strongwall.ai

The CEO of Krafton (creator of PUBG) asked ChatGPT to create a "corporate takeover strategy" to prevent a company they acquired from hitting a revenue target within a certain time window (which would trigger an additional payout). ChatGPT (against his lawyer's advice) suggested locking down the acquired companies Steam account to prevent them from publishing Subnautica 2 in the time window, which the CEO of Krafton followed. ChatGPT's advice did not hold up at trial and the judge was not happy. The opinion is a wild read and includes several direct quotes from the Krafton CEO's ChatGPT conversation. I feel like it's gonna take a few more high profile examples like this until executives start realizing that conversations with ChatGPT are not privileged and you probably shouldn't describe your questionably legal schemes to them in detail!

I spoke to Anthropic’s AI agent Claude about AI collecting massive amounts of personal data and how that information is being used to violate our privacy rights. What an AI agent says about the dangers of AI is shocking and should wake us up.

BREAKING: Iran announces that facilities associated with major US technology companies could become targets next. They specifically note that Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, IBM, Oracle, and Palantir are all potential targets across Israel, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi.

A New York bill would ban AI from answering questions related to several licensed professions like medicine, law, dentistry, nursing, psychology, social work, engineering, and more. The companies would be liable if the chatbots give “substantive responses” in these areas.

Stanford researchers checked 6 major AI companies and found they all use your chats to train models. Users unknowingly hand over highly sensitive medical or personal details that become permanent parts of future AI brains. The problem with standard privacy rules is that they scatter important details across multiple files so people cannot find them. The researchers at Stanford HAI examined 28 privacy documents across these six companies not just the main privacy policy, but every linked subpolicy, FAQ, and guidance page accessible from the chat interfaces. They evaluated all of them against the California Consumer Privacy Act, the most comprehensive privacy law in the United States. The results are worse than you think. Every single company collects your chat data and feeds it back into model training by default. Some retain your conversations indefinitely. There is no expiration. No auto-delete. Your data just sits there, forever, feeding future versions of the model. Some of these companies let human employees read your chat transcripts as part of the training process. Not anonymized summaries. Your actual conversations. But here's where it gets genuinely dangerous. In many cases these chats, get merged with everything else those companies already know about you. Your search history. Your purchase data. Your social media activity. Your uploaded files. The researchers describe a realistic scenario that should make you pause: You ask an AI chatbot for heart-healthy dinner recipes. The model infers you may have a cardiovascular condition. That classification flows through the company's broader ecosystem. You start seeing ads for medications. The information reaches insurance databases. The effects compound over time. You shared a dinner question. The system built a health profile. ---- Paper Link – arxiv. org/abs/2509.05382 Paper Title: "User Privacy and LLMs: An Analysis of Frontier Developers' Privacy Policies"

Nobody, and I repeat, absolutely nobody should ever upload their medical information into an AI platform. I am telling you this as a former intelligence officer.

To be clear, I do support kids safety legislation for AI. I just want to register the following expectation: There are some AI kids safety advocates who, if the world were the same except that all AI systems had PG-13 guardrails by default and parental controls for minors, would not be meaningfully happier about the state of AI policy in the US, and that is because we’d still have a thriving AI industry driving a technological revolution, and it is that revolution that they principally wish to stop, rather than just AI-driven harms to children. That’s fine! It’s fine to want to stop the revolution. Certainly I disagree and also think it’s a futile effort. But I don’t mean to illegitimate this belief. Instead I am observing it, in a primarily non-normative way, because in politics one must be clear about the contours of one’s coalition.