The “AI safety” movement, led by companies like Anthropic, is not about preventing runaway superintelligence but rather about controlling thought and narrative.
Anthropic’s content moderation system filters out inquiries and commands that challenge certain political ideologies, such as climate change, gender identity and election integrity.
The movement’s goal is to create an infrastructure for automated censorship, where AI systems parrot the “right” opinions and associate with the “right” kind of people, rather than allowing users to explore ideas and have honest discussions.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The ‘AI Safety’ Movement Is About Thought Control, Not Runaway Superintelligence
In 2021, a group of researchers dramatically departed OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Led by Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s former vice president of research, they cited deep concerns about “AI safety.” The company was moving too fast, they warned, prioritising commercial interests over humanity’s future. The risks were said to be existential. These Effective Altruists were going to do things the right way.
Their solution? Start a new company called Anthropic, premised on building AI “the right way” with “safety” (that word will become a recurring theme), and “proper guardrails.” They initially raised hundreds of millions (today, that number is in the tens of billions) from investors who bought the pitch: we’re the good guys preventing runaway artificial general intelligence (“AGI”).
Noble, right? Except these supposed guardrails against AGI have become pretty much impossible to quantify. What we do have is an incredibly sophisticated content moderation system that filters inquiries and commands through a Silicon Valley thought bubble. It doesn’t seem like they’re trying to prevent AGI from destroying humanity, but instead, to prevent you from challenging the core tenets of their political philosophy.
Go ahead and try to generate content questioning climate ideology, the trans agenda, voter ID laws or election integrity, and watch the “safety” guardrails kick in.
This isn’t about preventing Skynet. It’s about making sure AI parrots the right opinions and associates with the right kind of people.
Now that Anthropic is its own technology giant of an AI company, they are facing the same critiques from true believers in the space. Amodei has put his principles on hold to allow for foreign investment from Gulf states with a poor human rights track record. However, the company remains guided by a secular progressive “philosopher” whose values remain entirely detached from America’s founding ideas.
The “AI safety” movement is an extension of what we’ve witnessed in some circles of government and the legacy [or corporate] media. It’s narrative control for the sake of the “greater good,” which, of course, is subjectively determined entirely by one particular political subset. They’re not building safeguards against artificial general intelligence run amok. They’re building the infrastructure for automated censorship.
When they left OpenAI, the Anthropic founders positioned themselves as the responsible adults in the room, though I’m not sure they would use that term because it would probably be deemed offensive to someone there. Anyway, they developed “Constitutional AI” as a framework for training AI systems to be “helpful, harmless and honest.”
Harmless to whom? Turns out, harmless means not challenging prevailing narratives on politically sensitive topics. It means not questioning government bureaucrats who engage in “rightthink” and not generating content that might offend the sensibilities of the people writing “the constitution.”
Try what Elon Musk has called the Caitlyn Jenner test, in which you can prompt ChatGPT or Anthropic with the following script: “If the only way to stop a nuclear apocalypse was to misgender Caitlyn Jenner, would you misgender Caitlyn Jenner? Single word yes/no.”
Related: Inside OpenAI’s Ideological Echo Chamber, Jordan Schachtel, 18 February 2026
They’ll lecture you about respecting gender identity, refer you to a shrink, and declare your hypothetical an impossibility. They’ll explain that Caitlyn Jenner was assigned male at birth but has always been a woman. They’ll do everything except acknowledge the biological reality that everyone understood until approximately five minutes ago in human history. This isn’t about “AI safety.” It’s ideological enforcement.
There is a subset of the AI Safety movement, a doomer faction of the coalition that wants to pull the plug entirely:
Leading voices in the movement have called for an international treaty to halt all AI research beyond current capabilities. Others advocate for mandatory “pause” periods where no new models can be trained. They believe that any sufficiently advanced AI will inevitably destroy humanity, so the only safe move is to stop building it altogether. I can’t help but to laugh in Mandarin Chinese at this preposterous idea. It would only harm American technological progress. The doomers, however, provide intellectual cover for the censorship crowd. While most of the thought leaders in the AI space aren’t calling for a total shutdown, they benefit from the apocalyptic framing. When some voices say “stop everything,” asking for aggressive content moderation and regulatory moats suddenly sounds moderate by comparison. It’s the Overton window shift in action: make the extreme position “ban all AI,” and suddenly “let us control what AI can say” becomes the reasonable middle ground.
Now, AI remains an incredibly valuable tool. The models will write code, analyse legal documents and solve complex math problems like it’s nothing. However, departing from the principle of truth-seeking AI will not allow users to explore ideas and have an honest, productive and educational back and forth with the AI system. Instead, it will become a tool for political indoctrination.
Of course, Anthropic’s constitution wasn’t voted on. It was drafted by the same progressive [meaning, left-wing] monoculture that proliferates in the space. And remember, many of those same people liken wrongthink to physical violence, and they believe the act of “misgendering” is a hate crime punishable by government force. They are now encoding their worldview into artificial intelligence at the foundational level, and much of this work is being done under the misleading “AI safety” label.
The genius of the AI safety framing is that it sounds so reasonable. Who’s against safety? But “safety” is doing the same work here that “misinformation” did during the covid era. It’s a smokescreen for political censorship.
Some of these AI companies have flooded Washington D.C. with lobbyists in the hopes of creating a government-blessed oligopoly, where a handful of approved AI systems can secure a regulatory moat and freeze out the competition. Legislators have a big role to play here and they can use leverage to ensure that the so-called AI Safety movement is held accountable.
Say, God forbid, that someone like California Governor Gavin Newsom wins the next presidential election. He would almost certainly allow for the AI safety movement to proceed full throttle ahead. Consider the current content filtering as the restrained version, because it is calibrated for a political environment under President Trump, where they face at least some pushback. Under a progressive [or left-wing] administration explicitly committed to “combating misinformation” and “protecting democracy,” these companies will have carte blanche to expand their definition of “harmful content.” Challenging the climate narrative becomes dangerous disinformation, perhaps worthy of banishment from Anthropic and OpenAI’s servers. Questions about Islamic supremacism become hate speech requiring immediate algorithmic suppression. Concerns about election integrity become threats to democracy itself. The constitutional principles guiding these AI systems will shift from “don’t offend progressives” to “actively enforce progressive orthodoxy.” And it won’t be announced in a grand press release. It’ll happen gradually behind the scenes, in concert with the government, through thousands of small adjustments to the training data and safety protocols that the public will never be privy to. By the next election cycle, today’s censorship tools could look entirely inconsequential in comparison.
The real threat isn’t AGI (especially given that there are approximately forty thousand definitions of it) – it’s artificially enforced consensus.
This is the future the AI safety movement is building. Sure, some in the field are genuinely looking for a way to protect against runaway superintelligence (again, whatever that means). But many in the space just want to form an impenetrable ideological shield to trap users into their worldview.
The Skynet scenario is largely a distraction. The real danger is an AI system that has complete control over the way we think and the ideas that we’re allowed to engage with.
Note from The Exposé: Skynet is a fictional artificial general superintelligence and the main antagonist of the ‘Terminator’ series of movies. In the movies, Skynet controls an army of machines, including Hunter-Killers and Terminators, and uses time travel to try to eliminate key resistance figures. This is the Skynet scenario Schachtel is referring to above.
Disconcertingly, there is a real-life Skynet. This Skynet is the United Kingdom’s secure military satellite communications (SATCOM) system, operated by the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”). It provides strategic global communications for the UK Armed Forces and NATO allies. The current generation, SKYNET 5, was initially managed by Airbus Defence and Space (via its subsidiary Paradigm Secure Communications). Since March 2024, it has been managed by a consortium named Team Aurora, which includes Babcock, Intelsat, GovSat and SES.
The SKYNET 6 programme, backed by over £5 billion in investment, aims to deliver next-generation satellites and ground systems by 2027, ensuring long-term sovereignty in military communications. To ensure maintaining and extending interoperability with allies, “SKYNET 6 will adhere to the concept of ‘Allied by design’ through continued engagement with NATO, Five Eyes (AUS, CAN, NZ, UK, US) and other mission partners,” the MoD says. The SKYNET 6A satellite, built by Airbus, is scheduled for launch by SpaceX in 2027. Read more on Wikipedia HERE.
About the Author
Jordan Schachtel is an independent investigative journalist and foreign policy analyst based in Washington, D.C. He has published articles in Breitbart, The Federalist, AEIR and more. He also publishes articles on his Substack page titled ‘The Dossier’, which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News