News Vérité

Love it or despise it, but AI — aka artificial intelligence — is all the rage. Wall Street loves it. Students cheat with it, and they adore it. Businesses are flourishing with newfound automation and a near-seamless means of customer support with AI. On the negative front, homeowners and local and state governments are freaking out over the proliferation of data centers being built to further expand the capabilities and reach of AI. Workers are being displaced by AI chatbots and AI project gurus. Sometimes tragically, individuals are even becoming addicted to their favorite AI chatbot, to whom they assign personal names as if they’re close friends. Now entering the fray is Roman Catholic convert and U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who has proclaimed AI to be satanic when it’s used selfishly or fetishistically. “I think that’s kind of satanic,” Vance told an interviewer when the discussion turned to how chatbots often agree with — and even flatter — their users, too often leading to detrimental results. This has been labeled AI sycophancy. Some commentators have even labeled the onset of AI as ushering in “the end of times,” as predicted in the Book of Revelation, in that it can

Across thousands of American municipalities, suburban subdivisions, commercial shopping centers, and highway corridors, small solar-powered cameras mounted on unassuming black poles have quietly reshaped the nature of public space. Manufactured by the surveillance company Flock Safety, these automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have been embraced by local police departments, neighborhood homeowners associations, and private businesses as powerful weapons against property crime and violence. Yet as the network of roadside sensors has expanded into a dense, interconnected surveillance grid, it has also ignited intense national debate. For critics, the rapid growth of this searchable tracking infrastructure feels uncomfortably close to the omnipresent surveillance described in George Orwell’s 1984. For supporters, it is an indispensable modernization of public safety that helps locate abducted children and apprehend violent offenders. Evaluating whether the public is right to view this technology as the arrival of “Big Brother” requires looking past marketing claims and apocalyptic rhetoric alike. The reality lies in the technical capabilities of the hardware, the legal gray areas surrounding automated tracking, and the governance mechanisms that decide how deeply into civilian life these lenses are allowed to peer.

Maria Bartiromo is out at Fox News, last seen on air on August 9. The network gave no reason for her departure, effective today. Her shows on Fox will be hosted by a rotating cast of network regulars. “We thank Maria for her work over the last 12½ years and wish her all the best on her next chapter,” Fox tersely announced. Her departure, shrouded in silence and speculation, is reminiscent of MAGA extremist Tucker Carlson’s exit. Speculation is already rampant that Bartiromo, 58, will be joining the Trump administration. At the White House, Vice President JD Vance was asked if Bartiromo would become White House spokesperson, and he answered: “I don’t know, man…. No, I don’t think so.” Bartiromo is extremely close to President Trump, and her on-air interviews proved very Trump-friendly. She even sided with his view that the 2020 election was rigged, resulting in lawsuits against Fox. Fox and its print counterpart, The Wall Street Journal, have long railed against Trump’s election fraud claims. Bartiromo’s former programs will all shed her name, according to the company announcement. “Mornings with Maria” will now air as “Mornings with Fox Business.” At the same time, “Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street” will

President Trump’s plans to construct a ballroom adjoining the current White House survived a vote in the Supreme Court and can proceed. The vote was 5-4, tellingly with Chief Justice John Roberts once again siding with the Liberal/Democrat wing in voting nay. The vote actually only gives the go-ahead while a final decision is reached in a case brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That suit is based upon one member’s feelings that her “aesthetic, cultural and historical interests” were harmed by the ballroom construction.  The ruling by the five conservative justices said that “mere offense, disagreement or distaste” isn’t enough and that the Trust lawsuit thus lacks legal standing. The Trump administration had sought a review by SCOTUS, arguing the current judicial hold on the project would cause “irreparable harm.” The Trust lawsuit isn’t expected to be resolved before most of the construction is finished, while other lawsuits will be subject to this ruling’s same standard. The three far-leftists, joined by often-left Roberts, noted that the project was “likely unlawful” because Congress hadn’t approved it. Roberts said the Trump administration suffers “an apparent absence of statutory authority” to build the ballroom.