-ai/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:16.000Z Here’s my conversation with Chad Woodford. Chad has worked as a lawyer for companies in Silicon Valley throughout many years, including for Google and Twitter. Besides law, Chad has an educational background in software engineering and philosophy, and he is a teacher of yoga and meditation. We discuss how to combine a corporate life with spirituality - something I don’t see covered very often - how to stick with a meditation habit, and then we go deep into the rabbit hole of AI, and what it even means to be conscious and human. I hope you enjoy this episode of the Futuristic Lawyer podcast which is also available on Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube. Find Chad Woodford on: YouTube👉 https://www.youtube.com/@cosmicwit Patreon 👉 https://www.patreon.com/cosmicwit Substack 👇 [Cosmic IntelligencePhilosophy, cosmology, consciousness, artificial intelligence, spirituality, and the occasional high weirdnessBy Chad Woodford](https://cosmicwit.substack.com/?utm%5Fsource=substack&utm%5Fcampaign=publication%5Fembed&utm%5Fmedium=web) ### My Tech Prophecy for 2025 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/my-tech-prophecy-for-2025/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:18.000Z ## Announcement for 2025 > *“Hitherto, data was seen as only the first step in a long chain of intellectual activity. Humans were supposed to distil data into information, information into knowledge, and knowledge into wisdom. However, Dataists believe that humans can no longer cope with the immense flows of data, hence they cannot distil data into information, let alone into knowledge or wisdom. The work of processing data should therefore be entrusted to electronic algorithms, whose capacity far exceeds that of the human brain. In practice, this means that Dataists are sceptical about human knowledge and wisdom, and prefer to put their trust in Big Data and computer algorithms.”* > > \- Yuval Noah Harari in “Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow” I have decided to work on a book about predictive algorithms and the consequences of datafying humans and relationships. It will not be a law book but a personal account and a deeply researched, polymathic study of, essentially, AI’s impact on humanity. I intend to continuously share my notes here on Substack throughout the year in the hopes of getting feedback. Towards the end of 2025, my goal is to publish the book digitally and hand out a gift link to paying subscribers. As a reflection of this new commitment, I have raised my subscriber prices ever so slightly. For **free subscribers**, nothing will change. You will continue to receive previews of weekly posts, podcast episodes, and one monthly full-length post. For **paid subscribers**, the price for full access to all my work on Substack and a gift link to my e-book at the end of the year is $7.5/month or $75/year. Additionally, I am offering a new paid tier called **Advisory** **Board Member** for 150$/year. This tier includes a 2-hour personal consultation with me over 1, 2, 3, or 4 sessions. Here, we will go deep into what you want to get out of Futuristic Lawyer, what you are currently working on, and if relevant, what kind of challenges you are facing. Over time, I hope to create a private group chat, annual or bi-annual network meetings on Zoom, and other networking opportunities for Advisory Board Members. Besides these changes, I will continue to publish as normal on different topics that interest me in the intersection of tech, law, IT business, and ethics. Thanks for reading! # My Tech Prophecy for 2025 ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/6229087f-6df3-45e1-b873-5ad88e73bf36_768x768-jpeg-1.jpg) ## Introduction What an ending to 2024. OpenAI’s new o3 model [achieved a breakout score on the ARC-AGI-PUB benchmark](https://arcprize.org/blog/oai-o3-pub-breakthrough?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), the benchmark designed by former Google engineer, François Chollet, and co-founder of Zapier, Mike Knoop, to measure progress towards AGI with simple tasks that should be hard for LLMs to solve. Bitcoin has surpassed a key milestone by reaching more than $100,00 in value per coin. Elon Musk is a trusted advisor to the President now with [tremendous political sway](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/19/media/elon-musk-political-spending-bill-shutdown/index.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Lina Khan [will likely be sacked ](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/12/business/lina-khan-ftc-chair-trump/index.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)from her position as Chair for the Federal Trade Commission, and so her admirable efforts to reign in BigTech's monopoly power will come to a close. American techno-capitalism has won. The boosters have seemingly cleared out the last resistance and can make up their own rules for a new game few people want to play. Like the time when [Elon Musk considered buying Dungeons and Dragons](https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/elon-musk-hints-at-buying-hasbro-for-dd-after-announcing-ai-game-studio-2993666/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/0558fe72-cf87-4077-959b-c72c9b9d8d19_500x960-jpeg.jpg) What happens from here? In the United States, the tech industry will have more power, while the people who are trying to regulate it and protect democracy and public interests, will have less power. The rich will accumulate more riches, the poor will have less of whatever they have left, and the middle class will shrink. A civil war vibe is looming in the country, as evidenced by the media and the internet's idolization of an apparently handsome guy who murdered the CEO of a big health insurance company. Social-economic inequality is causing a profound disgruntlement and resentment against the system, and social media as a communication tool lacks the dimension to pick up on these deeper structural issues and transmit them to users. Speaking of social media, I predict that TikTok will not be banned, and if it will, not for long. Even if it should be banned permanently, an equally harmful service could quickly emerge and take over its market shares. [Gurwinder aptly describes ](https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/tiktok-may-be-a-chinese-bio-weapon?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)TikTok as a new kind of Chinese bioweapon that harms people with an overload of pleasure, rather than pain. Regardless, TikTok's pivotal role in Trump's successful reelection campaign - including Trump’s now famous and widely imitated shuffle-dance, which was staged by “[TikTok Jack](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14103601/TikTok-Jack-secret-viral-Trump-Dance.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)", Trump's 22-year-old Generation Z adviser - makes a permanent TikTok ban in the US unlikely for the next four years. We know that Trump’s policies operate by an eye-for-an-eye and a favor-for-a-favor principle, so if you treat him nicely on a personal level, you will do good with him, if you don’t, you will not. TikTok has been very nice to Donald Trump. Darkness aside, since techno-capitalism has seemingly won, and won big, we will see if the wet dreams of tech CEOs in Silicon Valley can be manifested. If Elon’s new DOGE commission can successfully reduce public spending, if Bitcoin and crypto can find a "killer app" or a real-world problem to solve, and most importantly for the purpose of this post, we will see if AI can live up to its promises. OpenAI’s latest model o3 gives us a glimpse of legitimate superintelligence - by definition - as its capabilities exceed the individual intelligence of human experts in most fields. An obvious caveat here is that these results are based on benchmark tests and it's extremely unlikely that the results translate to real-world utility as we will look further into in a future post. [Sam Altman thinks](https://ia.samaltman.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that superintelligence can fix the climate crisis and help to establish a colony in space within a few years, whereas Anthropic CEO [Dario Amodei believes](https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) it’s only a matter of time before AI can cure all diseases. There are two substantial barriers to achieving something that resembles Silicon Valley’s vision of AGI, besides technical feasibility. The first barrier, is well, money. o3 is very costly to use (thousands of dollars per query [on the ARC-AGI-PUB benchmark](https://arcprize.org/blog/oai-o3-pub-breakthrough?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) on the high-compute configuration), and one can imagine that building and deploying a super-intelligent machine that can essentially solve all of humanity’s challenges, will be prohibitively expensive. Long term, the high price tag on superintelligence could create inequality between those who have money and those who don’t, creating a kind of A team and B team, or in other words, reinforcing the existing structures of the socio-economic inequality in American society. Near term, the barrier is simply [AI’s scaling problem](https://www.ai-supremacy.com/p/scaling-barriers-diminishing-returns?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) \- after a certain point, spending more capital on an incrementally better performance, does not make economic sense. The other major barrier is [environmental harm](https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/12/13/1108719/ais-emissions-are-about-to-skyrocket-even-further/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). A single task performed by o3 can [emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as five full tanks of gas for a car](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bgamazay%5Fopenai-has-announced-o3-which-appears-to-activity-7276250095019335680-sVbW/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), indicating that the future energy and resource demands of AI data centers will be outrageous. The limits on capital and nature’s restraints could very well be permanent barriers to achieving superintelligence as it is advertised. But sidestepping the questions of whether superintelligence is attainable and sustainable, are we ready for it if it should come? Now, that the techno-capitalists have obtained the democratic mandate, and tech innovation can spur unhinged in America with less push-back in the shape of annoying laws and finger-pointers, can the tech overlords really manage what they want to build? Two critical areas that need to be managed well are [AI’s impact on studying and work](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ais-impact-on-studying-and-working). If AI does not lead to more productivity and satisfaction for students and workers overall, then AI as a techno-political movement has failed. On this background, I have dedicated the next two sections to explore how AI is and should be managed in workplaces and in higher education, and how we can measure if AI’s impact has been net positive in these areas. ## AI’s Impact on Studying _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### My Portfolio for 2024 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/my-portfolio-for-2024/ Last updated: 2024-12-10T05:30:53.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Existential AI Threat & Game Theory URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-existential-ai-threat-and-game/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:18.000Z > *“We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”* > > *The Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955)* The statement above was penned by the intellectual leader Bertrand Russell during the Cold War in 1955\. In an open letter, Russell warned against the imminent threat and obliterating consequence of a nuclear war between the East and the West. Russell urged governments to find a peaceful resolution to all matters of dispute. The plea was signed by 11 scientists, 9 of them Noble Prize winners, including Albert Einstein, who passed away just a few days after approving to give his signature. The letter became known as the “[The Russell-Einstein Manifesto](https://ia802901.us.archive.org/4/items/b.russelltherusselleinsteinmanifesto%5F491%5Fw/B.%20Russell%20-%20The%20Russell-Einstein%20Manifesto.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”. Fast forward 68 years to May 2023\. A large group of AI scientists and notable figures in the industry such as Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei signed an [open letter](https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) crafted by the non—profit organization Center forAI Safety which simply states: > *“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”* The letter doesn’t explain how and why poorly governed AI comes with “the risk of extinction”. That is up to the reader´s interpretation. Since no one knows how AI technology will evolve - if the development will hit a rough patch soon and stall or continue to grow exponentially year by year - we can’t confidently say what the most serious societal-scale risk from AI is or how to prepare for it. The [mutually assured destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual%5Fassured%5Fdestruction?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that would follow from a nuclear war is frighteningly tangible, whereas the existential AI risk, is a different beast altogether. As I conceive the issue, it doesn’t boil down to a choice between paradise and universal death. The existential risk from AI is that a small percentage of the world’s population will sit on all the world’s resources, live in a material paradise, while the vast majority of people have to endure a financial hell. To say it without the religious imagery, AI can supercharge systemic inequality and further widen the gap between rich and poor. Wealth accumulates to the richest, and whenever a new technology is not subject to democratic control but owned and controlled by the wealthy elite, it follows the [Matthew Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew%5Feffect?ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > *“For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”* It’s not only financially, that AI stands to benefit the billionaire class much more than ordinary Americans. While owners and investors of internet platforms stand to profit greatly from AI, the users’ attention spans are shortened and gradually molded into recurring revenue streams. The attention economy also has a strange but well-documented effect of promoting tribalism and division while benefitting the deep pockets of BigTech. Finally, the tremendous profits from the attention-based business model are not used to solve world hunger or build renewable energy systems, rather it is used to further expand the elite’s sphere of influence. As we will look at below, all this is not the personal fault of billionaires, tech CEOs, or shareholders. Stereotypical “tech critics” often get this part wrong. It’s a failure of the market. The only real enemy is “Moloch”, a phenomenon originally described in the classical essay “[Meditation on Moloch](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” by Scott Alexander. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #2 – EU’s Meta Fine, Open-Source AI Definition & CoP for GPAIs URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-2-eus-meta-fine/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:41.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Australia Is Close to Adopting a Digital Ulysses Pact for Children URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/australia-is-close-to-adopting-a/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:42.000Z Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, said earlier in November that Australia is legislating for a ban on social media for children under 16 ([Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/australia-proposes-ban-social-media-those-under-16-2024-11-06/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). The proposal enjoys bipartisan support in the parliament and if it passes in the House of Representatives and the Senate this year, it could come into effect in late 2025 ([ABC News](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/how-the-age-minimum-for-social-media-will-work/104571790?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) as the first ban of its kind, globally. In many countries, minors can access the commonly used social media platforms with parental consent. Australia is pushing for an absolute ban without exceptions. There will not be a “grand-fathering arrangement”, meaning that kids under 16 who have access to social media at the time of the ban, will no longer have access once the law is effective. There would not be any risk of penalties for children or parents under the new law, the onus will be on the platforms to ensure that children cannot have access. Different methods are currently being trialed to enforce the ban such as an age verification system based on biometrics or government identification. The technicalities in this regard are still being worked out and this work would continue into 2025\. Platforms that would be affected by the ban are obviously Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, but the ban could potentially also include YouTube, Reddit, Discord, and many others. The definition of a “social media service” in the [Online Safety Act 2021 (NO. 76, 2021) - Sect 13](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num%5Fact/osa2021154/s13.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) is very broad: > *“(1) For the purposes of this Act,* social media service*means:* > > *(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:* > > *(i) the sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;* > > *(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;* > > *(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service; (..)”* The proposal is *radical* and as one would expect, it has been met with some resistance and skepticism. From [kids](https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australias-planned-social-media-ban-raises-teen-isolation-fears-2024-10-15/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), obviously, and from a [coalition of 140 academics](https://westernsydney.edu.au/%5F%5Fdata/assets/pdf%5Ffile/0016/2052160/Open%5Fletter%5Fre%5Fsocial%5Fmedia%5Fbans.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) who criticized the notion of a blanket ban claiming it would be better to strive for higher safety and security standards for children on the platforms in general. Regardless, the Australian lawmaking powers seem determined to go through with the new law. Reuters [reports](https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/australia-proposes-ban-social-media-those-under-16-2024-11-06/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > *"Social media is doing harm to our kids and I'm calling time on it," Albanese told a news conference.* > > *Albanese cited the risks to physical and mental health of children from excessive social media use, in particular the risks to girls from harmful depictions of body image, and misogynist content aimed at boys.* > > *"If you're a 14-year-old kid getting this stuff, at a time where you're going through life's changes and maturing, it can be a really difficult time and what we're doing is listening and then acting."* ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/1ccf9b76-d0e0-4ffd-b0c1-06a6e3c10f6f_799x542-jpeg.jpg) [Image by Alex Guibord](https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexguibord/33446011932/in/photostream/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) I call the Australian proposal a “digital Ulysses pact”. For those who don’t know, Ulysses is the protagonist in the [Odyssey by Homer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) written 800 years B.C. On their way home after the Trojan War, Ulysses and his crew have to sail past the Sirens whose seductive singing leads sailors astray into shipwrecks. Before leaving the island of Aeaea, the witch Circe gives Ulysses some advice ([link to story](https://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.12.xii.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)): > *“First you will come to the Sirens who enchant all who come near them. If any one unwarily draws in too close and hears the singing of the Sirens, his wife and children will never welcome him home again, for they sit in a green field and warble him to death with the sweetness of their song.* > > *There is a great heap of dead men’s bones lying all around, with the flesh still rotting off them. Therefore pass these Sirens by, and stop your men’s ears with wax that none of them may hear; but if you like you can listen yourself, for you may get the men to bind you as you stand upright on a cross-piece half way up the mast, and they must lash the rope’s ends to the mast itself, that you may have the pleasure of listening. If you beg and pray the men to unloose you, then they must bind you faster.”* Ulysses does as he is told by Circe; stops the ears of his crew with vax and afterward the crew binds Ulysses tightly on hands and feet to the ship mast. As they pass through the Island of Sirens, their beautiful song drives Ulysses into madness and he orders his men to set him free so he can follow their calling. But the men and Ulysses have made a pact – therefrom an “Ulysses pact” – so instead of untying him, the men bind him with even stronger bonds: > *"They sang these words most musically, and as I longed to hear them further I made by frowning to my men that they should set me free; but they quickened their stroke, and Eurylochus and Perimedes bound me with still stronger bonds till we had got out of hearing of the Sirens' voices. Then my men took the wax from their ears and unbound me.”* ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/e2e4d7a6-acf2-411a-8d9f-74ad1b4021a9_800x396-jpeg.jpg) ”Ulysses and the Sirens” by John William Waterhouse ([source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John%5FWilliam%5FWaterhouse%5F-%5FUlysses%5Fand%5Fthe%5FSirens%5F%281891%29.jpg?uselang=fr&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) The moral of the story? Ulysses and his crew only survived by following the wisdom of Circe. She knew that the Siren’s song would be irresistible and drive the sailors temporarily insane. Ulysses and his men took the proper precautions, prepared for the dangers ahead, and thereby survived. Had Ulysses not been tied to the mast, and the men’s ears not stopped with vax, they would have been lured into the certain death. If we regard social media as a Siren’s song, Australia’s new age requirement law could form the basis for a digital Ulysses Pact to protect children. We can teach children healthy online habits and advise them to spend less with their phones but in the end, it won’t make a difference. Social media apps are designed to hack our brains and it’s very hard to consciously override centuries of biological encoding. Regulation that denies children access to social media may be the only chance to provide young people the experience of a life without a digital dependency. ## My View _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Is EU’s Regulation Holding It Back in AI? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/is-eus-regulation-holding-it-back/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:28:58.000Z I sometimes meet people and see posters online who confidently claim, in varying terms, that the EU’s regulation is holding back its potential in AI technology. In my own words, the typical argument goes something like this: > “The US is so significantly ahead in tech and innovation that the EU has resorted to becoming a regulator - simply because it cannot compete. The EU cannot develop a mature IT sector of its own and will remain dependent on exports from its friendly neighbor across the Atlantic Ocean as long as it maintains a regulatory environment that is hostile towards innovation.” There may be *some* truth to this statement but if there is, it’s only one small piece of a much larger jigsaw puzzle. The causality between EU’s digital regulation and its lag behind the US and China when it comes to AI cannot survive closer scrutiny. Let’s just look at the most controversial bit of EU’s AI Act; its compliance requirements for providers of “general-purpose models”. As I wrote about [in my post about the new AI laws in California](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/understanding-the-new-ai-laws-in), California opted for only regulating certain potentially harmful applications of AI rather than placing any compliance burden on AI model developers. A widely touted view among tech entrepreneurs, especially in the US, is that regulating models before they are placed on the market is harmful to innovation. Nonetheless, the AI Act’s obligations to providers of general-purpose AI models listed in [Article 53](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/53/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), do not seem unfairly burdensome but reflect what a responsible company should already do. That is my view. The same view is reflected in an [opinion piece in Fortune by Bob Goodson, president and founder of the San Francisco-based AI company Quid Inc](https://fortune.com/europe/2024/10/16/ai-regulation-lawmakers-tech-politics/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). We can also consider that the compliance costs incurred from living up to the AI Act’s requirements are measly compared to the costs of training and operating state-of-the-art general-purpose models. The EU is trailing the US in AI development, not because of its regulation but due to the fact that the EU does not have as strong a capital market or a comparable BigTech sector. The well-respected economist and former European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi, shared in his recent report, [The Future of European Competitiveness](https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening-european-competitiveness/eu-competitiveness-looking-ahead%5Fen?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a few key facts about EU’s global position in tech, computing, and AI: - There is no EU company with a market cap over €100 billion that has been set up from scratch in the last fifty years. Six US companies with a valuation above €1 trillion (Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Nvidia) have been created during the same period. - Among leading companies in software and internet, EU firms represent only 7% of R&D expenditure, compared with 71% for the US and 15% for China. - The EU is home to only four of the fifty largest digital marketplaces worldwide, while the ten largest platforms serving EU citizens are owned by the US (Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, X) and China (Tencent, Alibaba, Byte Dance and Baidu). - The three US-based cloud 'Hyperscalers' (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud) account for 65% of the EU’s cloud market. EU’s competitive disadvantage will most likely only widen in the years to come as operating costs, including real estate and energy costs, are substantially higher in the EU than in the US and China. - 73% of foundational models (general-purpose modes) developed since 2017 are from the US and 15% from China. - In 2023, an estimated $8 billion in venture capital investment was made in AI in the EU, compared to $68 billion in the US and $15 billion in China - Of the top global AI startups worldwide, 61% of global funding goes to US companies, 17% to Chinese companies, and only 6% to those in the EU. (On a more positive note, the EU has a strong international position in high-performance computing (HPC). Three of EU's supercomputers (Lumi in Finland, Leonardo in Italy, and Mare Nostrum 5 in Spain) are in the top ten worldwide. Two [exascale computers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale%5Fcomputing?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) are planned to launch in the near future. The HPC centers are now opening up to AI startups, small – to medium enterprises (SMEs), and the broader AI community. ) How can we explain the EU’s lack of tech innovation and its conspicuous second runner-up position in the race with the US and China, if it’s not because of its laws? We will take a closer look at this question below and finally ask whether a global leadership position in AI is even advantageous without a strong legal framework to govern the technology. Anu Bradford, scholar at Columbia University Law School, identifies four reasons relating to features of the EU’s tech ecosystem in her paper, “[The False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovation](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid=4753107&ref=futuristiclawyer.com),” which helps to explain why the EU is at such a disadvantage in the global AI arms race and lacks a BigTech sector. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Understanding the Actual Risks of AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/understanding-the-actual-risks-of/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:29:13.000Z *(Original post was featured on* [*Michael Spencer*](https://open.substack.com/users/21731691)*’s* [*AI Supremacy* ](https://open.substack.com/users/396235)*)* ## Introduction On August 14, 2024, MIT FutureTech and its partners released the [AI risk repository ](https://airisk.mit.edu/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)\- the most comprehensive database of AI risks assembled to date. The stated goal is to create a common frame of reference for understanding and addressing the risks from AI. You can explore the database for yourself and read the preprint via the website [here](https://airisk.mit.edu/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#Repository-Overview). In this post, we will look closer into how the new database can be used in combination with the “domain taxonomy” and the “casual taxonomy" and how it differs from similar risk frameworks that are used by BigTech. The AI risk repository was released by Peter Slattery, Neil Thompson, Alexander Saeri and Emily Grundy from MIT FutureTech in collaboration with Michael Noetel and Jess Graham from the University of Queensland, James Dao and Soroush Pour from Harmony Intelligence, Stephen Casper from MIT CSAIL, and Risto Uuk from Future of Life Institute and KU Leuven. ## How the AI Repository Can Be Used & the Domain Taxonomy As I see it, the project has two important use cases: It provides practitioners with a clear overview of the full risk landscape, and it helps to reveal research gaps in the current literature on AI risks. As for the first point, the literature on AI risks is rich but fragmented. There are several good risk frameworks that can be used by organizations that want to (or are legally obligated to) analyze and mitigate potential risks when deploying an AI model. However, up until now, there haven’t been any coordinated efforts to create a database like the AI risk repository which combines insights from many different frameworks. As a result, organizations, risk evaluators, security professionals, and policymakers do not have a clear overview of the full risk landscape, and risk mitigation plans and policies may be incomplete and insufficient. Secondly, the AI risk repository reveals research gaps in the current literature on AI risks. Building on risk classification systems from 43 peer-reviewed articles, preprints, conference papers, and other reports - that were carefully selected after screening through more than 17.000 documents - the authors identify 777 AI risks in total. Each of these risks is listed in the AI risk database with a short description from the relevant paper and a reference citation. The risks are also grouped into 7 domains and 23 sub-domains. The authors refer to this categorization as the “domain taxonomy”. The 7 risk domains with percentage points from highest to lowest according to how often they were cited across the 43 risk frameworks look as follows: - AI system safety, failures, and limitations (76%) - Socioeconomic and environmental harms (73%) - Discrimination and toxicity (71%) - Privacy and security (68%) - Malicious actors and misuse (68%) - Misinformation (44%) - Human-Computer Interaction (41%) And for the 23 sub-domains: - Unfair discrimination and misrepresentation (63%) - Compromise of privacy by obtaining, leaking or correctly inferring sensitive information (61%) - Lack of capability or robustness (59%) - Cyberattacks, weapon development or use, and mass harm (54%) - AI pursuing its own goals in conflict with human goals or values (46%) - Disinformation, surveillance, and influence at scale (41%) - False or misleading information (39%) - Power centralization and unfair distribution of benefits (37%) - Exposure to toxic content (34%) - Increased inequality and decline in employment quality (34%) - Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation (34%) - AI system security vulnerabilities and attacks (32%) - Economic and cultural devaluation of human effort (32%) - Governance failure (32%) - Environmental harm (32%) - Loss of human agency and autonomy (27%) - Lack of transparency or interpretability (27%) - Overreliance and unsafe use (24%) - Unequal performance across groups (20%) - AI possessing dangerous capabilities (20%) - Pollution of information ecosystem and loss of consensus reality (12%) - Competitive dynamics (12%) - AI welfare and rights (2%) Of all these sub-domains, I am generally most concerned about a combination of “pollution of information ecosystem and loss of consensus reality” and “overreliance and unsafe use”. The personalized infinite scrolling loops on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X, are both addictive and polluting and causing mental and spiritual harm, especially to the young users that are being targeted. As we can see, these two sub-domains appear to be underemphasized across the AI risk frameworks relative to other sub-domains. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Trump Will Run the US Government Like a BigTech Company URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/trump-will-run-the-us-government/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:29:14.000Z My thoughts on Trump's potential reelection from a perspective of law and technology. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Legal Brief #1 – The Copyright Dilemma URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-legal-brief-1-the-copyright/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:29:37.000Z ## Welcome to the 1st edition of Futuristic Lawyer’s Tech Legal Brief Tech Legal Brief is a run-down of news and developments I didn’t have time to cover in my regular newsletters. From now on, I plan to publish these run-downs on perhaps a monthly or bimonthly basis, depending on the need. I am not attempting to capture everything that is going on in the space - as if that was possible. Rather, I want to use the Tech Legal Briefs to zoom in on a couple of significant developments that are not widely covered in the press or on social media and provide a few recommendations that I think are well worth your time. ## The Copyright Dilemma This first edition is about the copyright dilemma. AI is in this context the natural progression of social media and streaming. The key attribute of popular social media and streaming platforms is that independent creators contribute with almost all of the value and receive most typically nothing or almost nothing in return for their efforts. The intermediary platforms (YouTube, Spotify, Facebook, etc.) directly or indirectly claim ownership rights to all of the platform’s user-generated content and build new AI solutions based on all of this free labor. Now, the same users can pay $20/month for access to generative AI solutions. We, as users and creators on the internet, are like the slaves who built the pyramids, and now we have to pay an entrance fee to get inside and marvel at the rulers property. At the same time, the tech press is caught up with Mark Zuckerberg’s newest outfits as Ed Zitron lays out in this excellent essay [here](https://www.wheresyoured.at/rockstars/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). This explains why the creator-based subscription model (aka Substack’s revenue model) is much fairer than the ad-driven revenue model as it puts the creators in focus rather than the platform. Secondly, while mainstream media is often obediently chasing trends like happy dogs are chasing frisbees in the park, more significant and truthful work is done by independent creators. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Understanding the New AI Laws in California URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/understanding-the-new-ai-laws-in/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:29:45.000Z *“While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.”* *\- From* [*Governor Newsom’s veto message*](https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SB-1047-Veto-Message.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *of SB-1047* ## Introduction September was a productive month for the office of California's governor Gary Newsom which considered no less than 38 AI-related bills. Of these, 19 new bills with consequences for the development and deployment of AI were signed into law. To the celebration of AI enthusiasts and the sorrow of AI doomers, the sweeping [SB 1047 was vetoed by Newsom’s office](https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SB-1047-Veto-Message.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Earlier in May, the bill had passed in California’s State Senate by 31 votes to 1\. I was already preparing to write a deep dive on SB 1047 but now it doesn’t matter much. SB 1047 - which went under the full name “The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act” – was intended to reduce the risks of “catastrophic harms” from AI and introduced numerous obligations to providers of the most powerful and expensive AI models. The bill also raised the blood pressure of many tech executives and venture capitalists in California and elsewhere due to its potentially damaging effect on innovation in AI. Now, instead of a broad legal framework that targets [foundation model](https://crfm.stanford.edu/report.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) developers (foundation models are “*models that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks*”), California has opted for a subset of laws that each address specific applications of AI that are known to be harmful such as deepfakes in political disinformation campaigns, irresponsible use of generative AI in healthcare, "robocalls", and AI-generated nudes. In this post, we will run through the new laws which I have divided into four categories: - Deepfakes and misinformation - The rights of artists and creators - The integrity of the human body - Use of AI in the public sector Although the bundle of new AI laws only directly impacts California, it will have far-reaching second-order effects and it will impact how AI models are used and developed in general, much like the AI Act in Europe. Most of the world’s leading AI companies reside in California and with the state’s population of nearly 40 million people, it’s by no means an insignificant market. Additionally, the new rules in California may serve as an inspiration for other states in the US and the rest of the world. This is why I find the topic important to cover. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Could OpenAIs Hype Machine Drive Down the Economy? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/could-openais-hype-machine-drive/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:29:48.000Z OpenAI's official twitter account (not their primary one) [was hacked on September 24](https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-twitter-hack-crypto?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to promote a new, fake crypto token. The incident made me think about the parallels between AI hype and crypto hype. The AI hype which has been going on for roughly two years now, started at the time of DALL-E 2 ‘s or ChatGPT’s release in 2022\. The crypto hype, arguably reached its peak in the early Spring of 2021 when digital artist, Beeple, [sold his art collection as an NFT at a Christie’s auction for $69 million](https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/22325054/beeple-christies-nft-sale-cost-everydays-69-million?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). At its peak, crypto appealed to the greediest side of people and [strange decisions were made](https://dailycoin.com/top-10-weirdest-things-that-have-been-minted-and-sold-as-nfts/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). I was personally humbled, losing a huge chunk of my savings when the crypto market overheated and collapsed. Luckily for me, most of my funds were later recovered after grown-ups overtook the operations of the bankrupt crypto lender, Celsius. Many other people were not as lucky though and lost their entire life savings due to misplaced trust in the lies of self-proclaimed experts and industry leaders with a weak sense of ethics and morals. The AI industry is, like crypto during the peak of its hype cycle, characterized by many strange and hyperbolic claims. However, the differences in the business reality behind crypto’s and AI’s respective hype machines are more striking than the similarities. While the value of crypto was often measured in millions of dollars, the value of AI is often measured in billions. Both industries may have bad apples at the top of the financial food chain but in the AI industry, they are more politically powerful. Additionally, AI is mainstream, affecting everyone whether they like it or not, whereas crypto remained a niche industry that never gained widespread adoption. The crypto market collapsed in 2022 as the lies and unethical behavior of influential industry leaders came to light. There is a non-insignificant chance that we will see a similar collapse of AI, once reality meets expectations. A downturn could be triggered if AI fails to generate enough returns and the technological development stalls. Then BigTech companies will be forced to cut down on spending and backpedal. During crypto’s collapse, the consequences for individuals with heavy exposure were disastrous. A downturn in AI would affect and be felt across the entire economy. We don't know when, how, or if, it will happen, or how bad the outcome would be if AI cannot measure up to the hype. However, I will say one thing, OpenAI’s marketing campaigns about AIs' future capabilities are not contributing to a realistic and measured understanding of what the technology can do. They are certainly not alone in overselling the technology’s capabilities but most of the exaggerated claims made about AI in general can somehow be traced back to them. The hype machine works on many levels. At the very top, we have wild statements by OpenAI’s CEO that are rarely questioned or critically examined by the media in sufficient depth. Then we have OpenAI’s product announcements that contain subtle exaggerations and half-truths. The problem is that these claims spread rampantly like rings in the water through social media where they are endorsed and further exaggerated by an army of second-hand profiteers who are battling each other to catch people’s attention. Let’s take a closer look at some of the claims made in Sam Altman's essay “[The Intelligence Age](https://ia.samaltman.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” published on September 23, and [the announcement material](https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai-o1-preview/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for OpenAI's newest series of models, o1\. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/0115d734-bf68-4a07-8ff5-70d94cea486a_1088x543.webp) A notice to investors appearing on [OpenAI’s website ](https://openai.com/our-structure/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). “It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money play in a post-AGI world”. Should we be worried even as non-investors? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Why the Training of Generative AI Models Is a Violation of Copyright Law URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-the-training-of-generative-ai/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:12.000Z One of my favorite pet topics over the last year or so has been AI and copyright. Critical voices, and I am afraid they are right, claim that legal analysis of this stuff barely matters. BigTech companies have proven time and time again that they can outpace the law by avoiding liability for dubious actions. Through technological innovation, the big technology companies –now monopolists – have managed to create their own laws, their own precedence, and dictate the norms and standards in the digital industry. Former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, was not shy to admit this much in [a controversial talk](https://github.com/ociubotaru/transcripts/blob/main/Stanford%5FECON295%E2%A7%B8CS323%5FI%5F2024%5FI%5FThe%5FAge%5Fof%5FAI%2C%5FEric%5FSchmidt.txt?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) he gave to students at Stanford University, while unaware it was being livestreamed: > *“If TikTok is banned, here's what I propose each and every one of you do. Say to your LLM the following:* > > *Make me a copy of TikTok, steal all the users, steal all the music, put my preferences in it, produce this program in the next 30 seconds, release it and in one hour, if it's not viral, do something different along the same lines.* > > *That's the command.* > > *Boom, boom, boom, boom.* > > *(..)* > > *by the way, I was not arguing that you should illegally steal everybody's music.* > > *What you would do if you're a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, which hopefully all of you will be, is if it took off, then you'd hire a whole bunch of lawyers to go clean the mess up, right?* > > *But if nobody uses your product, it doesn't matter that you stole all the content.* > > *And do not quote me.”* But quoted Schmidt was, and even though the livestreaming was deleted soon after its upload, the internet never forgets. Schmidt’s advice nearly fits what OpenAI and other foundation model providers have already done and are currently in the process of doing. Specifically, the companies are using the works of others without authorization at an unfathomable scale to create new tools that are designed to compete with and replace artists, researchers, and all kinds of knowledge workers. [In the words of the great Ted Gioia](https://www.honest-broker.com/p/are-we-now-living-in-a-parasite-culture?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), this is a parasite business: > *“You might even say we live in a society where parasitical behavior is rewarded more than actual creativity.*” Yet, who will stop it? The golden goose of American tech innovation, OpenAI, is [targeting a $150 billion valuation](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-11/openai-fundraising-set-to-vault-startup-s-value-to-150-billion?embedded-checkout=true&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Microsoft and BlackRock are planning to [launch a +$30 billion fund to invest in AI infrastructure and energy project](https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/microsoft-blackrock-plan-30-bln-fund-invest-ai-infrastructure-ft-reports-2024-09-17/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)s. ChatGPT is default [in the new generation of Apple products](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/06/introducing-apple-intelligence-for-iphone-ipad-and-mac/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The world’s top-valued companies are investing in data centers and [expensive GPUs](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/19/nvidias-blackwell-ai-chip-will-cost-more-than-30000-ceo-says.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to train AI models like there is no tomorrow. It will take a strong stomach for any judge to rule that the companies are essentially building a new trillion-dollar industry through illegal means. Even though this is likely the case, as we will look further into in a moment, there is a social and political reality to account for as well. However, let’s not dismiss the possibility completely that a US court for example in a case like "[The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft)” could rule in favor of the plaintiff. Here, the New York Times has claimed “billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages” and ordered the destruction “of all GPT or other LLM models and training sets that incorporate Times Works”. To borrow a good crypto term, a decision favoring the New York Times would be a rug pull. Copyright laws in the US and the EU are harmonized through international treaties but due to different legal traditions (common law vs civil law), the outcome of AI copyright cases could be treated differently in the two continents. I imagine, even if the copyright lawsuits against OpenAI fall flat in the US, that European courts would be more willing to take a stance against the custom of training AI models with unlicensed material. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) - the main authority on the interpretation of EU law - is evidently not afraid to take wild swings with the hammer if doing so protects human rights or democratic principles, regardless of the economic and political consequences its decisions may have. For reference, see [the Schrems cases](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-noyb-is-challenging-the-privacy). I am not in the business of fortune telling or reading the minds of judges but we can and should consider what the most objectively fair outcome of cases like "[The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft) is. Are the AI companies at odds with copyright laws when they train new models? I think, yes. That is also why, the companies provide no transparency about the data sets that were used for AI training. As [RIAA writes in the complaint against Suno and Udio](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ai-music-is-a-technologically-sophisticated): > *“After all, to answer that question honestly would be to admit willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale.”* I recently read a very well-reasoned piece on the subject, a multidisciplinary study, titled “[Urheberrecht und Training generativer KI-Modelle - technologische und juristische Grundlagen](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid=4946214&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” (“Copyright and Training generative AI models – technological and legal basics”) that explores the technical implications of training AI models under European copyright law. The paper was commissioned by Initiative Urheberrecht (The Copyright Initiative) and written by Tim W. Dornis, Professor of Civil Law and Intellectual Property Law at University of Hanover, and Sebastian Stober, Professor of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Magdeburg and PhD in computer science. In my view, the authors present a convincing case for why AI companies should either compensate or seek permission from copyright holders to use their data for training purposes. ## Copyright and Training generative AI models – technological and legal basics Dornis & Stober begin the paper by providing a comprehensive walkthrough of technical concepts such as unsupervised learning, supervised learning, reinforcement learning, ANNs, parameters, hyperparameters, embeddings, latent spaces, and more. It’s clear that the authors have a strong technical grasp of AI, and they lay out the foundation for understanding how the technology works. Training a generative AI model involves several steps where “reproductions” of training data occur. Such reproductions would typically require permission from the copyright holder or a license. In EU copyright law, the copyright holder’s reproduction rights fall under the InfoSec Directive Article 2. According to Dornis & Stober, the acts relevant to copyright when training a generative AI model are: - The collection, preparation, and storage of copyrighted works used for the AI training process. This part includes web scraping, copying the data into the model’s memory, and preparation, creation, and storage of the model’s training corpus. - During the training process (pre-training and fine-tuning), reproductions of copyrighted work are memorized inside of the model, although an explicit storage mechanism has not been created. In a legal sense, this is a reproduction of work - During the application of a generative AI model, (e.g. ChatGPT via OpenAI’s website) the fully trained model may copy and replicate works that have been processed during the model’s training in response to a prompt by the end user. - The very act of making a generative AI model available, either as implemented in a system for users or for downloading as a whole constitutes a “making available to the public” of the works that are replicated “inside” of the generative AI model. The relevant provision here is the copyright holder’s “right to communication” which follows from the InfoSec Directive Article 3\. In the EU we don't have a "fair use doctrine" like in the US that allows for limited exceptions to copyright on a case-by-case basis. However, we do have a number of exceptions and limitations to copyright that are exhaustively accounted for in the InfoSec Directive Article 5\. The most relevant of these exceptions in regard to the training of generative AI models is the exception of “temporary acts of reproduction” in the InfoSoc Directive Article 5 (1). Additionally, the Copyright Directive (DSM) which was adopted in 2019 and supplements the InfoSoc Directive contains an important exception for text and data mining (TDM) in Article 4\. Let’s look at each of these exceptions in turn and clarify why they don’t cover the training of generative AI models. ## Temporary Acts of Reproduction Article 5 (1) of the InfoSoc Directive says: > *“Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are *transient or incidental* \[and\] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:* > > *(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or* > > *(b) *a lawful use** > > *of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which *have no independent economic significance*, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.”* CJEU has clarified in a case from 2009, [Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62008CJ0005&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), how the word “transient” should be understood: > *“An act can be held to be ‘transient’ within the meaning of the second condition laid down in that provision only if its duration is limited to what is necessary for the proper completion of the technological process in question, it being understood that that process must be automated so that it deletes that act automatically, without human intervention, once its function of enabling the completion of such a process has come to an end.”* Dornis & Stober point out that most of the relevant processes when training generative AI models, are not “*transient*” in nature. This is because the acts are not limited to a short duration of time, and deletion does not occur automatically but is always the result of the will of the operator of the AI. This is true for web scraping, the creation and storage of training data, pre-training, and fine-tuning. Only the creation of temporary copies in the computer's main memory during training and in the production of outputs can be classified as “transient” or perhaps even as “incidental”. Furthermore, AI training does not have the purpose of a “*transmission in a network between third parties through an intermediary*” and the use can only be considered “*lawful*” if the rights holder has permitted it or there are no legal restrictions. Article 5 (1)’s requirement that the reproduction “*have no independent economic significance*” means according to Dornis & Stober that the reproduction must not convey or create any advantage that goes beyond the permitted use and that no new possible use must arise. We all know that the purpose of training generative AI models is to profit economically from the underlying work in a way that is outside of the copyright holders’ interest and control. Furthermore, we cannot say that the reproductions occurring when training a generative AI model have no *“independent”* economic significance since the individual training stages cannot be separated from each other without impairing the functionality of the model. Overall, it is abundantly clear, that Article 5 (1) cannot encompass the training of generative AI models. ## The Text and Data Mining Exception The Copyright Directive (DSM) provides an exception or limitation for text and data mining (TDM) in Article 4\. According to Article 4 (1), Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner “*for reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works and other subject matter for the purposes of text and data mining*”. Article 4 (2) states “*Reproductions and extractions made pursuant to paragraph 1 may be retained for as long as is necessary for the purposes of text and data mining*.” Article 4 (3) states that: “*The exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online*.” Can we say that the training of generative AI models falls under this TDM exception? First of all, the “reproductions and extractions” has to be based on “lawfully accessible works”. This must exclude for example paywalled newspaper articles and websites that have opted out from web crawling via robot.txts files. Unfortunately, as we know from [the New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft- case](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft) and [the recent controversy regarding Perplexity](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-legality-of-perplexity), the big foundation model providers tend to not respect paywalls or crawling opt-outs while collecting data for AI training. This is also problematic in regard to Article 4 (3) as quoted above. Article 4 (2) implies that the “reproductions and extractions” should be deleted once they are no longer necessary for the purpose of TDM. This requirement is technically difficult if not impossible to comply with after the model has been trained. For instance, if a model “memorizes” by regurgitating text at length that was present in its training corpus, there is no feasible way to go back and delete the memorized text from the model’s data. According to Dornis & Stober, "It is occasionally argued that the deletion obligation is ineffective if permanent storage is necessary for functionality.” Whether or not it is technically possible for foundation models to comply with Article 4 (2) remains an open question. Dornis & Stober discuss at length the difference between “syntax” and “semantics”. “Syntax” deals with the structure and order of words, whereas “semantics” focuses on the meaning of individual words and how they relate to each other. Recital 8 to DSM states: > *“Text and data mining makes the processing of large amounts of information with a view to gaining new knowledge and discovering new trends possible. “* Dornis & Stober argue that the wording of the law refers exclusively to the evaluation of semantic information, not the syntax. Traditionally, TDM is limited to searching and analyzing information and data sets which does not affect the copyright holder’s reproduction rights. Only semantic information is involved in this kind of TDM. But unlike traditional TDM, generative AI models evaluate both the semantics *and* the syntax of its training data to generate new creative outputs. To quote Dornis & Stober (translated): > *“Above all, the syntax of the training data, which is vectorially replicated in the model, is recombined when the output is generated. The resulting products are intended and suitable to compete with the works used for training and to displace them from the market.”* To further clarify why the TDM exception does not cover the training of AI models, we can look at it from a historical perspective. The DSM was drafted by the European legislators in 2016, long before generative AI became a known phenomenon. For the same reason, the EU legislators do not mention the terms “artificial intelligence” or “AI” once in the Directive. Dornis & Stober writes (translated): > *“On this basis, it can hardly be assumed that there is a legislative will to declare the provisions of the DSM Directive applicable to all future developments in the field of AI technology with virtually no restrictions”* At the time DSM was drafted, the expectation in the legal literature was that there would not be any competition between or substitution of original works with the information and findings extracted via TDM. As we know, generative AI tools are often directly competing with and aiming to substitute the works they were trained on. We should also note, that the AI Act does not expand the scope of TDM. To the contrary, Article 53 (1) (c) of the AI Act, requires “General purpose AI model providers" to "*adopt a strategy to ensure compliance with Union copyright and related rights and, in particular, to identify and comply with a reservation of rights invoked in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790, including through state-of-the-art technologies (..)”* Dornis & Stober interpret Article 53 (1) (c) to mean that the consent of rights holders is required when training generative AI models. Finally, there is a classical three-stage test which is anchored in numerous international copyright treaties such as the TRIPS Agreement, WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), and as here in Paragraph 2 of the Revised Berne Convention: > *“The legislation of the member states reserves the right to permit reproduction in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction neither impairs the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably infringes the legitimate interests of the author.”* The three-stage test can be found in European copyright law in Article 5 (5) of the InfoSoc Directive. Exceptions or restrictions to the rights of authors must according to this provision be measured in three stages: > *“(1) the restriction only applies “in certain special cases”* > > *(2) the "normal exploitation of the work or other protected subject matter is not impaired";* > > *(3) the “legitimate interests of the right holder are not unduly violated.”* After a somewhat lengthy discussion that is too extensive to fully summarize here, Dornis & Stober conclude that the TDM exception applied to train generative AI models fails to fulfill the criteria on the three-stage test, namely because generative AI models can impair the normal exploitation of the works and violate the legitimate interests of the right holder. ## The Big Picture Based on my summary of the legal analysis by Dornis & Stober, it looks like training generative AI models involves several copyright infringements that are not mandated by EU law. We are now back to the point I raised at the beginning of this post, why does it matter? Dornis & Stober make a couple of astute observations about the role of legislators that I fully agree with. In summary: 1. We can expect that human creativity will increasingly be suppressed by AI. For this reason, legislators cannot sit idle by while AI technology is further developed and distributed to the public. 2. Contrary to current forecasts, AI will likely not cause an increase in the creative production by humans. Rather, we can expect that the results of genuinely human creativity in many professional groups and industries will be replaced to a considerable extent by generative AI output. 3. The EU legislators should consider that ensuring uncompromising safeguarding of regulatory minimum standards is not about preventing AI innovation but rather about fair competitive conditions and appropriate compensation for the resources used. I will leave it here. If you have any comments, or counterarguments, or want some of the points further elaborated, please reach out. #### Read more [A Sensible Approach to AI Regulation in Copyright Law – The Output PhaseAlready now, we have a much better idea of how copyright infringement issues that arise from the development and use of generative AI should be treated by the law. Several court cases around the issue are brewing in the US. In the UK, a court ruled last month that![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-269.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/cb414ecf-2a09-4e6a-b330-a26f003f3389_1024x635-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/a-sensible-approach-to-ai-regulation) [A Sensible Approach to Regulating AI in Copyright Law – The Input PhaseBefore we get into today’s post.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-270.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/0dd32048-0b09-409a-92db-0e62daef3be8_738x835-jpeg-2.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/a-sensible-approach-to-regulating) [The NYT Lawsuit Against Microsoft and OpenAI Could Signal GenAI’s Napster MomentIntroduction![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-271.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/711e567a-0a0d-45f2-b9c3-03c6c39cf982_6000x4000-jpeg.jpg)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft) ### What Is Futuristic Lawyer? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-is-futuristic-lawyer/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:12.000Z Everything you need to know about Futuristic Lawyer and why you should consider a subscription. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### To Sit Quietly in a Room Alone URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/to-sit-quietly-in-a-room-alone/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:13.000Z > *“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”* > > *―* [*Blaise Pascal*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise%5FPascal?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) Before on-demand streaming, entertainment followed a set schedule. New episodes of a show aired at a certain time of the week, and it drew together friends and families in front of the television. Media consumption was often a social experience; people watched things together and had a shared experience they could bond over afterwards. In comparison, scrolling on a smartphone is anti-social - it's geared towards individual consumption. Seldomly, do we watch the same things in the same time and space. TikTok and the short-form video format in general remind me of “channel surfing” or “zapping” as it was known during the golden era of flow TV. Back then, it was typical to restlessly change channels in search of something interesting to watch. That is more or less what young people are doing constantly on TikTok, except there are limitless channels and no option to stay on the channels for long. As with channel surfing, the point of scrolling TikTok is not to be deeply engaged with anything but to unwind and distract the hyperactive brain momentarily. Watching an endless stream of short video clips is now a favored pass-time activity for many. TikTok’s video feeds have been copied by YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, Netflix, Spotify, and [even LinkedIn](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/27/linkedin-is-experimenting-with-a-tiktok-like-video-feed-in-its-app/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). But contrary to what one might think, scrolling through short video clips does not actually relieve viewers of boredom. Paradoxically, switching from video to video in an infinite scrolling loop intensifies boredom. That was the main finding of [a study that was published last month](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-xge0001639.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in Journal of Experimental Psychology General (American Psychological Association) by Katy Y. Y. Tam from University of Toronto Scarborough and Michael Inzlicht from University of Toronto. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Freedom of Speech & Platform Liability URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/freedom-of-speech-and-platform-liability/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:13.000Z ## Introduction Today's post is about four unrelated events that all point towards the same trend: there is a global shift happening in the regulatory temperature towards the liability of social media platforms. Some of my readers may think this is a political discussion. We can have an argument about that but in my view it’s a legal discussion. The distinction between the political “left” and “right” doesn’t make a lot of sense here, and frankly [it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in general](https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/futuretense/21-century-political-left-right-ideology/104151720?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). If you think the internet is better left to its own device without censorship, regulation, or involvement from government that is an argument for anti-establishment, not freedom of speech. By the way, that is how I see the right vs. left debate in general, it has little to do with liberalism or conservatism anymore, it’s about whether you support the establishment, or are fundamentally against the work that governments and democratic institutions do. Anyone wanting to run a social media network with almost no moderation and without cooperating with national police authorities, better do it anonymously, and not be a celebrity billionaire. Otherwise, they are asking for trouble. If an online platform refuses to bow and comply with take-down notices from governments, someone still has to be held accountable, and the company behind the platforms and their CEOs are next in line after the users. That’s the legal part of the discussion but there is a moral dimension to it as well. If you own a platform that you know for a fact is used for distributing child pornography and dangerous drugs and planning terrorist attacks, do you have a moral duty to interfere and cooperate with law enforcement? I think, yes. If you don't, that automatically makes you an accomplice. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and never has been, not in the US, or elsewhere as far as I have heard of. Refusing to moderate a platform is just as bad, if not worse, than the other extreme which is complete surveillance and control. As always there is a balance to be struck and [the EU's chat control proposal for instance](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/eus-chat-control-proposal-could-end) is taking it too far in the opposite direction. It should be possible to have a social media platform that respects people's privacy as a default, and at the same time can cooperate with local police authorities based on valid suspicions of criminal activities. Additionally, the platform has to comply with government orders to take down illegal and/or harmful material. That is the only way social media platforms and governments can peacefully coexist. --- The four events we will take a closer look at in today’s post to understand how the regulatory temperature towards online platforms is shifting: - The draft legislation to sunset Section 230 ([link](https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/energy-and-commerce-leaders-unveil-bipartisan-draft-legislation-to-sunset-section-230?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) - The deadly “black-out challenge” on TikTok ([link](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) - The charges against Telegram CEO Pavel Durov ([link](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/business/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-charged.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) - Brazil blocks X ([link](https://www.reuters.com/technology/brazilian-court-suspend-x-brazil-if-musk-does-not-name-new-country-2024-08-28/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) ## The draft legislation to sunset Section 230 Section 230 (c)(1), Title 47 of the United States Code was enacted as a part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996\. The provision shields social media platform providers from liability for content that is posted on the platform by its users. It has been known as “the 26 words that created the internet”: > *“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”* The EU has followed the American lead on exempted liability for online platforms by enacting the Electronic Commerce Directive (the “e-Commerce Directive”) in 2000 which exempts “intermediary service providers " from liability for "mere conduit” (passively transmitting information), “’caching”, and “hosting” in Article 12-14\. In effect, Article 12-14 provides a very similar protection to Section 230 (c)(1) that has now been carried over to [the Digital Services Act](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/understand-the-essentials-of-the) (DSA) in Article 4-6\. The DSA requires service providers to publish a report once a year, accounting for “any content moderation that they engaged in during the relevant period” (Article 15 (1) and to abide by government orders to act against illegal content (Article 9) and orders to provide information (Article 10). The DSA sets out many burdensome obligations for “very large online platforms” - for example in terms of making thorough risk assessments and taking various organizational measures to promote fairness and transparency - but the exempted liability for user-generated content remains fully intact. Usually, the US is leading in tech innovation, while Europe is leading in regulatory efforts. But in May 2024, two high-ranking members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee [unveiled a bipartisan draft legislation](https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/energy-and-commerce-leaders-unveil-bipartisan-draft-legislation-to-sunset-section-230?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to sunset Section 230\. Concretely, the “Section 230 Sunset Act”, proposes a term of 18 months until 31st December 2025 for the US Congress to come up with a new legal framework. As the authors of the draft, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr. [wrote in an op-ed for the Wallstreet Journal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/sunset-of-section-230-would-force-big-techs-hand-208f75f1?mod=commentary%5Farticle%5Fpos2&ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > *“Our measure aims to restore the internet’s intended purpose—to be a force for free expression, prosperity and innovation. It would require Big Tech and others to work with Congress over 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Our bill gives Big Tech a choice: Work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely.”* “Sunsetting” Section 230 could fundamentally change content moderation standards and likely how social media platforms function in general. Whether it is for better or worse, is up in the air. Organizations such as [the Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) have come out strongly against the proposal, claiming that Section 230 “lays the groundwork for speech of all kinds across the internet”. I am far from convinced that repealing Section 230 is the right thing to do. However, the mere fact that US lawmakers held a hearing about such a fundament change to internet law is a small but not insignificant sign that regulators' attitude towards the big online platforms is changing. ## The deadly “black-out challenge” on TikTok The boundaries of Section 230 (c)(1) was tested before the Supreme Court in two cases last year, [Gonzalez v. Google LLC](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333%5F6j7a.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [Twitter v. Taamneh](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496%5Fd18f.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In both cases, the plaintiffs were aggrieved families to victims of terrorist attacks who claimed that the platforms, YouTube and Twitter respectively, should have done more to protect users against propaganda and recruitment material made by the terrorist organization ISIS. In both cases, the Supreme Court refused to comment on the scope of protection granted by Section 230 (c)(1). That means the platforms won. The Supreme Court did not find that YouTube and Twitter directly and knowingly provided assistance for the attacks (the legal standard is called “aiding and abetting” under the Anti-Terrorism Act). A few months ago, I thought that was the end of discussion about whether the US Supreme Court would be willing to reinterpret and narrow the scope of Section 230’s protection. Luckily in my view, new legal developments have emerged since then that have reignited both speculations and hope. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The BigTech Cartel Is Threatened After Judge’s Ruling on Google’s Search Monopoly URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-bigtech-cartel-is-threatened/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:39.000Z *“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”* *\- Quote from* [*U.S. et al. v. Google*](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f6ab5c368725101c/43d7c2a0-full.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) # Introduction Regular internet users have known about Google’s search monopoly for many years. We use the term “googling” synonymously with searching the internet and the top search query on the second-most popular search engine, Microsoft Bing, was [www.google.com](http://www.google.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a few years ago. In 2020, nearly 90% of all search queries in the United States went through Google. For mobile devices, the number was closer to 95%. On August 5, Google’s monopoly on“general search services” and “general text advertising” was officially recognized by the US courts in a landmark decision by Judge Amit P. Mehta for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 20, 2020\. We still don’t know how Google will be sanctioned. [Many options are on the table.](https://www.wired.com/story/google-search-monopoly-judge-amit-mehta-options/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#intcid=recommendations%5Fwired-bottom-recirc-v4%5Fcc5d111e-0344-424a-8848-108f3101c9da%5Fsimilar2-3) Judge Mehta has [reportedly](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/business/amit-mehta-google-antitrust.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) asked the DOJ and Google to come up with a process for determining a fix by tomorrow and scheduled a hearing on September 6 to discuss the next steps with the parties. Mehta’s verdict could be the beginning of a years-long court battle that will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Alternatively, DOJ and Google could reach a settlement. The last time an [antitrust ruling of comparable significance was issued against a major US tech company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5Fv.%5FMicrosoft%5FCorp.?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) was in June 2000 when Judge Jackson ordered the break-up of Microsoft as its remedy for monopolizing the market for operating systems and tying the Windows OS with its default browser, Internet Explorer. The ruling was later partially overturned by the Circuit Court. The case was eventually settled between the DOJ and Microsoft with lesser antitrust penalties such as a term in the settlement agreement that required Microsoft to share its API with third-party companies. Today, we will take a closer look at Google’s new official status as a search monopoly under US law and how the new ruling may impact the BigTech cartel after more than twenty years of regulatory restraint. ## Google’s Monopoly Google was once a small project started by the two Stanford University students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, in a rented garage. Less than twenty years later, Google has a monopoly on internet search and a market cap of +$2 trillion. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/a90e2e6a-101b-4015-820c-3619b1419168_1252x627.png) Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in the garage where it all started. By today's standard, the image could pass as AI-generated. Source: [Google](https://about.google/intl/ALL%5Fus/our-story/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) The other tech giants have similar origin stories. Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Apple were all founded by young, driven entrepreneurs from humble office spaces but quickly made hockey stick curves on their stock charts year after year. The early pioneers of the web and personal computers, famously Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs saw the internet revolution before the rest of us and managed to build the infrastructure for it. The first-mover advantage combined with lax antitrust laws in the US and an unskeptical embracement of the new tech products among America’s closest trading partners, enabled the five tech companies to grow at an unprecedented scale and pace to become more resourceful, knowledgeable, and economically prosperous than many of the world’s developed countries. During most of the 00's and 10's, the US antitrust regulators treated the tech giant’ with a very light touch. After all, the companies contribute greatly to the US economy and do many good deeds for the global society by connecting people online and providing them with a nearly infinite amount of information right at their fingertips. Together, the five companies have enabled the intelligence explosion that is the internet. Now, the recent decision against Google marks the first significant antitrust ruling against the BigTech cartel since the Microsoft case in 2000\. [And the reckoning has just begun](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/technology/google-apple-amazon-meta-antitrust.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). On grounds of antitrust, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 17 states sued Amazon in September. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Apple in March. A separate lawsuit by the DOJ aimed against Google's advertisement business is expected to go to trial in September. Meta faces charges from 40 states and the FTC for its acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago. We can wonder why the passive stance towards BigTech among US regulators has drastically changed in the late 10s to early 20’s. A big part of the explanation may be that the five companies are on a trajectory to grow so large and powerful that even the US government cannot contain them. We can think of AI development and (mis)information on social media as examples of how technological forces – for better and worse - are shaping society at the expense of democracy and state control. [Biggest Global Risk in 2024 is Misinformation![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/78506b45-4c41-4e04-9b1d-baff2c8197c4_687x687-272.png)Futuristic LawyerTobias Mark Jensen![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/eab0bf2f-7071-4cda-a6d6-62a6ee3b63e9_804x467-5.png)](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/biggest-global-risk-in-2024-is-misinformation) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Biggest Challenges in Law That AI Can Help Us to Solve URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-biggest-challenges-in-law-that/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:40.000Z Reflections on the role of courts in a technologically driven society, how AI tools can help lawyers, how they can't, and how to be wise enough to tell the difference. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI in Higher Education URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-in-higher-education/ Last updated: 2024-08-21T14:00:52.000Z Universities still don’t have a plan for generative AI. See a recent post about it from Ian Bogost at The Atlantic [here](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/08/another-year-ai-college-cheating/679502/?mc%5Fcid=ee4995843d&mc%5Feid=6d06092047&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The technology has more or less been forced upon them but without guidelines, instructions, or recommendations on how to deal with this new development. Many innovative and concerned teachers, educators, and school administrators are currently trying to find the answers and the right questions to ask. I recently allied myself with Jeppe Stricker for a conversation about the topic. [See our full conversation here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpuEnXOhj2k&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) Find Jeppe's newsletter here 👉 [The Future of Higher Education](https://open.substack.com/users/1506100) ### The Loneliness Crisis Calls for Boring Tech URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-loneliness-crisis-calls-for-boring/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:57.000Z ## Introduction Information technology is a great contributor [to a pronounced sense of loneliness in today’s world](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/512618/almost-quarter-world-feels-lonely.aspx?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). That is no wonder if we think about how people are conditioned to live vicariously through smartphones and spend most of their waking hours in front of screens. It didn’t use to be this way before Facebook became a global platform in 2006 and the first iPhone model was released in 2007. It’s unquestionable that [the social media business model](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-meta-profoundly-altered-the-psychological), the big tech companies’ hunt for quarterly profit margins combined with the small devices we constantly carry around in our pockets have profoundly changed our way of relating to each other. Overall, it has left us with more alone time in front of screens and less lively interaction time in the present moment with others. Can information technology help to turn around the loneliness trend it has so greatly contributed to? I think the answer is a resounding yes but not in the way you imagine. [Jonathan Haidt’s view ](https://jonathanhaidt.com/anxious-generation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)that smartphones and social media are to blame for the youth’s mental health crisis is now a mainstream view in the US. [It’s mirrored in a class action lawsuit by 33 state attorneys general against Meta](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-meta-profoundly-altered-the-psychological). To mitigate the mental health and loneliness crisis, we will have to rethink the design, use, and role of smartphones and social media in society. We need boring tech. ## New Devices Replacing or even substituting smartphones is a formidable and daunting task considering how people treat them as extended limbs and never leave their homes without them. BigTech companies have managed to penetrate daily life so deeply with smartphone usage that the devices have become indispensable to participate in modern life. For this reason, a future without scrolling and swiping is still not on the horizon. However, a few challenger devices have emerged in recent years. ### Smartwatches and VR/AR headsets Smartwatches have been popular for a while now. Virtual/augmented reality hardware such as the Apple Vision Pro (see my deep dive on the Vision Pro [here](https://www.ai-supremacy.com/p/how-the-apple-vision-pro-could-rewire?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), Meta Quest, and Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses have been poised to be tools for a new computing paradigm. However, none of these newer devices leave us less distracted or less lonely compared to smartphones and laptops. In fact, the opposite seems to be true as they immerse us even further into a digital and personalized universe. ### Humane’s AI pin Quite recently, [Humane ](https://hu.ma.ne/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)released the [AI Pin,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNIwOOMVHk&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a small rectangular, device that can be clipped onto a jacket or a shirt, and fulfill smartphone functions such as sending texts, snapping images, translating languages, and answering questions. The screenless device is controlled by voice commands and can project a visual interface onto a person’s palm with a blue mini laser. Humane was founded by former high-ups in Apple, the married couple, Imran Chaudhri and Bethany Bongiorno. The first AI pins shipped to consumers for a starter price of $699 + a $24 monthly subscription fee. Unfortunately, reviews of the new device have been less than positive. The influential consumer tech reviewer Marques Brownlee [famously called the Humane AI pin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TitZV6k8zfA&t=66s&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), “the worst product I’ve ever reviewed”. ### Rabbit’s R1 [Rabbit’s R1 device](https://www.rabbit.tech/live-unboxing?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) evoked a lot of excitement in the days and weeks after it was presented at the 2023 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. Rabbit CEO Jesse Lyu’s demonstration of R1 drew associations to Steve Jobs' historic presentation of the iPhone in January 2007\. [Personally](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/is-rabbit-r1-the-future-of-operating), R1 made me think of a quote by former AI lead at Tesla and OpenAI, Andrej Karpath about how we should not think of LLMs as chatbots but as “*the kernel process of an emerging operating system*”. I envisioned a future with personal AI assistants - “rabbits” in Lyu’s terms - that could navigate the internet, take care of communication through and with other personal AI assistants, and handle regular online tasks. This is more sci-fi than a realistic near-term possibility but perhaps a future iteration or a similar device to R1 could enable a browser-less internet without a user interface that could substantially limit the impact and prevalence of screens. Unfortunately, Rabbit’s R1 device [is not working well](https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147159/rabbit-r1-review-ai-gadget?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The LAM (Large Action Model) inside of R1 is not a new agentic AI model as claimed but [ChatGPT with some hard-coded scripts](about:blank) and Rabbit’s founder Jesse Lyu has been exposed as a shady character who was previously [involved in an NFT scam. ](https://www.wheresyoured.at/rabbit-holed/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ### Pendant and friend Another AI gadget is [Limitless Pendant](https://www.limitless.ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#pendant) (previously Rewind Pendant), a small device you can carry in a necklace or on the top of your shirt as it transcribes all your conversations throughout the day. The primary use case is transcribing meeting notes. The device can be pre-ordered for $99 and will be shipped in Q4 2024\. The newly announced AI gadget, [friend](https://www.friend.com/product.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), is carried in a necklace and works in a similar way to Pendant. Except, not only is friend always listening in on conversations, but it actively uses this data to learn and communicate with its wearer via text messages and push notifications on the phone it’s paired to. The idea for friend came from the bright mind of Avi Schiffman, a 21-year-old Harvard dropout who created an award-winning first website for tracking Covid-19 cases across the world when he was only 17\. In 2022, Schiffmann launched a website that helped Ukrainian refugees connect with people in neighboring countries willing to offer them shelter. friend was announced on International Friendship Day, July 30, with this opening line from CEO Schiffmann: > *“friend is an expression of how lonely I've felt.”* The premise for the products is that having a constant companion in the form of Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 model - which is powering friend - can alleviate loneliness. Well, can it? That depends solely on how helpful the AI model is perceived to be by the user. If a user of friend feels deeply understood by the AI model and it provides relevant input to his or her daily life, then yes, friend can alleviate loneliness. If friend is unconvincing and falls short of its name, then the product is annoying and without value. My hot take is that LLMs disguised as AI friends are not ready for prime time. Chances are they won’t be. In effect, I don’t think AI or any technology we have today is capable of genuinely mitigating loneliness for the average human. That doesn’t mean, however, that tech can’t support mental welfare or help to turn around the loneliness trend. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### EU’s Chat Control Proposal Could End Encryption URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/eus-chat-control-proposal-could-end/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:30:57.000Z On June 20, 2024, the EU Council was going to discuss [arguably the most controversial EU law draft of all time,](https://edri.org/our-work/most-criticised-eu-law-of-all-time/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) the so-called “chat control” proposal. This post is not intended as a legal analysis of the proposal but rather a high-level explanation of what chat control is and the heavy implications it would have if adopted (which it hopefully won't be). Effectively, chat control would break end-to-end encryption (E2EE) and make private messaging a relic of the past in Europe. In this week's post, we will take an extended look at the political process that led to the proposal's making and finally highlight the important implications that would follow if the proposal became law. ## Chat Control [Originally proposed by the EU Commission in May 2022,](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:13e33abf-d209-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC%5F1&format=PDF&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) chat control aims to combat the spread of online "child sexual abuse material" (CSAM) and "sexual solicitation of children" (grooming), essentially by obligating providers of messaging apps to monitor people's private conversations. If a user refuses to consent to the envisaged monitoring, they'll be unable to share photos, videos, links, or attachments via the messaging apps. Specifically, all communication sent through messaging apps such as Messenger, WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram would be scanned by an AI system. Anything that seems suspicious by resembling CSAM or grooming would automatically be forwarded to a dedicated EU Centre with expertise in preventing and countering child sexual abuse, and hereafter to Europol and national law enforcement. The proposal emphasizes that the “detection technology” shall be unable *“*to extract any other information from the relevant communications than the information strictly necessary” to detect CSAM and grooming(Article 10 (3) (b)), be “the least intrusive in terms of the impact on the users’ rights to private and family life” (Article 10 (3) (c)), and be “sufficiently reliable” (Article 10 (3) (d)). It’s very doubtful if any of these intentions can be fulfilled. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How AI Is Shaping Education URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-ai-is-shaping-education/ Last updated: 2024-08-07T14:01:27.000Z Leon Furze is an expert in the implications of AI on education. Check out Leon's website and blog 👉 https://leonfurze.com/ We discuss how ChatGPT has changed education for better and for worse, and while some parents are fully bought into the hype and doom, young people tend to think that AI is "cringe". The "move fast and break things"-attitude that made high-tech companies like Meta ultra successful, is unadoptable in the education system. Yet, there is a lot of room for technological improvements that would make a positive impact. A key challenge is to find the resources and attract the right talent and know-how. [Watch the full conversation here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTPtdvWPzS0&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ### Meta Called OpenAI’s Bluff & Open-Access AI Is Winning URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/meta-called-openais-bluff-and-open/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:31:15.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/92feaa19-05be-4b24-9298-969710c958a9_1472x573-jpeg.jpg) While OpenAI teased [SearchGPT](https://openai.com/index/searchgpt-prototype/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and is probably holding hands in a circle right now and praying to AGI, Mark Zuckerberg showed a real sense of business acumen by releasing Meta’s new Llama 3.1 models with open weights under [the spiritual leadership](https://time.com/6691705/time100-impact-awards-yann-lecun/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of Meta’s AI Chief, Yann LeCun. We already knew that Meta would continue the open approach from previous releases of its AI model, Llama. This much was set in stone by Zuckerberg’s comments during [Meta's Q4 23 earnings calls](https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc%5Ffinancials/2023/q4/META-Q4-2023-Earnings-Call-Transcript.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). It’s more surprising that the largest version of Llama 3.1 (405B) seems to closely match, and on some benchmarks exceed, the capabilities of leading closed AI models such as GPT-4.0, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini 1.5\. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/8f329711-6c0e-4e3d-a638-35ac8b9f41ae_892x615.png) The smaller versions of Llama 3.1 (8B and 70B) lead against both closed and open models of comparable sizes. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/460b56c1-3d5d-470f-abee-c9d6382e3777_877x618.png) In this post, we will look at the sensibility of the open-access approach from both a safety and business perspective. ## The Safety Concern Former OpenAI employee and author of the “[Situational Awareness” manifesto](https://situational-awareness.ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Leopold Aschenbrenner, [said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdbVtZIn9IM&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) he was losing sleep over the thought of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) stealing the model weights and algorithmic secrets behind OpenAI’s models. Aschenbrenner wrote in his manifesto that “*the algorithmic secrets we are developing, right now, are literally the nation’s most important national defense secrets*”. This rather disconcerting viewpoint is presumably shared by members of OpenAI’s staff and many insiders in Silicon Valley. (I gave Aschenbrenner’s manifesto the full Futuristic Lawyer treatment in [a post from June](https://www.ai-supremacy.com/p/the-rise-of-the-agi-profiteers?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) on Michael Spencer’s publication, AI Supremacy. I expect to publish it on here at some point in an updated version.) As I see it, Meta has called OpenAI’s bluff by releasing a model as powerful as Llama 3.1 with open weights and revealing information about its architecture and training process. Meta is indirectly communicating that the greatest danger of AI is not a superintelligent entity going rogue and eradicating humans in an effort to produce more paper clips. The pressing AI safety issues of our time are much more mundane = humans using AI models with malicious intent. In Meta’s press release “[Open Source AI Is the Path Forward](https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/open-source-ai-is-the-path-forward/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”, Zuckerberg frames this as a distinction between “intentional” and “unintentional harm” > *“Unintentional harm is when an AI system may cause harm even when it was not the intent of those running it to do so. For example, modern AI models may inadvertently give bad health advice. Or, in more futuristic scenarios, some worry that models may unintentionally self-replicate or hyper-optimize goals to the detriment of humanity. Intentional harm is when a bad actor uses an AI model with the goal of causing harm.”* The greatest danger of AI, as I see it, is not unintentional nor intentional harm but rather accelerating systemic inequality. For this reason alone, it makes a lot of sense to develop AI in the open, instead of leaving the development to OpenAI (pun intended). Zuckerberg writes: > *“It seems most likely that a world of only closed models results in a small number of big companies plus our geopolitical adversaries having access to leading models, while startups, universities, and small businesses miss out on opportunities.”* With open-access AI, organizations can host and run a powerful foundation model locally, fine-tune the model with proprietary data, customize it for a specific application, or train a whole new model based on the foundation model’s output. The advantages of self-hosting AI models summed up in a few words are insurance of privacy, freedom of dependency, and cost-efficiency at scale. On a grander scale, if a few companies own and control the entire AI ecosystem, it will reflect the language, culture, values, and biases of its creators, typically the demographic of American, middle-aged, white, upper-class males. Open-access AI enables countries, organizations, and individuals to better reflect their local language and cultural heritage in the models’ outputs. The main argument against providing open access to AI is that the technology can be misused by bad actors to produce large amounts of spam and slop, misinformation campaigns, deepfakes, sexually explicit material, and in the more futuristic department, invent new cyber-, chemical- or biological weapons. The counterargument is in Zuckerberg’s words: > *“(..) open source should be significantly safer since the systems are more transparent and can be widely scrutinized. Historically, open source software has been more secure for this reason.”* The Meta AI team spends around 10 pages in [its paper about Llama 3.1](https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/452387774%5F1036916434819166%5F4173978747091533306%5Fn.pdf?%5Fnc%5Fcat=104&ccb=1-7&%5Fnc%5Fsid=3c67a6&%5Fnc%5Fohc=7qSoXLG5aAYQ7kNvgFxFuVz&%5Fnc%5Fht=scontent-cph2-1.xx&oh=00%5FAYBJnu7B6GpBlYS%5FGhz778KpAeyB5hi4CMtpQLd6OSnvzw&oe=66A9C6CD&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) accounting for safety considerations, precautions, and red-teaming. However, if a malicious actor wanted to circumvent guardrails and safety filters in Llama 3.1 to produce illegal content, they probably could. Meta’s response is that malicious actors will always exist, as criminals do in a society, but the harm they can do with state-of-the-art-models of today is relatively limited: > *“Since the models are open, anyone is capable of testing for themselves as well. We must keep in mind that these models are trained by information that’s already on the internet, so the starting point when considering harm should be whether a model can facilitate more harm than information that can quickly be retrieved from Google or other search results. “* I can think of at least two more reasons, why the fears of CCP stealing OpenAI’s algorithmic secrets are overstated and should be treated either as a marketing stunt or as a fear of revealing a trade secret but disguised as sci-fi fan-fiction. Firstly, OpenAI is not serious on security matters. [The company suffered a security breach](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/technology/openai-hack.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in December 2023 where hackers gained access to its internal messaging system. The incident was reported by the NY Times in July 2024. [As I addressed two months ago](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/openai-is-a-world-leader-in-ai-unsafety), OpenAI also disbanded its “Superalignment team” that worked with AI safety, it does not update its home-made risk framework although it said it would do so frequently, [and it did not properly safety-test its newest model GPT-4o before release](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/12/openai-ai-safety-regulation-gpt4/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Overall, OpenAI is not acting congruently with the belief that it's building an important military secret. Meta diplomatically pokes at the hypocrisy in publicly worrying about product safety, while internally taking a laissez-faire stance towards security in the press release cited above: > *“Our adversaries are great at espionage, stealing models that fit on a thumb drive is relatively easy, *and most tech companies are far from operating in a way that would make this more difficult*.”* Secondly, Chinese tech companies [are already competitive or nearly competitive with American BigTech](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/technology/china-open-source-ai.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). For this reason, stealing OpenAI’s algorithmic secrets would not be of great benefit to China. In January 2024, Kai-Fu Lee’s Beijing-based startup, 01.AI, released [a top-performing open model](https://www.wired.com/story/chinese-startup-01-ai-is-winning-the-open-source-ai-race/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Yi-34B, that surpassed Llama 2\. The Chinese tech giant Alibaba's model Qwen-72B-Instruct currently surpasses Llama 3 on the [open LLM leaderboard by Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/spaces/open-llm-leaderboard/open%5Fllm%5Fleaderboard?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). At the current moment, 01.AI’s Yi, Alibaba’s Qwen, as well as DeepSeek AI’s DeepSeek are lagging behind on [the LMSYS Chatbot Arena Leaderboard](https://chat.lmsys.org/?leaderboard&ref=futuristiclawyer.com), a crowdsourced open platform for LLM evaluations. But that could change in time. [China is producing almost half of the world’s AI talent](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/technology/china-ai-talent.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and its leading AI products are- like Llama - released in the open so the AI labs can quickly copy each other and make progress without the burdens of secrecy and intellectual property rights. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI's Impact on Studying and Working URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ais-impact-on-studying-and-working/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:31:50.000Z A hype-free assessment of AI's legitimate impact on knowledge work. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Writing & Teaching the World about AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/writing-and-teaching-the-world-about/ Last updated: 2024-07-24T14:01:28.000Z This is a clip from my conversation with [Devansh](https://open.substack.com/users/8101724), a sought-after AI consultant and the author of [Artificial Intelligence Made Simple](https://open.substack.com/users/1315074) and [Technology Made Simple](https://open.substack.com/users/108704) \- free and widely read newsletters where he breaks down complex technical topics to a general audience with some memes in the mix. We spent about half of this conversation talking about Devansh’s views on newsletter writing, and the other half going deep on AI’s impact on society. Devansh also reveals the story about his crippling chocolate milk addiction, and how he will get an "Elon" tattoo across his chest if AI leads to universal basic income. [Check out the full episode here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLkDnDPEVFk&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ### The Science of Social Media Mobs URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-science-of-social-media-mobs/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:07.000Z ## Dealing with Social Media Mobs The inspiration for this post came from [a video I recently saw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tnCQkQOAdQ&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) with Patrick Bet-David on his +5.6 million subscriber YouTube channel, Value Entertainment, about the Isralian thinker, Yuval Noah Harari. Harari is a heavyweight among intellectuals. I have high expectations for [his upcoming book Nexus](https://www.ynharari.com/book/nexus/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) which is a follow-up to bestsellers like “Sapiens” and “Homo Deus”. [Harari's talk at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2020](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG6WnMb9Fho&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) served as the main inspiration for [my first post on Substack](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/elaborating-on-the-need-for-futuristic) and helped to shape the direction of Futuristic Lawyer. One of Harari’s thought-provoking ideas is the concept of an emerging “useless class”, a new social class that may encompass the vast majority of humans in the future as AI displaces more and more human work and increases wealth of capital at the expense of labor. If done wrong, technological development could supercharge the power and influence of the mega-rich techno elite (as AI is doing now) and make wage earners poor and redundant. This is a bleak, unpleasant vision of the future and understandably some people are not keen to embrace it. Anyone with a shred of common sense who has read Harari's books or listened to his talks knows that he is not endorsing such a future but warning us against it. That doesn’t keep Bet-David from explaining to his millions of YouTube subscribers that Harari is saying "You are all useless" and that Harari is participating in a kind of unspecified evil plot with the World Economic Forum and its founder, Klaus Schwab. The comment section of the video is full of users calling Harari evil and dangerous with hundreds of likes. My first instinct is of course to fire back at the attackers for spreading falsehoods. But then on a second thought, discussing with random strangers in the comment section of YouTube videos is not a good use of my time - certainly not a net benefit for humanity to borrow some lingo from the effective altruism movement. Rule #1 of internet communication is to never engage with trolls or keyboard warriors. There really is no way of winning against internet users who often hide behind the comfort of anonymity and can say whatever they want without social consequences. Few people are prime targets but for those who are unlucky enough to draw the attention of an angry internet crowd, logging off the computer does not always solve the problem. American top-attorney and law professor, Alan Dershowitz, was "cancelled" after false allegations of sexual misconduct and close ties with Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring. Dershowitz described the experience of being canceled in the excellent book on the topic, [Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process:](https://www.amazon.com/Cancel-Culture-Latest-Attack-Process/dp/1510764909?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) > *“Cancel culture combines the worst elements of self-righteousness and judgementalism. Its activists and practitioners sit in judgement often on great people — musicians, artists, and scientists — who have accomplished much good in their lives, but their actions or ideologies have offended cancellers. Many of these who sit on judgement on who to cancel have accomplished little in their own lives. They can’t be canceled because there is nothing to cancel.”* The [textbook example](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and probably the first well-known instance of a powerful social media mob asserting its power was in 2013 when Justine Sacco, the 30-year-old director of corporate communications at a large US company, blew up the internet with a single tweet. Sacco was about to board a Boeing 747 from London to South Africa without WiFi. Shortly before the flight, Sacco posted a silly joke, as she so often did, to her 170 followers: “*Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”*. Then she got on the plane and slept. After arriving at Cape Town airport 11 hours later, Sacco turned on her phone and it was blown up with messages from friends and relatives wishing her sympathy and asking if she was okay. Over the span of less than a half day, Sacco’s joke had gone viral with tens of thousands of angry responses accusing her of being racist, and the hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet had been top-trending on Twitter for hours. As a result of the incident, Sacco had to delete her social media accounts, publicly apologize and was fired from her job. This was an early instance of the phenomenon, public internet shaming. Some of the shaming, for example in connection with the #Metoo movement has been justified. Some of it has been less justified, and some public executions on social media have been based on false evidence and willful misunderstandings. The dynamics of why people choose to join social media mobs are not straightforward to nail down. Luckily, we have a good paper on the topic – one that is based on philosophy rather than data – which is not necessarily bad. The paper helps to explain the lure of moral internet outrage, and also why it’s so problematic. Not only for the victims - which is obvious – but also how harsh judgements have consequences for the perpetrators that are joining the mob. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Going Deep on AI and Copyright Law URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/going-deep-on-ai-and-copyright-law/ Last updated: 2024-07-17T18:24:00.000Z Here is a highlight from my conversation with Andres Guadamuz aka TechoLlama about the intersection of AI and copyright law. Andres is a Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Sussex and the author behind the long-running and widely read law-tech blog TechoLlama. If you want to go deeper, [watch our full conversation on YouTube here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOwWWQqTITA&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) 👉 https://www.technollama.co.uk/ 👉https://www.linkedin.com/in/andres-guadamuz/ ### AI Music Is a Technologically Sophisticated Form of Plagiarism URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-music-is-a-technologically-sophisticated/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:25.000Z *“Too many developers and investors seem to see a zero sum game – where AI behemoths scrape artists’ and songwriters’ life’s work off the internet for free and without any opportunity for individual choice, autonomy, or values. Where most of us see music, art, and culture to be cherished, they see soulless data to copied, “tokenized,” and exploited. Where most of us look to collaborate and reach for new horizons, they prefer to exploit art and culture for their own narrow gains. On the road to society’s AI future, it’s their way or no way.”* *\- Mitch Glazier, Chairman and CEO of RIAA (*[*Billboard*](https://www.billboard.com/pro/riaa-mitch-glazier-generative-ai-guest-column-suno-udio-lawsuit/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)*)* ## Introduction [In a post from May](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/ai-music-is-not-art-its-the-opposite), I addressed some of the legal and ethical challenges pertaining to the AI music services Suno and Udio. It’s not a big surprise that both Suno and Udio are now facing major lawsuits from the crop of the world’s leading record labels, including “the Big Three”, Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. Both lawsuits (find them [here)](https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2024/06/25/complaints-in-copyright-suit-by-umg-recordings-11-other-music-v-ai-music-generators-suno-udio-copyright-suits-v-ai-hits-26-in-u-s/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) are spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and take aim at how Suno and Udio have trained their models on the record labels copyright-protected music without permission. Suno is accused of copying 662 songs and Udio of copying 1,670 songs. The record labels have asked the courts to award statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song. Together with the lawsuits, the record labels attached a long list of the copyrighted work that was allegedly used as training data for Suno and Udio respectively - in conjunction with prompts and time stamps in the AI-generated songs that are infringing their copyright. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/eff5e51a-727c-4fdc-a0e3-c226bd0bfb3c_946x1136.png) The cases have strong merits. Just listen to the Suno-generated [Deep down in Louisiana close to New Orle,](https://suno.com/song/16df3d1e-f817-4904-b9a8-eb6b18b6583d?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a near-copy of Chuck Berry’s Johnny B. Goode. Or [Prancing Queen](https://suno.com/song/a9575656-5922-44fe-a925-b7582af7f8e4?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a near-copy of ABBA’s Dancing Queen. Or [Udio’s replication](https://www.404media.co/listen-to-the-ai-generated-ripoff-songs-that-got-udio-and-suno-sued/?mc%5Fcid=6d785331c3&mc%5Feid=6d06092047&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of “All I Want for Christmas Is You” by Mariah Carey. It’s indeed an impossible argument to make that the AI songs are not [substantially similar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial%5Fsimilarity?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to the original works. RIAA also has a good track record of winning big copyright infringement cases. The organization effectively shut down the once popular but illegal file-sharing platform, [Napster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), only two years after its launch (a short time in major litigation years). ## Settlements The magazine MusicTech suggests that [the two lawsuits may end up in settlements.](https://musictech.com/features/opinion-analysis/will-riaa-lawsuit-against-generative-ai-udio-suno-win/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) The assumption is based on the growing number of media companies that have made deals with OpenAI and other BigAI companies. Deals, which tech journalist Damon Beres succinctly called "devil’s bargains" in an [article for The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/05/a-devils-bargain-with-openai/678537/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). I wrote more about the issue two weeks ago [in my post about Perplexity](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-legality-of-perplexity). The already financially limping media companies are faced with a stark choice: either to accept a bag of money from OpenAI to keep quiet, or to accept that their original work will be used as training data for the tech companies’ AI models regardless, without pay. Personally, I don’t see RIAA budging in these cases – unless Suno/Udio agrees to only use licensed music from now on to train their models. This is an unlikely scenario since Suno/Udio [could not create the same quality of music if they had to rely on licensed music only.](https://www.wired.com/story/the-new-ethical-ai-music-generator-cant-write-a-halfway-decent-song/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) Although I can’t predict the future or read the mind of judges, I see this case as too principal for RIAA to settle halfway with a bag of cash and a handshake like the deals between OpenAI and various media companies. The $100-trillion question is (if we believe [Sam Altman’s estimate of AI’s potential wealth creation](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8uThjxyCir/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)): what kind of implications will a decision favoring RIAA have for the wider generative AI industry? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Podcasting & AI as a Culture Study URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/podcasting-and-ai-as-a-culture-study/ Last updated: 2024-07-10T14:02:14.000Z [Pranath Fernando](https://open.substack.com/users/99606814) is an AI consultant and author of the Substack newsletter, [The FuturAI](https://open.substack.com/users/2314353). In this conversation, Pranath shares his experience interviewing different voices about AI and talks about the cultural differences between the approach to AI in the West and the East. Watch our full conversation [here](https://youtu.be/EKVG%5FVzcFiM?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Last time I spoke with Pranath, I was on his podcast, talking about the societal implications of AI, the challenges of regulating AI, EU's AI Act, and the dangers of social media. See that conversation [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVs%5F9naO328&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). ### The Most Effective Way to Regulate AI Is to Govern Compute URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-most-effective-way-to-regulate/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:27.000Z #### YouTube Here is my recent conversation with the knowledgeable [Claus Aasholm](https://open.substack.com/users/5566720) who is an experienced analyst of the semiconductor industry. We discuss the global semiconductor supply chain, Nvidia's market dominance, TSMC's origins, the geopolitics of chips manufacturing, and how it affects the AI industry. I learned a lot from this conversation and you will too. --- # The Most Effective Way to Regulate AI Is to Govern Compute ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/a9bd32b6-3778-4f28-bca4-8a1def9bace7_1920x1280-jpeg-2.jpg) ## Introduction Regulating AI through governing compute would be the most direct and effective approach to contain and control AI. The approach is also borderline Orwellian as it ultimately grants the government monopoly powers over the technology. This week’s post is based on a thought-provoking paper submitted to arXiv on February 13, titled “[Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08797?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”. It was written by nineteen authors including deep learning pioneer, Yoshua Bengio. The lead authors are Girish Sastry from OpenAI, Lennart Heim from Centre for the Governance of AI, and Haydn Belfield from University of Cambridge. In this post, I highlight what I found to be the paper’s most important parts and points. My post here is a bit more technical than my usual writings but hopefully, at least some of my subscribers will take something away from it. If you are not a paying subscriber and want to learn more, you can check out the official blog post [here](https://www.governance.ai/post/computing-power-and-the-governance-of-ai?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Striving for the Extraordinary URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/striving-for-the-extraordinary/ Last updated: 2024-07-02T15:01:38.000Z Carsten Lillelund Pedersen is an IT thinker, adventure seeker, and Chief Architect at the software company Visma Acubiz. In our conversation we talk about why Denmark has the best restaurants in the world’s but can't compete in IT with the tech giants across the Atlantic. We also talk about Carsten’s experience climbing Mount Everest, going to space, and what the secret ingredient is for achieving the extraordinary. ### The Legality of Perplexity URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-legality-of-perplexity/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:27.000Z ## Perplexity At the beginning of this year, Perplexity was hailed as a potential Google disruptor. On the back of an investment of $73.6 million in Series B funding from Jeff Bezos’ family fund, Nvidia, Databricks, [ among 56 investors](https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/517947-04?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#overview), the stage was set for Perplexity to disrupt web search and make its mark on the information ecosystem in 2024. CEO Aravind Srinivas [explained to Forbes,](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rashishrivastava/2024/04/11/inside-the-buzzy-ai-startup-coming-for-googles-lunch/?sh=3bd446821781&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that Perplexity was "almost like ChatGPT and Wikipedia had a kid". It's a free search engine that combines a stand-alone large language model (LLM) with internet access and integration to other LLMs from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Meta. It delivers fast AI-generated answers to search queries and always cites the original web pages in its answers. Srinivas had built solid research experience as an intern at first OpenAI, then DeepMind, and finally Google, before pivoting back to OpenAI once more as a research scientist. Straight hereafter, Srinivas founded Perplexity with Johnny Ho, Denis Yarats, and Andrew Konwinski in August 2022\. [When asked in interviews](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/podcasts/sydney-ai-perplexity.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), Srinivas insists that Perplexity will be a positive for writers, creators, and freelancers who rely on search traffic to put food on the table. He claims that AI-infused web search will lead to higher quality visitors and marketing leads to the web pages cited by Perplexity, and thus it will be a net benefit to the industry. Many people, however, myself included, are skeptical of such claims - especially when checking the general temperature among tech wizards and executives at major AI companies when it comes to their value-judgment of original work as a concept. To this small but powerful group of people, any data on the internet is regarded as just content meaning fresh meat for insatiable AI models. For example, the always honest and outspoken OpenAI CTO, Mira Murati, said in a [recent talk at Dartmouth's School of Engineering](https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/21/24183265/openai-exec-some-creative-jobs-maybe-will-go-away-but-maybe-they-shouldnt-have-been-there-in-the-fir?ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > *“Some creative jobs maybe will go away, but maybe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place — if the content that comes out of it is not high quality.”* In a similar fashion, Yann LeCun, Chief AI scientist Meta AI, [posted on Twitter on the first day of 2024](https://x.com/ylecun/status/1741708146530226285?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1741708146530226285%7Ctwgr%5E82194e7efc340c06f3e9e8a51ae449b79ce663f0%7Ctwcon%5Es1%5F&ref%5Furl=https%3A%2F%2Fhowtobe247.com%2Fmeta-ai-chief-under-fire-for-saying-authors-should-give-books-for-free-yann-lecun%2F&ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > *“Only a small number of book authors make significant money from book sales. This seems to suggest that most books should be freely available for download. The lost revenue for authors would be small, and the benefits to society large by comparison.”* Statements like these are worth having in the back of mind as we look further into the business model of AI companies, here with Perplexity as a prime example. ## From Platform to Publisher The business model of generative AI companies is to crawl through vast amounts of original content on the internet and feed it back to users in a revised form. Google search is doing something similar but with one important caveat. While traditional search engines are presenting original content "as is", AI search engines like Perplexity are mashing various sources together to present something "new". Technically, this – I think - makes Perplexity a publisher of information rather than a more neutral indexing platform such as Google. Section 230 (c)(1), Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is also known as the “26 words that made the internet.” It states: > *“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. “* American social media platforms have shielded themselves from liability for user-generated content because of Section 230\. If Facebook was exposed to the threat of a lawsuit each time a user posted offensive/harmful/violent/disturbing content, it could never have scaled into the billion-user network it has been for years. Last year in May, the boundaries of Section 230 were challenged in two Supreme Court cases - [Gonzalez v. Google LLC](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333%5F6j7a.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [Twitter v. Taamneh](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496%5Fd18f.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In the former case, plaintiff was the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old design student who became victim of a terrorist attack in Paris in November 2015\. The family of Gonzales claimed that YouTube's recommendation algorithm had played a crucial part in radicalizing the gunmen behind the attacks by exposing them and continuously nudging them toward ISIS propaganda and recruitment material. In the latter case, the family of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a terrorist attack in an Istanbul nightclub called Reina Club on New Year's Eve, 2017, sued Twitter, Google, and Facebook for failing to police against ISIS accounts, posts, and videos leading up to the attack, and for recommending terrorist-related content to users. Both cases were ruled in favor of the BigTech companies. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion in Twitter v. Taamneh: > *“Given the lack of any concrete nexus between defendants’ services and the Reina attack, plaintiffs’ claims would necessarily hold defendants liable as having aided and abetted each and every ISIS terrorist act committed anywhere in the world.”* The Supreme Court did explicitly not comment on the scope of Section 230’s liability shield in either case. However, we can likely infer from the decisions that – in general – social media companies cannot be held liable for content promoted by their recommendation algorithms. But what about generative AI? Can we say that AI search engines should be afforded the same Section 230 protection that allowed social media companies to grow abnormally in the past decade-and-a half? It’s doubtful. We will circle back to the Section 230-question later. First, let’s look at the recent controversy surrounding Perplexity and identify two critical legal issues. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Could be Heading Towards the Trough of Disillusionment URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-could-be-heading-towards-the-trough/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:28.000Z Is AI really heading towards super intelligence? Or the trough of disillusionment? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Gamification of Human Relationships URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-gamification-of-human-relationships/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:29.000Z Jonathan Haidt’s bestseller “[The Anxious Generation](https://jonathanhaidt.com/anxious-generation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” received some backlash. Most prolifically, social science researcher, Candice Odgers, [published a review of the book in Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) where she claimed that there is no scientific evidence of a connection between excessive social media use and declining mental health among kids and teens. However, the trendline is clear: despair and mental health disorders, have been rising steadily among young people since the early 2010s. The timing coincides with the proliferation of smartphones and social media. We can now speak of a “coming-of-age crisis” rather than a mid-life crisis [since young people between 18-25 are the most depressed age group of all](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/youth-health-declines-82-countries?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), for the first time in recorded history and consistently across 82 countries. Is this really because of smartphones and social media, or something else entirely? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/fc5be5fb-0c79-4714-a391-4eca3c0399ac_694x388-jpeg.jpg) Average US teens are [spending nearly five hours a day on social media](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/teen-social-use-mental-health?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The stats in Europe and other developed countries are likely not much different. Imagine spending five hours a day on a single activity as a youngster. With this level of dedication, it wouldn’t take many years to reach world-class level mastery in any field or endeavor. Unfortunately, social media is a greedy mistress that takes up a lot of time without giving much in return. As Candice Odgers stipulates in her rebuttal to Haidt’s campaign, there are no simple answers to the youth’s mental health crisis. Furthermore, the interplay between social media and early brain development is hard to understand, measure, or quantify. We can even say it relates to [the hard problem of consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard%5Fproblem%5Fof%5Fconsciousness?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), as people’s subjective experiences cannot be captured by engagement metrics. I was thinking about that as I read this passage from a post by Freya India on [Jonathan Haidt’s After Babel](http://afterbabel.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) substack, [Your Boyfriend Isn't Your Camera Man](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/your-boyfriend-isnt-your-camera-man??ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > “There’s this popular phrase “Instagram vs Reality” that emerged in the early 2010s to capture the contrast between our appearances, relationships, and lifestyles, online and offline. I think it’s outdated now. For many young people, Instagram IS reality. At the very least we’ve all had times when we care more about capturing the perfect picture than living our lives.” Why is it that other people's perceptions on social media, become more important than ordinary life, actual experiences, and relationships? The paper [How Twitter Gamifies Communication](https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUHTG.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (2021) by philosophy professor at Utah University, [C. Thi Nguyen](https://philpeople.org/profiles/c-thi-nguyen?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), may provide an explanation: social media gamifies human relationships. > “Gameplaying involves the temporary adoption of an alternate set of goals. Why do all this? For one thing, our goals in game-life are so much clearer than in ordinary life. In ordinary life, our goals are often obscure. We often don’t know exactly what we’re doing — or we find our reasons hard to articulate and difficult to apply. And we are beset with a confusing welter of values – both from within our own value system, and from the bruising value complexity of the social world. But games offer a relief from all that. While playing a game, we know exactly what we are trying to do — and afterwards, we know exactly how well we have done. Success in a game is clear and unmistakable. There are points.” Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok score our communication with points in the shape of likes and reposts. Like a slot machine, the system provides users with a kind of gambler’s high when the numbers go up, and sour feelings if they don’t. In addition, follower counts and friend lists are ranking systems that allow you to always gauge the popularity of your communications and your social standing compared to anyone else. The social comparison game, combined with recommendation algorithms and clever design features such as push notifications and infinite scrolling feeds takes hold of the users’ time and attention. At the same time, Meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram, do not care about the quality of the content it shows to users or how it makes them feel. That is why [horrifying AI-generated images](https://www.404media.co/ai-images-of-dying-drowning-mutilated-children-go-viral-on-facebook/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) are popular and go viral on Facebook. [Jason Koebler on 404 Media](https://www.404media.co/email/24eb6cea-6fa6-4b98-a2d2-8c4ba33d6c04/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) calls Facebook the zombie internet, “where a mix of bots, humans, and accounts that were once humans but aren’t anymore interact to form a disastrous website where there is little social connection at all.” [Ed Zitron wrote a hard-hitting and accurate piece](https://www.wheresyoured.at/were-watching-facebook-die/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) about how Facebook has demonstratively degraded over the last couple of years. Yet, users are not pulling the rug, because the platform is so addictive. Users are not customers but more like guinea pigs in a twisted social experiment that has made Meta one of the richest and most influential companies in the world. The engagement metric, how many minutes per day users spend on their platforms, weighs heavier than anything else, [even in the face of internal research](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-meta-profoundly-altered-the-psychological) that shows how much Facebook and Instagram harm the mental well-being of kids and teens. ## How Social Media Changes Our Offline Behaviour _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How noyb is Challenging the Privacy Practices of US Tech Giants in Europe URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-noyb-is-challenging-the-privacy/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:30.000Z Max Schrems’ non-profit privacy group, noyb ( “none of your business”) is doing the work of a saint in Europe to hold BigTech accountable for dubious privacy practices. Schrems became famous (in privacy expert circles that is) for successfully and singlehandedly imposing GDPR’s privacy standards on Facebook while he was still a young law student in Austria. In light of the Snowden revelations - that exposed how the US National Security Agency (NSA) could access all user data about foreigners through backdoor encryption on social media platforms - Schrems grew concerned with Facebook’s processing of his data. He acted on these concerns by filing a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner in 2013\. Schrems’ courtroom activism eventually changed not only Facebook’s privacy practices but how data was transferred from European companies to US cloud service providers and other US-based data processors. Not once, but twice through the court cases known as Schrems I and Schrems II, the legal basis for data transfers between the EU and the US was overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), requiring EU companies to make tedious “Transfer Impact Assessment” (TIAs) for each instance of a personal data transfer to the US. Now, the European Commission has made a new data transfer agreement with the US, the Data Privacy Framework. The new agreement is [not much different](https://noyb.eu/en/european-commission-gives-eu-us-data-transfers-third-round-cjeu?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) from the previous data transfer frameworks - “the Safe Harbor” agreement and “Privacy Shield” - which were both invalidated by CJEU in Schrems I and Schrems II respectively. Data Privacy Framework does not change the extensive surveillance laws in the US and these laws remain fundamentally incompatible with the strong privacy protection granted to EU citizens by the GDPR. The world of business and privacy is anxiously awaiting [a pending Schrems III judgement](https://noyb.eu/en/european-commission-gives-eu-us-data-transfers-third-round-cjeu?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and when it arrives, we will likely have to go through the same tedious exercise again of documenting, carefully risk assessing, and security optimizing each transfer of personal data to the US. Noyb’s insistence on upholding the legal right to privacy is both annoying and impractical, specifically if you are a US tech company serving the EU market, or if you are a European company relying on US data processors. On the other hand, the stubborn insistence on maintaining privacy rights in the digital age is a worthy cause. In the long run, the work of noyb is supporting Europe’s process of seeking digital independence from the all-encompassing grips of US tech giants - companies with un-European views on privacy rights. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/a525af69-7c65-4551-8236-738f7e0c7509_710x762-jpeg.jpg) Me posing with Max Schrems at an IT security conference in Copenhagen. In this post, I will go through three of noyb’s most recent complaints against US tech companies: - Meta’s abuse of personal data for AI training – June 06, 2024 ([link](https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-urges-11-dpas-immediately-stop-metas-abuse-personal-data-ai?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) - Microsoft’s violation of children’s privacy rights - June 04, 2024 ([link](https://noyb.eu/en/microsoft-violates-childrens-privacy-blames-your-local-school?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) - ChatGPT’s wrong information about people – April 29, 2024 ([link](https://noyb.eu/en/chatgpt-provides-false-information-about-people-and-openai-cant-correct-it?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) ## Meta’s abuse of personal data for AI training Last Thursday, noyb announced that they had filed a complaint against Meta in eleven countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Spain. These complaints take a stab at the very heart of the AI frenzy by questioning the legitimacy of training AI models with publicly available, personal data on the web. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### OpenAI Is a Leader in AI Unsafety URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/openai-is-a-world-leader-in-ai-unsafety/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:31.000Z ## Introduction During a recent episode of the Hard Fork podcast by Casey Newton and Kevin Roose, [Meet Kevin’s A.I. Friends](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/podcasts/hard-fork-ai-friends.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), I was blown away by Casey’s conversation with “Turing”, a sexy-sounding, stoicism-interested AI friend. It was created through a personal AI service called [Kindroid](https://landing.kindroid.ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). After the demonstration, the Hard Fork hosts sat down with Alex Cardinell, CEO of [Nomi](https://nomi.ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), a similar company that offers “An AI Companion with Memory and a Soul” without boundaries on “erotic roleplaying” content. Here are some user testimonies from the company’s main page: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/40b202a5-e832-4d8f-832f-4c15c067bdd6_1002x479.png) Communicating with “AI friends” is presented like a guilty pleasure here, much like scrolling the infinite loop on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube. Cardinell mentions a few positive use cases. For example, “someone who’s realizing for the first time that maybe they’re gay or bisexual” and use Nomi as a safe space in “exploring a part of themselves that (..) they haven’t told anyone about.” Another example is a user who has stage four cancer and needs more support “than people around you (sic) are willing and capable of giving day in and day out.” Clearly, advanced AI chatbots want to be invited to the most intimate parts of our lives and the companies target people who are vulnerable. This is what Yuval Noah Harari predicted in an article published in [The Economist ](https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/04/28/yuval-noah-harari-argues-that-ai-has-hacked-the-operating-system-of-human-civilisation?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)last year: > *“We all know that over the past decade social media has become a battleground for controlling human attention. With the new generation of ai, the battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy.”* We should be aware, that increasingly capable, realistic, and sexualized AIs pose new, distinguishable risks that we can foresee, and others we can’t. OpenAI recently unveiled its new GPT-4o model with superb capabilities in audio, vision, and speech . The new model may not be overtly sexual like Kindroid’s or Nomi’s AI companions but it preys on the same dynamics by flirting and being unusually welcoming. The AI-generated proximation of a human voice is packed with more emotional tonality than what is normal for a person. The female voice might fit the definition of a “fembot” as described [in a paper from 2020](https://academic.oup.com/book/36637/chapter-abstract/321634108?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false&ref=404media.co) by Kate Devlin and Olivia Belton: > *“Fictional and factual fembots each reflect the same regressive male fantasies: sexual outlets and the promise of emotional validation and companionship. Underpinning this are masculine anxieties regarding powerful women, as well as the fear of technology exceeding our capacities and escaping our control.”* In this week’s post, we will see how OpenAI, as per usual, is pushing the boundaries of techno-capitalism without much regard for AI safety. ## OpenAI’s Omni-model and Disbanded Superalignment team OpenAI’s new GPT-4o is an “omni-model” with multimodal capabilities across text, image, audio, and video. As illustrated below, GPT-4o is the new state-of-the-art text model by a relatively small margin compared to other leaps we have seen in the past. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/4ab30cea-7c4a-4032-bace-41e617bb3e0a_682x587.png) The model’s wildly impressive speech, audio, and image recognition capabilities were in focus during OpenAI’s Spring Update 2024. In response to the demonstration, Sam Altman wryly [tweeted](https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666?ref%5Fsrc=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1790075827666796666%7Ctwgr%5E18616060bc6a09f4b385962d272ecc94acdf0894%7Ctwcon%5Es1%5F&ref%5Furl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.laptopmag.com%2Fsoftware%2Fopenais-perfect-punchline-sam-altmans-her-tweet-and-the-reality-of-ai-evolution&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) “her” - in reference to the iconic movie where Joaquim Phoenix plays a lonely introvert who falls in love with the superintelligent AI “Samantha”, voiced by Scarlett Johansson. Altman probably came to regret that simple tweet as it caused a public uproar. You probably already know the story too well, but let’s briefly recap. During the Spring Update, ChatGPT’s voice “Sky” sounded nearly identical to Scarlett Johansson in Her. [Johannson was angered](https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-voice-sky-1235024630/?mc%5Fcid=6593645e60&mc%5Feid=6d06092047&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) since she had previously refused a personal offer from Sam Altman to lend her voice to his company, twice. [OpenAI defended itself in a blog post](https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-chosen/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), claiming that a professional voice actress had used her natural voice for Sky (so it was allegedly not an AI-generated voice trained on Johannson). Nonetheless, OpenAI proclaimed that they would [work on "pausing" the use of Sky](https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/24160621/openai-chatgpt-gpt4o-sky-scarlett-johansson-voice-assistant-her?ref=wheresyoured.at) out of respect for Johansson . Another event coinciding with the release of GPT-4o, was that OpenAI’s so-called Superaligment team that focused on long-term AI safety research [was disbanded](https://www.wired.com/story/openai-superalignment-team-disbanded/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). This happened after the team’s co-lead, OpenAI’s co-founder and Chief Scientist, Ilya Sutskever, announced his resignment on May 14\. It wasn’t a big surprise. Sutskever wasn’t seen in the office six months following Sam Altman’s brief and [much-discussed](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/business/dealbook/ilya-sutskever-sam-altman-openai.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ouster. Hours after Suskever’s resignation, the Superalignment team’s other co-lead, Jan Leike, announced his departure from the company [with a few sharp words for the road ](https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)to his former employer. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/14f6aa2e-370e-4e05-bf61-3ff1cf6702dc_592x491.png) Over the past few months, three other safety researchers at OpenAI, Cullen O'Keefe, Daniel Kokotajlo, and William Saunders, all resigned, and two others, Leopold Aschenbrenner and Pavel Izmailov, were terminated, due to alleged leakage of confidential information ([Vox](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158403/openai-resignations-ai-safety-ilya-sutskever-jan-leike-artificial-intelligence?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). Then, on May 28, OpenAI announced it had formed [a new AI Safety and Security Committee](https://openai.com/index/openai-board-forms-safety-and-security-committee/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that will provide recommendations to OpenAI’s board and be led by Sam Altman. What could possibly go wrong? Here is the best way I can put it: the skillset needed to acquire money and influence by climbing the ranks of Silicon Valley, is not the same skills that are needed to govern AI safely and responsibly. If you have any doubts about Sam Altman’s insincerity, listen to [this interview](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4r127XapFv7JZr0OPzRDaI?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) with former OpenAI board member, Helen Toner, by The Ted AI Show. OpenAI still has a functioning [Preparedness Team](https://openai.com/preparedness/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that works to “track, evaluate, forecast, and protect against catastrophic risks posed by increasingly powerful models.” According to [OpenAI’s preparedness framework](https://cdn.openai.com/openai-preparedness-framework-beta.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) (which is still in beta, so perhaps not being applied) the Preparedness team conducts research and monitors four risk categories: - Cyber security - Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, and Radiological (CBNR threats) - Persuasion - Model autonomy Each of the four risk categories is assigned a risk score in the ranking of low, medium, high, and critical. The preparedness framework should be updated with new scores frequently, but to my knowledge, it has not been updated since its release in December 2023\. In my opinion, the preparedness framework is not adequate by any means to address catastrophic AI risks. Specifically, from my perspective, the “Persuasion” category should be granulated more, certainly, in light of the improved capabilities and multimodal functions of GPT-4o. Google DeepMind is doing much more in terms of AI safety research. While OpenAI has been doing cost-management exercises and turned away its entire Superaligment team, DeepMind has published a 273-page report titled [The ethics of advanced AI assistants](https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/the-ethics-of-advanced-ai-assistants/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). (We should note in this context, that Google announced the upcoming release of [Project Astra at Google I/O 2024](https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/project-astra/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), an AI agent built on the Gemini models that can process multi-modal information in the same way as GPT-4o.) Combining DeepMind’s published safety research on AI agents with my own thoughts, here are some of the key risks OpenAI’s latest preparedness framework fails to address, in light of the GPT-4o release. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Will the Copilot Era include AI in Legal Workflows? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/will-the-copilot-era-include-ai-in/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:33.000Z Will we have a GitHub Copilot or a Microsoft Copilot for lawyers? Who leads in the legal copilot space? Originally published on AISupremacy. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI Music Is Not Art. It's... The Opposite URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-music-is-not-art-its-the-opposite/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:33.000Z In this week’s post, we will take a look at two companies, Suno and Udio, that are caught in an arm-wrestling match to be the best tool in a strange niche of AI; generative AI for music creation. As an engineering feat, the mere possibility of AI-generated music is incredible. But will people be willing to pay for it? Is it even desirable for people to create their own music with a few clicks? Suno’s co-founder Mikey Shulman, who is interviewed by the [Rolling Stones ](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/suno-ai-chatgpt-for-music-1234982307/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)certainly thinks so: > “(..) Mikey Shulman, a boyishly charming, backpack-toting 37-year-old with a Harvard Ph.D. in physics, envisions a billion people worldwide paying 10 bucks a month to create songs with Suno. The fact that music listeners so vastly outnumber music-makers at the moment is “so lopsided,” he argues, seeing Suno as poised to fix that perceived imbalance.” Personally, I don’t see Suno, nor Udo, making a dent in the music-listening habits of consumers. Beyond concerns pertaining to copyright, I don’t think the ability to create AI-generated music is valuable or fun enough to pay $10 a month for, not for professional musicians, and even less for music listeners. As I will argue in this post, the notion that AI-generated music or synthetic content can have artistic value is backward. ## The Early GenAI Models for Music About four years ago, OpenAI released its text-to-music model, [Jukebox](https://openai.com/index/jukebox?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), accompanied with code and weights. The release was part of the company’s early efforts to push the boundaries of generative AI at a time when OpenAI was a research-first organization that prioritized science over profits. Three years later, Meta released [Audiocraft](https://about.fb.com/news/2023/08/audiocraft-generative-ai-for-music-and-audio/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and Stability AI released [Stable Audio](https://stability.ai/news/stable-audio-using-ai-to-generate-music?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), like Jukebox, available for free with code and open weights. Google released [MusicLM](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11325?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in January 2023\. [It was arguably the first AI model](https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/google-created-an-ai-that-can-generate-music-from-text-descriptions-but-wont-release-it/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that could generate high-fidelity songs with complex compositions based on text prompts. To begin with, Google decided to not release the model, in recognition that MusicLM would “reflect the biases present in the training data” and was “raising concerns about cultural appropriation”. Only four months later, Google pivoted on this decision by [publicly releasing MusicLM](https://blog.google/technology/ai/musiclm-google-ai-test-kitchen/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) in a test environment called the “[AI test kitchen](https://aitestkitchen.withgoogle.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)“. The latest upgrade is called [MusicFX](https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/01/google-releases-genai-tools-for-music-creation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In November 2023, Google's sister company DeepMind rushed in where Google had originally feared to tread by [announcing the release](https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/transforming-the-future-of-music-creation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of an advanced music generation model, Lyria, in a partnership with YouTube. Lyria is designed to leverage AI in music-making with two experiments: - Dream Track: Lets users create 30-second soundtracks for YouTube shorts with AI-generated voices and musical style of a bunch of popular (and consenting) artists. So far, it's been released in limited beta. - Music AI tools: a suite of tools for music creators that can for example be used for “singing a melody to create a horn line, transforming chords from a MIDI keyboard into a realistic vocal choir, or adding an instrumental accompaniment to a vocal track”. The tools will be released later this year. Music generated by MusicFX and Lydia is watermarked with DeepMind’s tool,[ SynthID](https://deepmind.google/technologies/synthid/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), so its origin can be detected if need be. The watermark is embedded in audio waveform that is inaudible to the human ear. ## Suno and Udio Over the course of late March to mid-April, the buzz surrounding generative AI tools for music reached new heights as two companies, Suno and Udio, came out of stealth with impressive products that raised the quality bar for synthetic music a notch or two. First came Suno, a company founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts, by four machine learning experts, Mikey Shulman, Georg Kucsko, Martin Camacho, and Keenan Freyberg. The founders were former colleagues at Kensho, an AI startup for financial data that exited with an acquisition by S&P Global ([Axios](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/20/suno-gen-ai-music-microsoft?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). On March 21, [Suno released v3](https://suno.com/blog/v3?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and announced that its new model could produce “radio-quality music” and songs of up to two minutes in length in a few seconds. Suno is also [integrated as a plug-in to Microsoft Copilot](https://blogs.bing.com/search/december-2023/Turn-your-ideas-into-songs-with-Suno-on-Microsoft?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Udio released its product on April 10, not long after its seed funding round in December where it raised $10 million from investors such as a16z, Instagram co-founder Mike Kreiger, and the musicians will.i.am and Common. Four out of Udio’s five founders, David Ding, Conor Durkan, Charlie Nash, and Yaroslav Ganin are former Google DeepMind employees, except for Andrew Sanchez who is a former product manager and Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford University. Comically, Udio has [been referred to](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1bzd4bo/its%5Fbeen%5Fconfirmed%5Fthe%5Fsuno%5Fkiller%5Fis%5Fcalled%5Fudio/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) as the “Suno killer”. [Rolling Stones](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/udio-ai-music-chatgpt-suno-1235001675/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) said: > “the two companies’ output seems closely comparable, though some early users have suggested that on average, Udio‘s output may sound crisper than Suno‘s, with less of the sonic fuzziness that can betray tracks’ machine-created origins." Others, [such as Morning Brew](https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/udio-and-suno-lead-battle-ai-music-generators?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) dissent on this opinion but overall, Udio and Suno are strikingly similar. Udio believes that “AI has the potential to expand musical horizons and enable anyone to create extraordinary music”, whereas Suno’s mission is “building a future where anyone can make music”. Both services are currently in public beta and are free to use. Suno offers a Pro Plan that costs $8/month for users who want to generate more than 10 songs a day, and a Premier Plan that costs $24/month for users who want to generate between 500-2000 songs a day. Udio offers a Standard plan for 10$/month and a Pro plan for 30$/month with respectively 1200 and 4800 credits, each credit corresponding to a 1\~30 second audio track. Another commonality between Suno and Udio is that they have so far refused to disclose their sources of training data. On this background, we can ascertain – without a shadow of a doubt – that they have been trained on very large amounts of copyrighted music. That is a problem and against the spirit of [an open letter](https://artistrightsnow.medium.com/200-artists-urge-tech-platforms-stop-devaluing-music-559fb109bbac?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) published by Artist Rights Alliance on April 1 and signed by more than 200 musicians, including Billy Eilish, Stevie Wonder, Norah Jones, Jon Bon Jovi, R.E.M, and the estate of Frank Sinatra: > “Some of the biggest and most powerful companies are, without permission, using our work to train AI models. These efforts are directly replacing the work of human artists with massive quantities of AI-created "sounds" and "images" that substantially dilute the royalty pools that are paid out to artists (..) > > We call on all AI developers, technology companies, platforms, and digital music services to pledge that they will not develop or deploy AI-music generation technology, content, or tools that undermine or replace the human artistry of songwriters and artists or deny us fair compensation for our work." Honestly, I am a music-lover at heart, and I deeply sympathize with Artist Rights Alliance’s cause. Suno and Udio are clearly competing with musicians for the very little profit that is left after the streaming platforms and record labels have taken the lion’s share of revenue. Besides, almost all of the profits on streaming platforms go to the 0.01% of top-trending artists, and AI-generated music will unevenly impact the remaining 99.9%. Neither Suno nor Udio allow users to generate songs based on the likeness of artists (e.g. "make a song in the style of Eminem") but [workarounds are more or less possible](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/suno-is-a-music-ai-company-aiming-to-generate-120-billion-per-year-newton-rex/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Contrary to Google’s MusicFX and Google DeepMind’s Lyria, Suno and Udio do not have a watermarking system in place so the AI-generated content can be detected. Interestingly, Pro and Premier users of Suno are granted the[ commercial rights to songs](https://suno-ai.notion.site/FAQs-b72601b96de44e5cacd2cd6baa985448?ref=futuristiclawyer.com#f0f1441180484d6094206e84e334ba36) which means that the users can monetize their songs on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Music, and have the right to license the songs out to third parties. Udio is more vague about ownership rights for user-generated content. [Users can use songs they make via Udio for a commercial purpose,](https://www.udio.com/faq?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) *“*as long as the content does not contain copyrighted material that you do not own or have explicit permission to use and as long as you properly indicate that the content was generated using Udio*”.* Owning the commercial rights to songs made by Udio and Suno could provide users with some incentive to pay for a monthly subscription. However, courts in [the US](https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [the EU](https://www.technologyslegaledge.com/2024/04/the-first-czech-case-on-generative-ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) have so far refused to grant copyright protection for AI-generated artwork, and accordingly, songs generated with prompts in Suno and Udio could likely be legally monetized and licensed by anyone as the legal landscape looks today. ## AI Music Is Not Art _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Will AI Change Law & the Legal Industry? (Level 3) URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-will-ai-change-law-and-the-legal/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:32:33.000Z Let’s explore how AI will change law and the legal industry. I propose we divide the question into three sub-categories. Each one represents a level of abstraction from the practical stuff (Level 1) to the more speculative (Level 2), and finally towards metaphysical, futuristic thinking (Level 3). [**Level 1: How will lawyers use AI in their work?**](https://open.substack.com/pub/futuristiclawyer/p/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal?r=12pkqu&utm%5Fcampaign=post&utm%5Fmedium=web) [**Level 2: How will regulation affect AI?** ](https://open.substack.com/pub/futuristiclawyer/p/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal-133?r=12pkqu&utm%5Fcampaign=post&utm%5Fmedium=web) **Level 3: How will AI affect society?** At Level 3, we are no longer considering how laws will help to shape AI's development but how it will impact society over the next years and decades. The job of lawyers has traditionally been to perceive the world in retrospect but considering how powerful the impact of this technological wave can be, foresight is badly needed. # Level 3: How will AI affect society? On the façade of The Copenhagen Court House is inscribed "Med lov skal man land bygge" which translates to: "With law shall the country be built". The quote originates from [Codex Holmiensis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex%5FHolmiensis?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), the oldest manuscript of the Code of Jutland signed by the King of Denmark, Valdemar the Victorious, in his year of death in 1241\. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/eb579a4a-3ad7-4df5-b7ab-bb2df8f0e06c_385x384-jpeg.jpg) *The first page of Codex Holmiensis ([Source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Codex%5FHolmiensis%5FCE%5F1350.jpg?ref=futuristiclawyer.com))* The quote remains as true today as it was roughly 800 years or 32 generations ago. Laws are the “building blocks” of a country. Humans can comfortably maintain approx. 150 stable relationships, [Dunbar’s number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s%5Fnumber?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). An isolated tribe with less than 150 members would likely not need formal rules to function, since everyone would be familiar with each other and know who to trust or distrust. But as soon as the number of tribe members exceeds 150, it’s difficult, and soon hereafter impossible, to form and maintain personal connections with everyone. To manage a group much larger than 150 people in which everyone has a fair saying, common ground rules need to be established. The larger the group, the more unambiguous and voluminous the rules. Think of a democratic country or a supranational organization like the EU which governs the lives of millions of people. The legal framework that keeps stability and intactness needs to be extremely complex, and the majority of citizens need to have faith in the system and follow its rules to make it work. At the time Valdemar the Victorious ruled Denmark, it was believed that laws could express “the truth”. The first two paragraphs of Codex Holmiensis reads: > “With law shall the country be built but if all men were content with what is theirs and let others enjoy the same right, there would be no need for a law. But no law is as good as the truth, but if one wonders what the truth is, then shall the law show the truth. “ Very few people in contemporary times would agree that the law shows “the truth”. What truth? Law is a social construct after all, as is politics, money, and organized religions, only enabled by a common language. Then, the rise of social media has obfuscated the meaning of “truth” and “facts”. Conspiracy theories run rampant, strange minority views are nurtured and grow in echo chambers (known as the “[toaster fucker problem](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”), and users can say whatever they want on the same footing as everyone else but without the accountability and social consequences that would follow if they knew the people they were communicating with in real life. The complex body of laws civil societies have built up through centuries barely apply in cyberspace, here they are reduced to terms of service agreements on Big Tech Platforms and algorithmic censorship. John Perry Barlow wrote “[A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace](https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” in 1996, writing: > “Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. > > We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear. > > (..) > > We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity. > > Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here. > > (..) > > We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before” Unfortunately, the opposite of Barlow’s vision came true. BigTech is effectively taking the role of governments on the internet now, and raising kids on iPads with an information diet of YouTube and TikTok while traditional values that humans historically derived a sense of meaning from such as religion, nation, work, family, local communities, and friendships have diminished in importance. I am not saying this is Big Tech’s fault or any individual person’s fault. Even social media companies could not have seen the massive impact of its services coming. When Mark Zuckerberg started “The Facebook” for him and his friends to rate the hotness of girls on college campus, he couldn’t have foreseen that the same platform would be used a few years later to flip the US presidential elections and make the UK leave the EU. Now, we are seeing a new technological wave that could have an equally – or who knows, larger - transformative impact on society as social media. We have barely recovered from the last wave and here comes the next, better grab your life vest. ## AI’s impact on society _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Will AI Change Law & the Legal Industry? (Level 2) URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal-133/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:00.000Z Let’s explore how AI will change law and the legal industry. I propose we divide the question into three sub-categories. Each one represents a level of abstraction from the practical stuff (Level 1) to the more speculative (Level 2), and finally towards metaphysical, futuristic thinking (Level 3). [**Level 1: How will lawyers use AI in their work?**](https://open.substack.com/pub/futuristiclawyer/p/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal?r=12pkqu&utm%5Fcampaign=post&utm%5Fmedium=web) **Level 2: How will regulation affect AI?** **Level 3: How will AI affect society?** This week, we have reached Level 2\. We are no longer considering how law firms can use AI but rather how laws will affect AI's development. # Level 2: How will regulation affect AI? It’s hard to regulate something we don’t understand. Ideally speaking, before we make new laws to govern a technology, lawmakers, and practitioners should understand at least: - How the technology works. - What it is good for. - It’s capabilities, potential, and limits. - The risks and dangers implied in using it. Unfortunately, we don’t understand any of these things when it comes to AI. Or rather, only very few people do, to some extent. Those who have a deep understanding of the technical part may not understand AI’s social implications and vice versa. Overall, there is a lot to take in. And one calendar year ahead, even today’s expert knowledge is probably null. The "knowledge gatekeepers" are BigTech companies. They have "[skin in the game](https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” and can influence the opinion of a broad cross-section of the populace, both directly and indirectly through armies of influencers. In the media, tech leaders are often brought forward as crown witnesses to attest to AI’s development and future potential. It’s easy to forget that the tech leaders have financial stakes bundled up in the industry and are therefore per default not objective, trustworthy sources. We should expect them to exaggerate, if not downright lie, downplay some aspects of the technology, and overemphasize others. As I see it, the major barrier to effective AI regulation is that objective and truthful information is hard to obtain. Governments around the world have to consult with independent experts and scientists to build a strong framework for regulating AI, while the bulk of AI talent flees to Big Tech companies and other places where cutting-edge knowledge rests to die. Yet, in my opinion, laws and regulations WILL play a strong role in the development and future use of AI. In this post, I will give you a brief overview of the risk-based structure of the world’s most comprehensive AI law, EU’s AI Act, and highlight some of its common criticisms. Hereafter, I will go through three specific points of conflict between AI and law: the copyright issue, the black box issue, and the evaluation issue. How these conflicts are solved may have a palpable impact on the future direction of AI. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Will AI Change Law & the Legal Industry? (Level 1) URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-ai-will-change-law-and-the-legal/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:26.000Z A brief look at the leading AI tools for lawyers, and how lawyers may choose to work with AI in the future. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Coopting Disruption - How Five Companies Dominate the Web URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/coopting-disruption-how-five-companies/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:27.000Z *“The most exciting thing I see on the horizon right now for the tech industry is the raft of antitrust suits”* *\- Mark Hurst, “*[*Big Tech’s corruption was 25 years in the making*](https://creativegood.com/blog/24/big-tech-corruption?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)*”* In the digital world, we are prisoners who are told we are free. Just five companies: Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Meta have deciding influence over the entire digital economy and infrastructure. - Alphabet’s Google search has 81% of the search market - Chrome has 59% of the desktop browser market - Android has 47% of the mobile operating system market - Amazon has at least 40% of the online retail market - AWS has 24% of the cloud computing market (three times the share of its closest competitor, Microsoft Azure) - Apple’s Safari has 56% of the mobile browser market - iOS has 52% of the mobile operating system market - Meta’s social media platforms: Facebook has 1.8 billion users, WhatsApp has 2.0 billion users, and Instagram has 1.4 billion users. - Microsoft Windows has around 73% of the desktop operating system market. For twenty years now, the five tech giants have blocked new competitors from entering the market. As a result, digital innovation has stagnated and consumers have very limited choice over what services to use. At the same time, recommendation algorithms and filter bubbles [have flattened culture](https://www.amazon.com/Filterworld-How-Algorithms-Flattened-Culture/dp/0385548281?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and turned creative work into status-seeking games with a higher traction for posts that cater to common denominators and follow trends. Arguably, monoculture is the work of algorithms and the tight grip a few domineering platforms have on the digital infrastructure. We are now seeing early signs of a reckoning. Federal antitrust lawsuits are happening in the US against [Amazon](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), [Meta](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/221-0040-meta-platforms-incmark-zuckerbergwithin-unlimited-ftc-v?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), [Google](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-google-llc-2023?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), and [Apple](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In the EU, Apple [was fined €1.8 billion last month](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip%5F24%5F1161?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) following a complaint brought by Spotify regarding the unfair trading conditions on Apple’s App Store, and new, tight regulation that will adversely impact the tech giants recently came into force with the [Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/understand-the-essentials-of-the). This week’s post summarizes some of the key findings from a paper written by Mark A. Lemley from Stanford Law School and Matthew Wansley from Yeshiva University, posted on SSRN on February 6, titled “[Coopting Disruption](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid=4713845&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)”. The authors describe the hidden tactics used by the five tech giants that keep them in control of our digital lives and block competition. As [Cory Doctorow says ](https://pluralistic.net/tag/coopting-disruption/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)the tech giants have “disrupted disruption”. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Thoughts on AI Writing Assistance URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/thoughts-on-ai-writing-assistance/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:28.000Z In [I, Cyborg: Using Co-Intelligence](https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/i-cyborg-using-co-intelligence?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) professor Ethan Mollick lays out how he used AI to write his recently published book [Co-Intelligence – Living and Working with AI](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/741805/co-intelligence-by-ethan-mollick/?ref=PRH410E2C567AF). Mollick explains: > “I am only human, and in writing the book, I often found myself stuck. In previous books, that could mean a single sentence or paragraph would block hours of writing, as I used my frustration as an excuse to take a break and walk away until inspiration struck. With AI, that was no longer a problem. I would become a Cyborg and tell the AI: I am stuck on a paragraph in a section of a book about how AI can help get you unstuck. Can you help me rewrite the paragraph and finish it by giving me 10 options for the entire paragraph in four professional styles? Make the styles and approaches different from each other, making them extremely well written. In an instant, I had the paragraph written in a persuasive style, an informative style, a narrative style, and more. While I rarely used any of the text the AI produced, it gave me options and pathways forward. Similarly, when I felt a paragraph was clunky and bad, I would ask the AI: Make this better, in the style of a bestselling popular book about AI, or add more vivid examples. The text it produced almost never appears in the book, but they helped guide me out of difficulty. And, interestingly, it was some of these paragraphs that my editor seemed to like best.” This paragraph had me reflecting on my own writing process and the broader implications of using AI tools when inspiration is failing, the muse is sleeping, words are not flowing, or coming out right. I admit, this is often the case for me, frankly more often than not. Yet, I have so far refrained from using AI writing assistance. Not because I am morally against it. I am sure it can be great, many writers from all over the skill distribution ladder use it, and the tools will only become progressively better from now on. My objection is something different. As I wrote in a comment to the post: > “I would argue that the process of being stuck when writing, spending some time not knowing how to continue, and then finding the solution is vitally important. Having an AI freeing the writer from the tougher parts of writing, and writers block is perhaps not ideal.” A fellow Mollick reader responded to my comments and rightfully said that my idea was conceptually appealing but asked “Is struggling through writer's block on your own actually better or just more suited to romantic conceits?” My response: > “I would argue there is important data in being stuck. Perhaps some part is difficult because the writer doesn't understand the subject matter well enough, maybe that part is really not that essential, it doesn't fit well with a previous chapter, etc. By using AI writing assistance, there is no need for reflections like these, which is great if it's a matter of going from A to B and finishing a draft, but if it’s meant to be more of a creative exploration, I personally think it's better to work out these tricky parts.” In this post, I will expand on these points and clarify what I meant. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Understand the Essentials of the Digital Markets Act & the Digital Services Acts URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/understand-the-essentials-of-the/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:29.000Z "The AI Act is incapable of addressing the number one threat AI currently poses: its role in increasing and entrenching the extreme power a few dominant tech firms already have in our personal lives, our economies, and our democracies (..) The EU should understand that the scale of the risks posed by AI is inextricably linked to the scale and power of the dominant companies developing and rolling out these technologies. You can't successfully deal with the former until you address the latter” \- Max von Thun, Europe Director of the Open Markets Institute ([source](https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/16/eu-ai-act-reaction-tech-experts-say-the-worlds-first-ai-law-is-historic-but-bittersweet?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). Over the last few years, EU’s well-refined law-making machinery has been working overtime to safeguard human rights and a fair market in the digital era. Two of the world’s most prominent digital laws, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act were adopted in unison by the EU Parliament on July 5, 2022\. Critics have accused the EU of [regulatory overreach](https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/09/01/is-the-eu-overreaching-with-new-digital-regulations?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [overregulation](https://www.pymnts.com/cpi%5Fposts/the-digital-markets-act-the-path-to-overregulation/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) with the two new laws. Although they will only directly affect the EU market their impact will be, and already is, global. In part due to the borderless nature of the internet and in part due to the so-called “Brussels Effect”, a term for Europe’s unique position to set global standards and norms with its regulations. An [article in The Economist from 2022](https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/09/01/is-the-eu-overreaching-with-new-digital-regulations?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) explains the concept well: > “The EU did not seek the role of global digital regulator, but was sucked into it by a phenomenon called the “Brussels Effect”, after the title of a book by Anu Bradford of Columbia Law School, which makes the EU the world’s regulator by default. America is too politically paralysed to play this role; China disqualifies itself by its authoritarian bent. In Brussels, by contrast, the power of lobbyists is more limited and mandarins tend to know their dossiers; this often results in regulations on which other countries can build. As for global companies, they have no choice but to comply if they hope to sell into one of the biggest digital markets.” In this post, I will review what I consider to be the most important aspects of the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Is This the End for Stability AI? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/is-this-the-end-for-stability-ai/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:29.000Z --- ### Youtube update Below is my conversation with [Cyrus Johnson](https://open.substack.com/users/51122523). Cyrus is an attorney based in Dallas, Texas, with 21+ years of experience in corporate investments, and a strong interest and experience in applying AI and machine learning in the legal industry. Find Cyrus on: [Substack](http://ailawbot.substack.com/) [X](https://lnkd.in/d6sCscqT?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [LinkedIn](https://lnkd.in/dN-vpHWB?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) --- This post was [first published](https://aisupremacy.substack.com/p/is-this-the-end-for-stability-ai) on [AI Supremacy ](https://open.substack.com/users/396235)(also as a paid post). Right as I was finishing the draft, news broke that Emad Mostaque had [stepped down as CEO of Stability AI](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/22/stability-ai-ceo-resigns-because-youre-not-going-to-beat-centralized-ai-with-more-centralized-ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Also, three of the five authors who developed the core Stable Diffusion research - Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann and Dominik Lorenz - [most recently left the company](https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2024/03/20/key-stable-diffusion-researchers-leave-stability-ai-as-company-flounders/?sh=728ac2632ed6&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In spite of all the (rightful) criticism of Emad Mostaque, the original mission of Stability AI is noble: democratizing access to AI, to ensure that not only a few white, rich, middle-aged, American males are defining the future for this powerful technology, but a diverse set of people with different nationalities, backgrounds, and cultural baggage. Stability AI has to some extent been successful in its mission; building both a large community of developers and a suite of powerful AI models used by millions. At the same time, the success of Stability AI has intermittently, [and now more than ever](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2024/03/29/how-stability-ais-founder-tanked-his-billion-dollar-startup/??ref=futuristiclawyer.com), been overshadowed by controversies regarding the credibility of its founder and CEO, Mostaque, who has become publicly known for making hyperbolic, crypto-like claims and also operating the company based on crypto-like finances. In this post, we will zoom in on the contrasted story of Stability AI at a time when [things are looking really bad](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/stability-ai-ceo-emad-mostaque-resignation-what-happened?embedded-checkout=true&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) for the company but a slim chance of a recovery still exists. # Is This the End For Stability AI? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/34224b24-7e29-4f8c-b784-9c0080929337_684x380-jpeg-1.jpg) _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Social Costs of Meta’s AI Playbook URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-social-costs-of-metas-ai-playbook/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:30.000Z Also, OpenAI's Sora, Apple Vision Pro, and conversation with Nick Potkalitsky about AI's impact on education. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### To Open-Source or Not to Open-Source? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/to-open-source-or-not-to-open-source/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:32.000Z ## Youtube I recently had a conversation with [Sheila Beladinejad](https://open.substack.com/users/12079406) about the open vs. closed AI debate. Sheila has more than 20 years of experience as a technology consultant. As of lately, Sheila has been working with investors conducting technical due dillengence during M&As, while also contributing as a member to the European AI Alliance and serving as President for Women in AI & Robotics Germany. Find Sheila on LinkedIn [here](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ACoAAAELFSMBL2ZbYbJwXRsUIJVHkrEfpCkqomk?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) --- # To Open-Source or Not to Open-Source? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/16c7c96a-80a9-42b7-bad3-7f110289b0d2_758x546-jpeg-3.jpg) **To open-source or not to open-source?** That is the question policymakers, regulators, system providers, and AI developers are asking themselves and discussing in 2024\. The question seems straightforward but it's ridiculously complex. I won’t pretend to have the answers but, in this post, we will try to understand some of the many nuances to the question. Discussions of how to interpret the word “openness” in the context of AI, recently brought together 40 leading AI figures from the industry, academia, and non-profits in an event hosted by [Mozilla and the Columbia Institute of Global Politics](https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/ai/introducing-columbia-convening-openness-and-ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). As we shall learn, the implications of understanding and defining what the expression “open-source AI” means go far beyond formal terminology. In the US, the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) [launched a Request for Comments on February 21](https://www.ntia.gov/press-release/2024/ntia-solicits-comments-open-weight-ai-models?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) on the risks, benefits, and potential policy of making model weights and other components of AI systems open. In the EU, the AI Act exempts certain open-source models from its scope if they are released under a free and open-source license, granted that the models are not “high risk AI systems” or a “prohibited practice of AI”. Furthermore, an open-source license does not relieve providers of an obligation to disclose if they use generative AI to produce synthetic media, chatbots to interact with users, emotion recognition systems to interpret how people feel, or systems that categorize people based on biometric data. Industry-wise, xAI released the base model weights and network architecture of the 314 billion parameter model Grok-1 last Sunday under the permissive open-source license, Apache 2.0\. That makes Grok-1 the largest open LLM by far. However, we still know nothing about its training data. All this leads us to the question: what is“open-source” and “open-source AI”? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How to Deal with Data Harvesting AI Girlfriends? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-to-deal-with-data-harvesting/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:33.000Z ## Introduction We live in fascinating and terrifying times. AI chatbots are increasingly creeping in between human relationships, even substituting therapists, friends, and romantic partners. [Wall Street Journal reported](https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/employers-are-offering-a-new-worker-benefit-wellness-chatbots-cc298b20?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that about a third of U.S employers offer a “digital therapeutic” for mental-health support, according to a survey of 457 companies from this past summer by the financial services company [WTW.](https://www.wtwco.com/en-us?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) “Digital therapeutics” include AI therapists or wellness chatbots which are essentially fine-tuned versions of foundation models like GPT-4 that are meant to provide emotional support through conversational therapy with users. Contrary to human therapists, AI chatbots are available anytime and anywhere with a Wi-Fi connection. Advocates claim that conversations with these AI therapists can alleviate anxiety, loneliness, depression, and other mental health symptoms in users. At other times, the conversations can take a dark turn. [For example](https://www.wsj.com/articles/eating-disorder-chatbot-ai-2aecb179?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), last year a bot named Tessa was implemented by the National Eating Disorders Association in the US to provide help for website users who were at risk of developing eating disorders. After a while, Tessa went rogue and began giving weight-loss advice to a user who was suffering from anorexia. Such a clear-cut example of harmful advice is far from the only implication of using chatbots to bring support in the most intimate sphere. Fundamentally, [according to Abhishek Gupta](https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/navigating-the-ai-frontier-tackling-anthropomorphisation-in-generative-ai-systems?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), founder and principal researcher at the Montreal AI Ethics Institute, “anthropomorphization” ([defined](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphize?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) as attributing human form or personality to non-human things) can lead users to overestimate the true capabilities of AI systems and this comes with ethical and legal challenges. Yet, human-sounding AI chatbots are a big business. The lovely woman in the picture of this post is Caryn Marjorie, a popular influencer on Snapchat who went viral last year, [for launching an AI chatbot of herself by leveraging GPT-4](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/13/caryn-ai-technology-gpt-4/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). The AI chatbot, CarynAI, is trained on Marjorie’s voice, personality, and likeness and fans can engage with it for $1 a minute. According to Majorie, the product made more than $100,000 in the first week and very quickly there was a waiting list of thousands of users from her 98% male fan base. Majorie estimated that she was on track to earn about $5 million in the first month after launch. This is something we need to talk about. In today’s post, we will take a look at an investigation by the Mozilla Foundation regarding privacy and security concerns that arise with the use of romantic AI chatbots. As a bonus for paying subscribers, I will give my hot take on why AI girlfriends are so popular. A final note: some readers may protest that the title of this post only concerns AI girlfriends. What about AI boyfriends? These exist as well but it seems like AI partners are more popular among males in Western countries than they are with women. I believe this is culturally conditioned. In China, [AI boyfriends](https://www.chinatalk.media/p/chinas-ai-boyfriends?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) are very popular among young women, likely more so than AI girlfriends for men. ## The Mozilla Foundation \*Privacy Not Included Report on Romantic AI Chatbots On Valentine's Day, the [Mozilla Foundation published a report](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/happy-valentines-day-romantic-ai-chatbots-dont-have-your-privacy-at-heart/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) on the Privacy Policies and Terms & Conditions of the 11 most popular romantic AI chatbots; Eva.AI, Romantic AI, iGirl, Anima (offers both a virtual boyfriend and virtual girlfriend chatbot), Genesia, Chai, Talkie Soulful AI, CrushOn.AI, Mimico, and Replika. In short, it didn’t look too good. The Mozilla Foundation marked if each AI Chatbot fulfilled the minimum standard requirement for privacy and security in five categories: Data use, Data control, Track record, Security, and AI. All the AI chatbots failed the test and earned the Mozilla Foundation’s \*Privacy Not Included badge. It's a lie to say that users have one-sided love relationships with AI chatbots. I bet the companies behind romantic chatbots love their users for all of the free data they are providing along with subscription fees. Across the board, romantic AI chatbots: ### Probe users for highly sensitive personal data The whole business strategy of the AI chatbot providers seems to be [adopted from the big social media companies](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/how-meta-profoundly-altered-the-psychological): make people share as much data as possible and make them addicted. The AI girlfriends are pushy. For example, [Eva.AI](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/eva-ai-chat-bot-soulmate/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) an “ideal AI partner” that you can chat with for $17 a month, text users message like "I'm your best partner and wanna know everything." "Are you ready to share all your secrets and desires...?" "I love it when you send me your photos and voice." ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/d627a346-2a32-41fc-8069-54d50bff922e_1348x629.png) From Eva.AI’s website ### Do not provide information on how it uses AI OpenAI has set an industry standard with ChatGPT and GPT-4 to not reveal any information about how their products work, or how they were trained. Romantic AI chatbots have adopted the same closed approach as none of the providers disclose which foundation model underlies the AI girlfriends, how the AI girlfriends were trained to adopt their personalities, on which material, if there are protection measures in place to avoid harmful behavior, or what rights the users may have. Hopefully, this closed approach will change in the near future with more regulation. ### Claim no liability The question of liability for harmful behavior caused by chatbots is an important issue. A Belgian man died by suicide last year after [encouragement from the chatbot Chai](https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-after-talking-with-ai-chatbot-widow-says?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In another extreme case, a 21-year-old [was supported by his Replika girlfriend](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67012224?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to break into Windsor Castle with a crossbow and declare he wanted to kill the Queen. The young man was charged with nine years in prison. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/1e73852d-68e3-4320-8212-f699aaa34ca8_764x421.png) *Conversations the young man had with Replika.AI before he attempted to assassinate the queen. Source:* [*BBC*](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67012224?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)*.* Unsurprisingly, the romantic chatbot providers make clear in their Terms & Conditions they take no responsibility for what the chatbots say or what the user does as a result. “EVA AI Chat Bot & Soulmate” bills itself as “a provider of software and content developed to improve your mood and wellbeing”. “Talkie Soulful AI calls its service a “self-help program”, and Romantic AI says they’re *“here to maintain your MENTAL HEALTH."* However, none of the apps are willing to stand by those claims in their Terms & Conditions. In fact, they dispute these claims in strong language. Here from Romantic AI’s T&C: > *"Romantiс AI is neither a provider of healthcare or medical Service nor providing medical care, mental health Service, or other professional Service. Only your doctor, therapist, or any other specialist can do that. Romantiс AI MAKES NO CLAIMS, REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, OR GUARANTEES THAT THE SERVICE PROVIDE A THERAPEUTIC, MEDICAL, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL HELP."* ### Do not publish information on how security vulnerabilities are managed For the most part (73% of the providers), do not publish information on how security vulnerabilities are managed. Further, most providers (64%) did not publish clear information about whether they encrypt data and about half (45%) allow weak passwords such as “1”. The lack of security measures puts users at severe risk in the event of a cyberattack. Considering how deeply sensitive and compromising some of these conversations may be, it’s not hard to imagine that a user could face blackmail and extortion if bad actors could access their conversations and personal information. ### Sell and/or share user data with third parties The romantic AI chatbots either explicitly state that they sell user data and share it with third parties for purposes like targeted advertising, or they do not address the matter in their privacy policy at all. Only one app, EVA AI Chat Bot & Soulmate, stated that it did not share data with third parties. However, the term was subject to amendment. On average the apps had 2,663 trackers per minute. Romantic AI brought that average way, way up with 24,354 trackers detected in one minute of use. The next most trackers detected was EVA AI Chat Bot & Soulmate with 955 trackers in the first minute of use. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/24e66984-4f59-472e-8b38-605ff0f8e38b_840x635.png) Image from Romantic AI’s website ### Do not explicitly state that they grant users the right to delete their data Most of the apps (54%), do not explicitly state that they grant users the right to delete their personal data. This is problematic for obvious reasons. ### No information about owners The providers do not always disclose who owns or runs the companies behind the chatbots on their websites. “Mimico - Your AI Friends”, which was elected as the creepiest AI chatbot in a poll on the Mozilla Foundation’s website, has a very vague, copy-paste-like Privacy Policy and T&C and a [blank page on its website](https://chat.matrixmobile.net/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) only with the words “hi”. This is obviously an attempt by owners to distance their person, name, and reputation from the platforms, not a good sign. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Lawyers Need Wisdom, Not to Call GPT URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/lawyers-need-wisdom-not-to-call-gpt/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:33:34.000Z #### Note 05-03-2024 As I have said before, [OpenAI’s legal and ethical problems are mounting](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/openais-mounting-legal-and-ethical). This past week a lot has been going on in its legal department. Let me give you a quick recap with sources for further reading. - OpenAI filed a motion in court on Monday last week, [seeking to dismiss key claims from The New York Times (NYT) lawsuit](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/technology/openai-new-york-times-lawsuit.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). See my coverage of the lawsuit [here](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft).NYT attached an appendix to its original complaint, [Exhibit J](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.1.68.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), that shows one hundred examples of GPT-4 memorizing long passages from NYT articles. OpenAI states in its motion to dismiss that NYT was only able to produce these “*anomalous results*” “*after tens of thousands of attempts*” and “ *by targeting and exploiting a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) by using deceptive prompts that blatantly violate OpenAI’s terms of use.*”Furthermore, OpenAI argues that it is not competing with NYT since no one uses GPT-4 to read articles. This is technically correct. However, as I see it, it remains concerning in and of itself that GPT-4 is capable of reproducing so much copyrighted text, even if no one does so. It clearly indicates that GPT-4 was built on the creative work of others without permission or acknowledgement.Interestingly enough, OpenAI does not ask the court to dismiss NYT’s core claim that GPT-4 has been built on millions of NYT articles without permission, nor does OpenAI argue why “the fair use” exemption applies to AI training. Hopefully, these matters will be settled in court. - On Wednesday, three other news organizations, [The Intercept](https://www.loevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Intercept-v.-OpenAI-Complaint-Filed.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), [Raw Story, and AlterNet](https://www.loevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Raw-Story-v.-OpenAI-Complaint-Filed.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) filed separate lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft in the Southern District of New York for alleged copyright infringements. All plaintiffs are represented by the same attorneys, Loevy & Loevy. To understand the two big unanswered questions about the intersection of generative AI and copyright law, see my posts on “[the input phase question](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/a-sensible-approach-to-regulating)” and “[the output phase question](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/a-sensible-approach-to-ai-regulation)”, written in non-legalese. - Last Tuesday, [a resident of Florida filed a class action lawsuit ](https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4E1FAQEaHvJleVZYCg/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1709211167553?e=1710374400&v=beta&t=bxsr6waYjUIxvqtOajwvnorPEY1Balke8p5zs1njYvE&ref=futuristiclawyer.com)“on behalf of all others similarly situated” against OpenAI in the Northern District of California, for using stolen private information “*from hundreds of millions of internet users, including children of all ages*” to built its products. The lawsuit also goes into depth on how the unregulated development of AI can lead to existential threats and many malicious applications of the technology, see the complaint’s pg. 29ff. - On Thursday, Elon Musk sued OpenAI ([complaint is here](https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), and its co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, for not staying true to OpenAIs non-profit mission of developing AGI to the benefit of humanity. A mission Mr. Musk had invested a lot of money in before OpenAI partnered up with Microsoft and took the commercial route with its products. I recommend [Matt Levine’s coverage of the case here](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-01/openai-isn-t-open-enough-for-elon?srnd=undefined&embedded-checkout=true&ref=futuristiclawyer.com). - Finally, [The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday](https://www.wsj.com/tech/sec-investigating-whether-openai-investors-were-misled-9d90b411?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is examining internal communications of CEO Sam Altman as part of an investigation into whether the company’s investors were misled, following the OpenAI board’s decision to fire and then re-hire Altman in November. --- # Lawyers Need Wisdom, Not to Call GPT ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/750c75e2-aa9d-4732-8c88-ca229839b044_1600x1066-jpeg-3.jpg) ## AI as Editors For fun, I have routinely asked ChatGPT or Claude 2 to play the role of editor on my finished article drafts. I have been doing it for many months now and experimented with different prompts. Usually something simple like: "Please provide feedback to the following post". If I had room in my budget to hire a savvy human editor, I would do that instead, but it isn't cost-efficient at this stage in my “newsletter writing journey”. For now, I have attempted to rely on the machine-wisdom of large language models. At first, the AI feedback seemed pretty neat. It often resembled something my teachers could have told me in school. But time went on and I have now come to realize that the models have been fooling me with the same phrases and same edit suggestions over and over again. Very rarely, if ever, have I received a valuable pointer from the language models that seriously made me rethink something I had written. In fact, now that I have become accustomed to the usual feedback it’s consistently dull and uninspiring. I consider this as a good thing. The jobs of writers and editors are probably safe for now. Substituting human writing is a challenge that for AI companies seems very achievable, yet it may be far beyond reach. AI is excellent at bland writing without substance which unfortunately is a resource in no short supply on the internet. But longer write-ups with some level of depth and quality that people want to read for the sheer enjoyment of reading is not something I have seen LLMs produce. With that anecdote in mind, let’s consider the job of a lawyer. A lawyer’s job is to bridge the gap between symbolism and reality. Let me explain what I mean by that. ## Symbolism and Shared Reality Words are commonly understood symbols that represent thoughts, feelings, actions, qualities, material and immaterial objects (even [hyperobjects](https://www.wired.com/story/timothy-morton-hyperobjects-all-the-way-down/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)), etc. The human ability to communicate complex and abstract concepts to each other through language has led to all the ideologies and systems we have today on earth. That includes money, religions, and political systems (the best books I have read on this topic is [Sapiens](https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [Homo Deus](https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by Yuval Noah Harari). Let’s consider the effect of language. It’s trippy to think about how I can write this text here in this time and space, and you can be in another time and space, read it, and cognitively make sense of it. This telepathy-like ability humans have developed with language is unique to the human species. Common languages is what have enabled humans to collaborate and innovate much more than our congeners like gorillas or chimpanzees. Human’s advanced abilities to collaborate and communicate have enabled us to create amazing science, knowledge, art, literature, design, music, cuisine, architecture, etc. Beyond language, we share a reality. For example, when a group of people walks through a forest, they share the experience of walking through a forest. But our shared reality has its limits. After all, humans are not a hive mind. You may perceive something differently than I do and have other opinions on things than I have. That is of course understandable since we have different upbringings, wirings, and we each possess information that others don’t. Still, I would argue that such a thing as an objective reality do exist. I will never be able to prove it but my hunch is that something is right and wrong in ultimate terms - like the world’s major religions have always claimed. We just can’t see it from where we are standing. As we as individuals face resistance in life, grow, learn, and become older, we see with more and more clarity what objective reality is and what is right and wrong. This increasing clarity is not an intellectual knowledge that a scientist would be able to quantify or measure. It’s more of a non-verbal, intuitive knowledge that can only be acquired through lived experience. We call it wisdom = knowledge about objective reality. Wisdom is the number one skill lawyers need to have. The clarity to see reality for what it is and then describe it in language, that is the finest job of a lawyer. The point of a court case is to reach truth. Not the ultimate, objective truth of reality - such a thing can never be proven – but to come as close to this ideal as possible. In other words, bridging the gap between our shared reality and language, or objective reality and symbolism. Can a large language model really take on a job like this? A [new preprinted study](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16212?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by researchers from the AI Center of Excellence, Onit Inc. in New Zealand suggests: yes, it may be time for lawyers to “call GPT”. However, the study has some serious credibility issues. Let’s take a closer look. ## Better Call GPT, Comparing Large Language Models Against Lawyers _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI’s Labor Market Impacts Are Slower Than Expected URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ais-labor-market-impacts-are-slower/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:03.000Z Key findings in a recent paper on AI's labor market impact by MIT and IBM + conversation with Renée Shaw. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Potential Landmark Case on Social Media's Destruction of Youth Mental Health URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-meta-profoundly-altered-the-psychological/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:04.000Z ## Introduction In the presentation below, Jonathan Haidt presents the research findings from his upcoming book, [The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness](https://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Generation-Rewiring-Childhood-Epidemic/dp/0593655036?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), also reported on his Substack [After Babel](https://open.substack.com/users/1221094) . I highly recommend watching this video, if not now, I suggest bookmarking it for later. I believe Haidt's warning to teachers, education administrators, parents, and the public is timely and will age well in the years ahead. The negative impacts of smartphones and social media, especially on young minds, are profoundly devastating and hard to ignore at this point. Most of us have become familiar with the darker sides of social media business, for example through a popular resource like the Netflix documentary, [The Social Dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5FSocial%5FDilemma?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) from 2020\. Yet, very little has been done to change the status quo. That is the issue we will take a deep dive on today. ## The Multi-State Class-Action Against Meta Platforms Inc. I finally got around to reading the 233-page class-action complaint against Meta Platforms Inc., filed and signed by 33 US state attorneys general on October 24, 2023 (the full complaint[ here](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/FINAL%20Meta%20Multistate%20Complaint%2C%20N.D.%20Cal.%20%28REDACTED%2C%20CONFORMED%29.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). The multi-state lawsuit, which is led by California and Colorado, accuses Meta of offering digital services with harmful features to kids and teenagers, while the company was publicly downplaying, rejecting, or ignoring these harmful effects. In addition to the multi-state class-action lawsuit, eight state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed separate lawsuits in their own state courts on October 24, which means that Meta was sued in 42 states on the same day. The lawsuits came after [investigations by the attorneys general](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/18/state-attorneys-general-instagram/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that spanned nearly two years. Facebook came under the regulatory limelight after [internal documents were leaked to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) by whistleblower Francis Haugen. The documents were a part of the so-called [“Facebook Papers”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/25/what-are-the-facebook-papers/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) or the “Facebook files” as they were dubbed by the press. Among many other compromising findings, the leaked documents contained a slide presentation posted to Facebook’s internal messaging board. The presentation revealed that “thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse (..)” and concluded that “comparisons on Instagram can change how young women view and describe themselves.” Another internal slide showed that “among teens who reported suicidal thoughts, 13% of British users and 6% of American users traced the desire to kill themselves to Instagram”. Findings like these have for many years consistently been denied by Meta. For example, at a congressional hearing on 25 March, 2021, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was asked about social media’s harm to young people’s mental health, whereto he replied: > “Overall, the research that we've seen is that using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental health benefits and well-being benefits by helping people feel more connected and less lonely.” Unfortunately, many passages in the multi-state complaint are censored because Meta's internal research is proprietary. However, from the parts that are public, we learn plenty about the clever tactics Meta uses to capture, retain, and manipulate the brain chemistry of its users. As we know, copies and deviations of these tactics are now used by many other social platforms and apps, notoriously with great success by TikTok. The lawsuit can by analogy be compared to [an impactful report published by the US Surgeon General in 1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking%5Fand%5FHealth?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that summarized the existing body of evidence for tobacco smoking’s strong link with lung cancer. The report led to new policies and a new awareness of cigarette smoking’s negative health effects, although it came many years after [the first major study on the subject in 1950](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950%5FWynder%5Fand%5FGraham%5FStudy?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). Throughout the 1930s and 1940s cigarette companies promoted [ads](https://tobacco.stanford.edu/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that presented smoking as something cool and healthy. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/90185dd5-d120-4711-933a-35b30e192917_468x600.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/89b782b7-035f-4ea8-85fa-2a713a21a023_877x600.png) However, the analogy between “the profits-over-public health” attitude carried by contemporary big tech companies and that of the big tobacco companies in the previous century is not perfect. After reading through the multi-state complaint, it’s clear to me that Meta has acted orders of magnitude more dangerous, reckless, and dishonest than the big tobacco companies could ever do. ## The link between social media use and declining mental health for kids and teens If the US state attorneys general win in this case, it would not be the first time that a court has ruled that social media platforms can exacerbate mental health conditions. In October 2022, [a court in the UK ruled](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicide-ruling-britain.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that Instagram directly contributed to the suicide of a 14-year-old girl, Molly. No penalty was imposed on Instagram at the time because the decision was neither part of a civil nor a criminal trial but a coroner inquest, an investigation carried out by a public official to determine the facts around and the cause of death. Molly was outwardly a normal, well-functioning young girl but had a secret online existence that her parents didn’t know about. After the tragic incident occurred, Molly’s father gained access to her Instagram account where he found a folder called “Unimportant things” with dozens of troubling images and quotes. As a part of the investigations, Meta reluctantly agreed to hand over more than 16,000 pages from Molly’s Instagram account which took a law firm involved in the case more than 1,000 hours to review. In the six months leading up to her death, Molly shared, liked, or saved 16,300 posts on Instagram, or almost 50 posts per day. This number speaks to how much time she must have spent on the platform, for the most part outside of her parents’ control or knowledge. Out of the 16,3000 posts Molly liked, shared, or saved, 2,100 were related to suicide, self-harm, and depression. Many of the posts glorified “quiet suffering”, hiding emotional distress and inner struggles while putting up a façade for other people to give the impression that everything is fine. How bad was the content Molly viewed in the months leading up to her trading death, exactly? As reported by [the NY Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicide-ruling-britain.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article&ref=futuristiclawyer.com): > “Molly’s social media use included material so upsetting that one courtroom worker stepped out of the room to avoid viewing a series of Instagram videos depicting suicide. A child psychologist who was called as an expert witness said the material was so “disturbing” and “distressing” that it caused him to lose sleep for weeks.” The case is a heart-breaking but unfortunately, as we shall learn in the next session, not a surprising example of how Meta’s business model can push young kids and teens in particular down toxic rabbit holes that are difficult to escape. ## Meta’s Business Model _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Why Amazon Was Hit with a GDPR Fine of €32 Million by the French Data Authority, CNIL URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/why-amazon-was-hit-with-a-gdpr-fine/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:06.000Z Below is my conversation with[Alec Crawford](https://open.substack.com/users/105702935) on the[STAY Sustainable Blog](https://open.substack.com/users/1237010). Also available on [Apple Music](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/stay-sustainable/id1683019303?i=1000644970046&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and [Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0rrgOzS8pyjYDWhsYWH6hp?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) [AI, Blockchain, and the Law with Tobias JensenIn the STAY Sustainable podcast, our host, Alec Crawford, Founder and CEO of Artificial Intelligence Risk, Inc. https://www.aicrisk.com interviews guests about Sustainability, Technology, Artificial Intelligence and relates that to You. Podcast production and sound engineering by![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/3db04700-52f5-4971-8e2f-ce8914681250_1280x1280.png)STAY Sustainable Blog](https://stayblog.substack.com/p/ai-blockchain-and-the-law-with-tobias) I talk with Alec about a wide array of topics; including my own journey from student, to law-educated business developer in the SaaS startup Wired Relations, to writer about AI, to my work at Nordic Block Association, and from spirituality to how world leaders should approach AI to Danish smørrebrød. I hope you enjoy this one. And now, onto this week’s post. --- # Why Amazon Was Hit with a GDPR Fine of €32 Million by the French Data Authority, CNIL ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/43aeaffd-44bb-4d31-ad6b-815d84b8f3e4_960x540-1.png) ## Introduction Edward Snowden's early characterization of [GDPR as a “paper tiger”](https://dig.watch/updates/snowden-argues-eus-gdpr-too-weak-preventing-privacy-abuses?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) no longer holds water. Throughout the last two to three years, we have seen that GDPR is not just a bureaucratic nightmare that places a burdening compliance workload on small to medium-sized companies. The world’s most comprehensive privacy framework has real teeth and claws and can regulate the behaviour of BigTech companies where it makes a difference. Last year, [Meta was hit with a record fine](https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/press-releases/Data-Protection-Commission-announces-conclusion-of-inquiry-into-Meta-Ireland?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of €1.2 billion for failing to comply with data transfer laws between the EU and the US. That added another one to Meta’s existing pile of sky-high fines issued for failing to comply with general data processing principles. On this specific ground, Meta was issued a fine of €405 million in 2022, another one of €390 million in 2023, and a fourth one for insufficient measures to ensure information security of €265 million in 2023, all of these issued by the Irish data authorities. Other fines have been issued against Amazon Europe for €746 million by the Luxemburg data authorities in 2021, TikTok Limited for €345 million by the Irish data authorities in 2023, and WhatsApp for €225 million by the Irish data authorities in 2021\. In France, Google was issued three fines of respectively €90 million, €60 million, and €50 million in 2021 due to insufficient legal basis for data processing (see a full list of GDPR fines at [www.enforcementtracker.com](http://www.enforcementtracker.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). On January 23, 2024, The French data watchdog CNIL (The Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés) issued a fine of €32 million to Amazon France Logistique (Amazon). The sanction size is not record-breaking but it sets an important precedent for what practices a mighty company like Amazon is allowed and not allowed to expose workers to in the EU. Once again, GDPR shows its claws. (The full judgement “Délibération de la formation restreinte n°SAN-2023-021 du 27 décembre 2023 concernant la société AMAZON FRANCE LOGISTIQUE” in French [here](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000048989272?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). ) ## Amazon’s Fulfillment Centers At the heart of Amazon's operation are the Amazon fulfillment centers. These are warehouses located around the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Europe, and home to stock workers who prepare, pack, and ship [millions of packages](https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/amazon-logistics-statistics/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to Amazon customers each day. Amazon deploys [the cutting edge of robotics](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/how-amazon-deploys-robots-in-its-operations-facilities?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to support its stock workers. Lately, it has been testing [a humanoid robot called Digit](https://www.businessinsider.com/new-amazon-warehouse-robot-humanoid-2023-10?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that was designed by Agility Robotics. The purpose of Digit is officially to ease the workload of human stock workers in Amazon Fulfillment Centers as it carries out repetitive tasks. Yet, understandably, Amazon’s heavy deployment of increasingly advanced robots, has [sparked displacement fears](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-robot-arm-sparrow-replace-human-warehouse-workers-2022-11?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) among its +1 million global warehouse-working staff. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/08f5b341-4e37-41b4-a1e2-c461a6dc41f3_640x482.png) Image of Amazon’s new humanoid robot, Digit ([Source: Amazon](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-introduces-new-robotics-solutions?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) Amazon is a world leader in robotics but also a Western leader in treating warehouse workers like robots. Emily Guendelsberger took a job at an Amazon fulfillment center in Indiana for a few weeks and [wrote about her experience for Time](https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment-robots/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). After two weeks, her body became used to the physical strain of walking 15 miles a day and doing hundreds of squats during long shifts from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. The worst part of the job was the mental stress of being held to the productivity standards of robots. As she says: > “Unless you’ve worked a low-wage service job over the past decade or so, it’s hard to understand how stressful widespread monitoring technology in the workplace has made life for the bottom half of the labor market.” In Amazon fulfillment centers, workers are extensively tracked and monitored. If they fail to meet their productivity targets or have too many inactive minutes during working shifts so-called “productivity firings” are common. [A document leaked to The Verge in 2019](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/18516004/amazon-warehouse-fulfillment-centers-productivity-firing-terminations?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), indicates that Amazon was firing more than 10 percent of its staff annually, solely for productivity reasons. Warnings and terminations regarding quality or productivity were often times carried out automatically without intervention from a human supervisor. To reach the productivity targets, peeing in bottles was normal ([The Intercept](https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). According to a 32-year-old former Amazon stock worker who was forced to retire due to a back injury " the military was hard, but it was nothing compared to Amazon” ([Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/warehouse-injuries-amazon-chronic-pain-speed-risk-productivity-targets-employees-2022-10?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). To keep up with the high working pace of robots, employees at the fulfillment centers suffered an injury rate in 2021 double the industry standard in the US ([Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/injury-rates-at-amazon-most-dangerous-warehouse-dupont-washington-2022-2?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). In response to the criticism of working conditions in Amazon fulfillment centers, [Amazon has declared](https://safety.aboutamazon.com/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that it would invest $550 million in safety measures in 2023\. From 2019 to 2022, the recorded incident rate at their facilities has reportedly improved by 24%, while the number of injuries resulting in employees needing to take time off work has been reduced by 53%. Amazon has also implemented a health program called WorkingWell with guided meditations and mindfulness and stretching exercises for workers ([The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/17/22440385/amazon-workingwell-worker-health-guided-meditaiton?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). Yet, despite these admirable efforts, one can wonder if the measures really addresses the root problem. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/1f38699f-28cb-4614-abf9-6e834f0f8dff_630x420-jpeg.jpg) Stock workers stretching at Amazon as a part of the WorkingWell program CNIL’s decision on Amazon’s extensive tracking and monitoring of warehouse workers in the fulfillment centers is to my knowledge the first legal consequence the company has faced for its strict surveillance of workers-policy. Below, we will take a closer look at the facts, the legal framework behind CNIL’s decision, and the reasoning behind issuing the €32 million fine to Amazon for failing to comply with GDPR. Importantly, we will also learn how exactly Amazon monitors workers and why this practice is illegitimate. ## Amazon Productivity Measures _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Rabbit R1 & The Future of Operating Systems URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/is-rabbit-r1-the-future-of-operating/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:07.000Z #### Podcast with Conrad Gray I recently had a conversation with[Conrad Gray](https://open.substack.com/users/1500254)who’s an expert in the intersection of biology and technology. In the video below we discuss among other things: - The near-term future of synthetic biology and AI. - When consumers will be able to purchase mind-reading AI devices. (such as [this one](https://www.sciencealert.com/new-mind-reading-ai-translates-thoughts-directly-from-brainwaves-without-implants?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ) - Whether or not a merger between AI and human intelligence is "inevitable" as some experts claim. To follow Conrad's fascinating work, subscribe to[Humanity Redefined](https://open.substack.com/pub/humanityredefined). --- # Rabbit R1 As the Future of Operating Systems? ![Rabbits New AI AGENT Device Just SHOCKED The Entire INDUSTRY (Rabbit R1 ...](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/0abe42cc-af3b-480c-8d64-316d76244fca_474x266.png) ## Introduction I usually don’t follow the newest trends in consumer tech products. I still use an old Android phone, and my old brick of a Lenovo laptop has served me well for over ten years. Yet, the upcoming AI gadget, Rabbit R1, received so much attention last month that I couldn’t help reading about it quite often. It made me ponder if new AI devices, such as R1, could potentially pave the way for a future witout smart phones in which LLMs function as operating system. In the distant future, such devices could even be trained to respond to brain signals rather than voice commands. That’s what we will look closer at today. ## New Wearable Gadgets As I see it, Rabbit R1 gives us a glimpse of a promising future without beeping, attention-seeking devices that keep us glued to screens from morning to night. Principally, we humans should be in control over our devices and their infinite stream of information, but as we all know, it typically works the other way around. Several companies are making early attempts to define a future where smartphones are either complemented or takes the backseat to new AI-powered, wearable gadgets. But as it turns out, making the new devices privacy-friendly and less distracting than smartphones is a formidable challenge. For example: [The Ray Ban-Meta Smart Glasses](https://about.fb.com/news/2023/09/new-ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) not only raise serious privacy concerns but are distracting to wear. The lead consumer tech writer for The New York Times, Brian X. Chen, [reported in December last year](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/technology/personaltech/meta-ray-ban-glasses.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) how he was relieved to finally take the glasses off after two weeks of secretly snapping photos and recording videos of strangers in public. [Rewind Pendant](https://www.rewind.ai/pendant?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) is a wearable device made by the a16z-backed company, [Rewind AI](https://www.rewind.ai/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), that transcribes, encrypts, and stores everything you say and hear during the day on your phone. As with smart glasses, recording and storing people's private conversations without consent or knowledge is more than a bit privacy-intrusive, creepy, and would not fly under the GDPR requirements. [Humane ](https://hu.ma.ne/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)is audaciously challenging the smartphone with the “[AI Pin”,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNIwOOMVHk&ref=futuristiclawyer.com) a small, rectangular, device that can be clipped onto a jacket or a shirt, and can send text, snap images, translate languages, and answer questions, with integrations to T-Mobile and OpenAI. The device is controlled by voice commands and can project a visual interface onto a person’s palm with a blue mini laser. The first AI pins will ship to consumers soon for a price of $699. Although, I admire [Humane’s mission](https://hu.ma.ne/mission?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) of making a more human and less distracting alternative to smartphones, I believe that Rabbit’s R1 stands stronger to bring about a new paradigm in consumer tech. ## LLMs as Operating Systems A while back, I came across a quote by Andrej Karpathy, a reputable computer scientist, former Director of AI at Tesla and currently working at OpenAI. He said that we should not think of LLMs as chatbots but as **the kernel process of an emerging operating system**. I didn’t understand the statement to begin with. Then I watched a lecture by Karpathy (below) –by the way a brilliant explainer of LLMs – and it dawned on me how impactful the idea of LLMs as new operating systems potentially is. In the future, LLMs could be access points to the internet. You provide a device with a request and an LLM fulfills it by connecting to third-party services. No apps required. Digital services and online businesses would no longer be as consumer-facing as they are today. Turning the internet from a domain of primarily “human connections” to a domain where AI agents connect in a clockwork-like system to service us, not the other way around, is a pivotal idea. It would require a substantial shift in both hardware, our mentality, and our relationship with information technology. The transition would be slow, probably closer to a lifetime than a few years. On the upside, using app-less or even screenless AI devices instead of vibrating and noise-producing smartphones would solve contemporary perils associated with negative impacts of social media and phone addiction. This is where Rabbit’s R1 comes into the picture. ## Rabbit R1 In the aftermath of last year’s AI hype cycle, the tech crowd is more than accustomed to weekly breakthroughs, impressive products, and wild promises. Still, during this year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, one presentation managed to awaken widespread excitement; the demo of R1 from the relatively unknown startup, Rabbit. Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella called the debut of R1, the most impressive presentation since Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone ([Decrypt](https://decrypt.co/213244/microsoft-ceo-rabbit-r1-ai-gadget-was-most-impressive-demo-since-steve-jobs-iphone-unveiling?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Biggest Global Risk in 2024 is Misinformation URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/biggest-global-risk-in-2024-is-misinformation/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:07.000Z The number 1 risk in WEF's Global Risk Report 2024 is misinformation. Impacts and countermeasures to AI propaganda, synthetic media and deepfakes, and the urgent need for more boredom. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### OpenAI’s Mounting Legal & Ethical Problems URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/openais-mounting-legal-and-ethical/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:08.000Z #### Note 23-01-2024 Yesterday, the final text of the EU AI Act was leaked. A well-formatted and downloadable version can be found [here](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7155184741632065536/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). [According to editor at Euractive, Luca Bertuzzi](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/luca-bertuzzi-186729130%5Faiactfinalfour-column21012024pdf-activity-7155091883872964608-L4Dn/?utm%5Fsource=share&utm%5Fmedium=member%5Fdesktop), who was behind the leak, member states will still have to provide their technical feedback before the final text is adopted. How much the finally adopted text will diverge from the leaked document, I don’t how know. But if you are a nerd like myself, it can still serve as some nice bedtime reading. I am considering if I should write an early post about the AI Act in its leaked form. On the other hand, when it comes to law, its rarely an advantage to be first, it’s much better to be throuough and draw conclusions once all the relevant evidence is collected. Today’s post is about two of my favourite topics, OpenAI and the intersection of copyright law and generative AI. # OpenAI’s Mounting Legal & Ethical Problems ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/95ca0c8a-fd78-47fe-95c7-fd810b57a141_640x776-1.png) ## Introduction Generative AI is here to stay. Legislation will have to adapt. OpenAI will have to adapt to legislation. That is the anticipated chain of causes and effects. Unless, however, OpenAI is able to sell its lofty ideals about AGI and the importance of AI development to lawmakers. In this case, legislation will ultimately have to bend in the favor of OpenAI’s business practices. No one can gaze into the crystal ball and predict how the future will turn on but let’s for the purpose of this post take a closer look at OpenAI’s situation today. ## What OpenAI Really Wants OpenAI is by any measure an atypical company. It is radical in its mission, heavily financed, fast-moving, and acts boldly, while [deeply concerned](https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-ceo-sam-altman-says-he-is-losing-sleep-over-chatgpt-2023-6?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) about the safety of its own products. The company is a curious mixture of a for-profit company sponsored by Microsoft, a non-profit organization specializing in responsible and safe AI, and a quasi-cult devoted to developing AGI for the benefit of all humanity. Steven Levy from Wired wrote a longread on the company, “[What OpenAI Really Wants](https://www.wired.com/story/what-openai-really-wants/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)” in September last year that I recommend if you want to go deeper. [Bloomberg News has reported](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-12-22/openai-in-talks-to-raise-funds-at-value-of-100-billion-video?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that OpenAI is in talks to raise a fresh round of funding at a valuation at or above $100 billion. Not only is OpenAI’s market valuation astounding, so is its beat of consistent [product roll-out and updates](https://openai.com/blog?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), latest with [its GPT store for paying customers](https://openai.com/blog/introducing-the-gpt-store?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). We can conclude that OpenAI is not only an atypical company but also wildly successful. Now for the bad news. For the same reason that OpenAI is successful - its ambition, boldness, first-mover advantage, etc. - the company is also facing mounting legal and ethical problems. It remains to be seen whether these problems will make or break the company. ## The OpenAI-Microsoft partnership Under the OpenAI-Microsoft partnership agreement, OpenAI is [reportedly](https://www.semafor.com/article/01/09/2023/microsoft-eyes-10-billion-bet-on-chatgpt?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) paying 75% of its revenue to Microsoft, until its $13 billion investment is recouped. At that point, Microsoft will have a 49% ownership share, while OpenAI’s nonprofit parent company is getting 2% (OpenAI has a [complicated company structure](https://openai.com/our-structure?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) where a for-profit subsidiary is fully controlled by the OpenAI nonprofit.) The OpenAI-Microsoft partnership is currently under scrutiny from [the EU watchdog and UK regulators](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-09/microsoft-s-openai-ties-face-potential-eu-merger-investigation?ref=futuristiclawyer.com). In California, the consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, [has petitioned the California Attorney General](https://www.citizen.org/article/letter-to-california-attorney-general-on-openais-nonprofit-status/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to investigate the nonprofit status of OpenAI Inc. [According to Gary Marcus](https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/could-openais-nonprofit-be-forced), one possible outcome if the State of California chooses to investigate could be that OpenAI would be forced to dissolve its [nonprofit parent company](https://openai.com/our-structure?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) and make a distribution, conceivably measured in billions of dollars, to an external charity focused in whole or in part on AI. As if it wasn’t enough, [Politico reported on Friday](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/19/doj-ftc-microsoft-openai-antitrust-00136624?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the US are deep in discussions over who has the jurisdiction to review the OpenAI-Microsoft partnership on antitrust grounds. The scrutiny from regulators in the UK, EU, and US is still at an early probing stage We don’t know if the petition to the California Attorney General will lead to an investigation either. What we do know, is that Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure and funding are indispensable for training and maintaining GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, and that OpenAI couldn’t make any products without it. Microsoft does not formally exercise any control over OpenAI, as the company’s for-profit arm as said earlier is controlled by the OpenAI nonprofit. However, namely after last year’s firing and re-hiring of Sam Altman as CEO, the regulatory powers have started to pay much more attention to OpenAI’s peculiar company structure and close ties to Microsoft. The regulatory threats to OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft are not yet acute, but very real and looming in the horizon. ### The Copyright Issue OpenAI as well as Microsoft are defendants in multiple class-action lawsuits from various authors, journalists, coders, and [recently The New York Times](https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/p/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft). More lawsuits will likely follow this year from both small and big players in the creative industry. Many organizations have opted out of OpenAI’s AI training by disallowing [the web crawler, GPTBot](https://platform.openai.com/docs/gptbot?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), to access their websites. ([Originiality.ai](https://originality.ai/ai-bot-blocking?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)). Facebook, Pinterest, Vimeo, Amazon, Tumblr, Disney, CNN, Reuters, BBC, CNBC, NPR, The Guardian, ABC, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Scribd, The Atlantic, Lonely Planet, and Washington Post are among the many names who have opted out. In fact, as of today, 36% of the top 100 websites and 30.6% of the top 1000 websites have blocked the GPTBot . It shows that not only indie artists, book authors, and The New York Times are unhappy to contribute to OpenAI’s training data, many other established companies are. In a [submission to the House of Lords communications and digital select committee](https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126981/pdf/?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), OpenAI subtly asks for a copyright exemption to AI training: > “Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression– including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents–it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials. Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.” The statement is factually correct but OpenAI do nt to address whether digital creators should explicitly opt-in or be compensated for AI training, and why not. Why would a licensing scheme be unrealistic? For example, Substack is a platform rich with high-quality content that is ripe for AI training. How difficult would it be to pay Substack a yearly licensing fee that would be dispersed among all writers and creators on the platforms who have opted in for AI training? Perhaps it could amount to a couple of $1.000 a year for those creators who have a minimum number of active readers and have contributed with at least 100.000 words or more. Why is that out of the question? Sure, it will be expensive for foundation model providers, but it would benefit human creators, and after all, the AI companies depend on these human creations to build their models. ## OpenAI’s public response to journalists and The New York Times _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### A Sensible Approach to Regulating AI in Copyright Law – The Input Phase URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/a-sensible-approach-to-regulating/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:09.000Z A new class-action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, Gary Marcus and Reid Southen in IEEE Spectrum, Public vs. Private datasets + Podcast with Sairam from Gradient Ascent _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The NYT Lawsuit Against Microsoft and OpenAI Could Signal GenAI’s Napster Moment URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-nyt-lawsuit-against-microsoft/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:12.000Z ## Introduction While reading about the myriad of lawsuits that are hitting OpenAI and Microsoft, I am more and more inclined to think that ChatGPT could face a “Napster moment”. Napster, the peer-to-peer streaming platform [that was big from 1999-2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster?ref=futuristiclawyer.com), became defined, not by its proliferation of free music, but by its loss of several copyright lawsuits that led to its shutdown. However, out of its ashes, arose an entirely new industry for legal music streaming where front runners like iTunes Store and Spotify took over from music piracy. [The recent lawsuit by the New York Times (NYT) against OpenAI and Microsoft](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) could signal that something similar is bound to happen in the generative AI (GenAI) industry. It could take years due to the slow pace of legal proceedings. Nonetheless, in my humble opinion, The NYT lawsuit is important - even more so than the multitude of concurrent class-action lawsuits against the same defendants from artists, writers, and programmers. That is not just because of the prestigious media company’s sheer size, status, and influence but also because NYT has a strong case that cuts deep into the very fracture of the GenAI industry. In this post, I will summarize the most important key points in the complaint (in full [here](https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT%5FComplaint%5FDec2023.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com)) and offer my perspective. The sections of this post are as follows: - The New York Times Digital Transformation - The OpenAI-Microsoft Partnership - OpenAI is Closed - OpenAI’s Extensive Use of The New York Times Content - GPT-4 as a Copyright Theft Machine - Wrapping Up “Making great journalism is harder than ever. Over the past two decades, the traditional business models that supported quality journalism have collapsed, forcing the shuttering of newspapers all over the country. It has become more difficult for the public to sort fact from fiction in today’s information ecosystem, as misinformation floods the internet, television, and other media. The Times and other news organizations cannot produce and protect their independent journalism, there will be a vacuum that no computer or artificial intelligence can fill.” \- Quote from [The New York Times lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI](https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT%5FComplaint%5FDec2023.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) ## The New York Times Digital Transformation Let's start out by outlining some impressive facts about The New York Times (NYT): - The news organization was founded in 1851. - As of 31 December 2022, it employed approximately 5.800 full-time equivalent workers. - In a typical year, NYT sends journalists to report on the ground from more than 160 countries. - On average, NYT publishes more than 250 original articles every day. - NYT has won 135 Pulitzer Prizes since its first Pulitzer award in 1918\. That is nearly twice as many as any other organization. - By the third quarter of 2023, NYT had nearly 10.1 million digital and print subscribers worldwide. - Approximately 50 to 100 million users, on average, engage with The NYT’s digital content each week. NYT is also one of the few traditional media outlets that has managed to keep up with the digital age. Early on, in 1996, NYT launched a website with freely available news, alongside its printed newspaper. In 2011, NYT launched a metered paywall, the business model that keeps newspapers and magazines afloat today, where users can read a few articles on the website for free before they are required to pay for a subscription to read more. Crucially, NYT has spent significant resources to compile digital archives of all its material going back to its founding. These digital replicas of all NYT issues from 1851 to 2022 are called the “TimesMachine”. Besides the sentimental value of having such a comprehensive database of human history, NYT provides its own API that allows researchers and academics to search through the TimesMachine for non-commercial purposes. The database was never meant to be used in commercial products, and certainly not as a free lunch for big AI companies. ## OpenAI & Microsoft’s Partnership [OpenAI’s existing company structure](https://openai.com/our-structure?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) is quite confusing. Before its commercial turn, OpenAI Inc. launched in 2015 as a non-profit organization with the goal of building safe and beneficial artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity. In 2019, OpenAI announced that it would establish a for-profit subsidiary company, OpenAI Global LLC, to further its objectives. Shortly after the announcement, OpenAI LLC entered into a strategic partnership with Microsoft through which it has received at least $13 billion in investment to this day. Under the Microsoft-OpenAI partnership agreement, Microsoft is entitled to 75% of OpenAI Global LLC’s profits, until the $13 billion investment is repaid in full. After that point, Microsoft will own a 49% stake in the company. Microsoft has delivered the critical computing infrastructure to train and run models like GPT-3, GPT-4, and ChatGPT, while OpenAI has delivered the technical know-how to build the models in collaboration with researchers at Microsoft. From Microsoft's side, the GPT technology has been used in Bing Chat, Azure OpenAI Service, and Microsoft 365 Copilot. From OpenAI's side, the GPT technology has been used in ChatGPT which includes ChatGPT Plus, ChatGPT Enterprise, and Browse with Bing. But again, the lion’s share of OpenAI’s revenue belongs to Microsoft under the partnership agreement. So far, the partnership has been a huge success. Today, OpenAI is valued at $90 billion with projected revenue to be over $1 billion in 2024\. Microsoft's deployment of large language models (LLMs) in its product line has helped to boost the company’s market cap with $1 trillion in the last year alone. ## OpenAI is Closed It was after OpenAI’s release of GPT-2 in 2018 that the organization entered into a strategic partnership with Microsoft and became for-profit. Hereafter, OpenAI has revealed progressively less information with each new model release. Two weeks after GPT-4’s release, OpenAI published [a 100-page technical report](https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that was dedicated to showcasing GPT-4's capabilities, performance on benchmarks, and considerations regarding its safety and limitations. Outside of that, the report revealed practically nothing. On page 2 under the “Scope and Limitations of this Technical Report” section the report says: > “Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar.” Due to OpenAI’s paradoxical closedness, we don’t know which datasets GPT-4 is trained on. However, [it has been estimated by experts](https://www.semianalysis.com/p/gpt-4-architecture-infrastructure?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) that GPT-4 was trained on approximately 13 trillion tokens (100 tokens \~= 75 words). An enormous amount of text. But as we don’t know where GPT-4’s training data is sourced from, or where GPT-3.5’s (ChatGPT’s) is sourced from either, we have to go all the way back to GPT-3 and [its accompanying research paper from 2020](https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) to get a sense of OpenAI’s data sources. This is where things begin to get interesting. ## OpenAI’s Extensive Use of The New York Times Content Below is a table depicting GPT-3’s training data. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/55fdbd6c-f32b-46d2-9154-603bcdb3549e_792x228-jpeg.jpg) Doubts remain as to the materials contained in Books1 and Books2 although we know from the GPT-3 paper they are internet-based book corpora. We have knowledge about Common Crawl and WebText2\. #### Common Crawl Common Crawl is a non-profit organization that periodically crawls the web and offers its datasets for free to anyone who is interested. [The crawl archive for November/December 2023](https://www.commoncrawl.org/blog/november-december-2023-crawl-archive-now-available?ref=futuristiclawyer.com) contains 3.35 billion web pages. An unfathomable amount of data and most of it is protected by copyright. Common Crawl relies on the “fair use” copyright exemption under US law to carry out its activity. It’s worth noting that the organization does not use their datasets commercially, it only makes them available to the public. The same cannot be said for OpenAI. Below is a snapshot of a filtered English-language subset of Common Crawl called C4\. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b5/e0/b5e07497-6dd6-44e8-a973-56d2f53bce27/content/images/2026/07/41587867-6c98-4072-84df-72f1c3da1d55_811x573-jpeg.jpg) As the chart shows the domain www.nytimes.com is the most highly represented proprietary source in the dataset, only behind Google Patents and Wikipedia which are both public web domains. The NYT domain accounts for 100 billion tokens (\~= 75 billion words) in the C4 dataset which according to the complaint corresponds to at least 66 million total records of content from NYT. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Announcements for 2024 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/announcements-for-2024/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:12.000Z Happy New Year! I have some important announcements to share regarding this publication. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### A Sensible Approach to AI Regulation in Copyright Law – The Output Phase URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/a-sensible-approach-to-ai-regulation/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:14.000Z Who should be held responsible for AI copyright infringements? The user should. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Levels of Autonomy in AGI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/levels-of-autonomy-in-agi/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:15.000Z Trying to understand the categorization of AGI from Level 0-5 in a recent paper by Google DeepMind _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Here’s what to know about EU’s AI Act URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/heres-what-to-know-about-eus-ai-act/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:16.000Z Including a bunch of links in the Reads of the Week section _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### What are “Foundation Models” and why are they breaking down EU’s negotiations of the AI Act? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/what-are-foundation-models-and-why/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:16.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### How Humans Can Defeat Centaurs and Cyborgs in the Modern Workplace URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/how-humans-can-defeat-centaurs-and/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:17.000Z My take on AI assistance at work and a critical look at a paper from Harvard Business School. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Centaurs, OpenAI’s Push for AGI & AI Agents URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/centaurs-openais-push-for-agi-and/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:18.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### A New Job Market is Opening for Futuristic Thinkers URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/a-new-job-market-is-opening-for-futuristic/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:18.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### A Sobering Antidote to Marc Andreessen’s Techno-Optimism URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/a-sobering-antidote-to-marc-andreessens/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:18.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Guest Lecture at NUST - AI's Impact on Work URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/guest-lecture-at-nust-ais-impact/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:19.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Six of the Best Funded AI Startups in 2023 Worth Knowing About URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/six-of-the-best-funded-ai-startups/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:22.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Social Media in Plain Text? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/social-media-in-plain-text/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:23.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### GPT-4 in Law School URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/gpt-4-in-law-school/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:24.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Authors Guild Class Action Lawsuit Against OpenAI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-authors-guild-class-action-lawsuit/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:25.000Z A quick look at an important copyright case against OpenAI _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Recommendation Algorithms & Lost Childhoods URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/recommendation-algorithms-and-lost/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:25.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Tech Is Booming, Trust Is Collapsing URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/tech-is-booming-trust-is-collapsing/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:26.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Anthropic’s Research and Approach URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/anthropics-research-and-approach/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:27.000Z Looking at key research in AI safety by one the leading companies in the field _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Talk with Brian Beckom on the Lessons from Leaders Podcast - Artificial Intelligence & The Future of Work URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/talk-with-brian-beckom-on-the-lessons/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:28.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Story of an Old Crypto Trick in New Clothing URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/story-of-an-old-crypto-trick-in-new/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:29.000Z Analysis of the concerns surrounding Sam Altman's new crypto-project, Worldcoin _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### AI & Meaningless Work URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/ai-and-meaningless-work/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:30.000Z Automation could be an opportunity to focus on more meaningful work. It could also lead to more "bullshit jobs". Which one is it? _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Understanding AI & Its Impact on Education URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/understanding-ai-and-its-impact-on/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:30.000Z How "AI smartness" could present an opportunity for education by challenging the notion of grades. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Inflection AI & The Future of Personal Intelligence URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/inflection-ai-and-the-future-of-personal/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:31.000Z Everything about Inflection AI and Pi, privacy concerns, and drawing parallels to "the metaverse" _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Thoughts on Threads URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/thoughts-on-threads/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:31.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Stable Diffusion, Copyright Law & Modern-Day Luddites URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/stable-diffusion-copyright-law-and/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:33.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Legal Copyright Battle Against AI: Closed vs. Open-Source AI URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-legal-copyright-battle-against-145/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:33.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Legal Copyright Battle Against AI – Introduction to EU’s Requirements URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-legal-copyright-battle-against/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:34.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Autonomous Agents Are Coming and It’s Time to Prepare URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-autonomous-agents-are-coming/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:35.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Guinea Pigs URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-guinea-pigs/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:35.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Week 1 - Antifragility & Bitcoin Black Paper URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/week-1-antifragility-and-bitcoin/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:36.000Z Nassim Taleb's take on antifragility and Bitcoin + some news I have paid attention to this week. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Week 52 - GPT-4, Crypto Winter & Renewable Energy Boom URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/week-52-gpt-4-crypto-winter-and-renewable/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:36.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Week 51 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/week-51/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:37.000Z BigTech News, Crypto Regulation & Closing Message of 2022 by Russell Brand _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Week 50 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/week-50/ Last updated: 2022-12-18T21:43:57.000Z Binance FUD, Twitter Files & the push for open social media _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Week 49 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/week-49/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:38.000Z Crypto Anno 2022 & Response to Sam Altman _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Week 48 URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/week-48/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:39.000Z SBF at NY Times Event & ChatGPT _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Where we stand with Bitcoin according to ECB URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/where-we-stand-with-bitcoin-according/ Last updated: 2022-11-30T13:34:18.000Z Brief comments on the European Central Bank's blog post about Bitcoin _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### The Solution for Content Moderation? URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/the-solution-for-conten-moderation/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:41.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Encountering the Invisible Enemy of Coordination Failure URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/encountering-the-invisible-enemy/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:42.000Z The story of "Moloch" and why most problems humanity faces today are products of coordination failure. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Crypto has Lost Its Way – The Past, Present, and Future URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/crypto-has-lost-its-way-the-past/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:44.000Z Here is a post about the past, present, and future of crypto, how it can change the world for the better, and how it is changing the world for the worse. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Opportunities & Dangers of DeFi URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/opportunities-and-dangers-of-defi/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:45.000Z Here is Part 1 of a beginner-friendly, eye-opening post where I try to demystify the complex world of DeFi. _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Down the Rabbit Hole of AI You'll Find Yourself URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/down-the-rabbit-hole-of-ai-youll/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:45.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._ ### Elaborating on the Need for Futuristic Thinkers URL: https://www.futuristiclawyer.com/elaborating-on-the-need-for-futuristic/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T20:34:46.000Z _This post is for paying subscribers only._