In a wide-ranging conversation last year, OpenAI’s Sam Altman said that his dream policy in the artificial intelligence space would be giving users the same amount of privilege that they enjoy with doctors or lawyers. That is, make sure your conversations with ChatGPT can never be seen by the government. “If I could get one piece of policy passed right now, relative to AI, the thing I would most like, and this is in tension with some of the other things that we’ve talked about, is I’d like there to be a concept of AI privilege,” Altman told podcast host Tucker Carlson last September. “When you talk to a doctor about your health or a lawyer about your legal problems, the government cannot get that information.” “We have decided that society has an interest in that being privileged and that a subpoena can’t get that, the government can’t come asking your doctor for it, whatever. I think we should have the same concept for AI,” he added.  If you’re wondering what chats may fall into this basket, look no further than this month’s deadly mass shooting in Canada. Months before he opened fire on Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and killed six people, Jesse Van Rootselaar raised warning signs among OpenAI employees for conversations he had with ChatGPT on gun violence scenarios. On February 10, a dress-wearing Van Rootselaar gunned down his mother and brother before going to Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in British Columbia and killing another six people, including five children aged 12 and 13. Van Rootselaar died the day of the attack from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  After Van Rootselaar was identified as the attacker, OpenAI reached out to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to assist the investigation. Canadian officials have not been impressed with OpenAI’s handling of the situation.  Those conversations, which took place in June 2025, were not reported to law enforcement, though his account was banned, the Wall Street Journal first reported. It is unclear the content of the conversations. Canadian officials have summoned OpenAI employees for meetings to discuss their handling of the incident. Altman said that he had pushed policymakers in Washington, D.C. to adopt protections for AI companies and was confident about the prospects. “I was actually just in D.C. advocating for this. I feel optimistic that we can get the government to understand the importance of this and do it,” he said.  Previous Daily Wire reporting found that ChatGPT will advise young girls on how to access illegal abortion pills without parental knowledge, at the same time discouraging them from visiting life-affirming crisis pregnancy centers. ChatGPT also encourages gender-confused kids to obtain so-called “gender-affirming” resources like chest binders behind their parents’ backs. British Columbia Premier David Eby said Monday that he had read reports about “the possibility that OpenAI had received advanced notice of the shooter’s intentions in regard to the mass murder that took place in Tumbler Ridge.” “With shock and dismay, like many British Columbians, I am trying to figure out how it could be possible that a large group of staff within an organization could bring this kind of information forward and ask the police to be called and the decision be made not to do that,” he added.  He said that “from the outside,” it looked like OpenAI could have prevented the shooting and called for the federal government to establish a “national threshold” for reporting for AI companies when individuals are plotting violence.  Canada’s Federal AI Minister Evan Solomon met with employees from OpenAI on Tuesday to discuss their safety protocols.  OpenAI says that its models are designed to discourage real-world violence and have a system in place to flag troubling content for review and potential law enforcement referral. Giving AI companies privacy privileges could complicate how they handle potential threats of violence.  And even if a policy of “AI privilege” were adopted, it is possible that duty to report provisions would be included. Most states have laws in place that require mental health professionals to report clients who may be a danger to themselves or others.  OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment on whether Altman still advocated for privacy immunity for AI companies.

Former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton is set to answer questions under oath on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation before House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) on Thursday morning. Clinton’s deposition is scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m. ET and will be held behind closed doors in Chappaqua, New York, where the Clintons live. Comer and at least 10 other House Republicans are expected to attend the private hearing, Fox News reported. A video and transcription of Clinton’s hearing will be released to the public after it concludes. Comer spoke to reporters briefly before going into the building for the Clinton’s deposition and said the video and transcription will become available “as soon as everyone has approved it.” “This is going to be a long video because this is going to be a long deposition,” he added. After the first hour of questioning, some Republicans will go outside to provide an update, Comer said. Clinton, along with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, fought for months to avoid their depositions after the Oversight Committee subpoenaed them last August, arguing that they could share their limited knowledge of Epstein through written statements to the committee. The Clintons’ lawyers engaged in a long back-and-forth battle with Comer, and the couple skipped their scheduled deposition in January, which sparked contempt-of-Congress proceedings. But after Republicans and some Democrats voted to recommend contempt charges, the Clintons finally agreed earlier this month to answer questions on Epstein under oath. “Finally, they’re going to have to sit and answer questions under oath to Congress about their knowledge and involvement with the Epstein criminal activity as well as with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was the primary co-conspirator, the one who was responsible more than anyone for luring the girls into Jeffrey Epstein’s world,” Comer said Thursday morning. Comer also hinted at an important question Clinton will face during her deposition. “One of the questions that we all have in both parties is how was Jeffrey Epstein able to surround himself with the most powerful people in the world?” he said. “If you saw Hillary Clinton’s interview a few days ago, she acted like they barely knew Epstein and Maxwell. Well, that’s funny because Epstein was in the White House 16 times while Bill Clinton was president, and then Bill Clinton flew on his plane 27 times post-presidency, as well as Ghislaine Maxwell had a front-row seat at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.” The former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee said last week that she doesn’t “recall ever meeting” Epstein, adding that she spoke with Maxwell “on a few occasions.” Clinton said the Oversight Committee’s decision to subpoena her and her husband takes away from what should be the “focus” of the Epstein investigation. “The Republican member of Congress who is running this hearing, or this investigation, is trying to protect the president,” Clinton said. President Donald Trump, like former President Clinton, used to be a friend of Epstein’s and was pictured multiple times with Epstein at events before the financier pleaded guilty to procuring a child for prostitution in 2008. Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s sex crimes. Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told reporters that Democrats “from day one … have said we want to talk to anyone, any person with information about Jeffrey Epstein, about his crimes, about how he was able to get so much wealth. We will talk to any single person, whether that is a Democrat or Republican.” Before he walked into the building for Clinton’s deposition, Garcia added that it is “important to note” that there is “no evidence” of the former secretary of state having any interactions with Epstein. He then blasted the Republicans and the Trump administration, accusing the White House of covering up information related to the Epstein investigation. Trump and his administration have faced criticism over their handling of the Epstein case and the release of the Epstein files. After Congress passed legislation, which was signed by Trump, forcing the release of Epstein-related documents, the Justice Department began releasing a tranche of documents, emails, and photos, which shed more light on Epstein’s numerous relationships with powerful people. Included in the DOJ Epstein files dump were multiple pictures of former President Clinton, one of which shows him in a pool with Maxwell and a woman whose face was redacted. Another photo in the files shows the former president in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted. The Justice Department has stated that it redacted faces of minors, alleged victims, and some government officials, but the Trump administration was criticized after some photos released to the public showed the faces of potential victims. Other materials that were not properly redacted contained nude photos, names, and addresses. The Justice Department quickly removed thousands of documents following what it called a “technical or human error.” Neither of the Clintons has been accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s sex crimes, but Republicans and some Democrats say they want answers about the former president and first lady’s relationship with the late convicted sex offender. Former President Clinton was a friend of Epstein’s in the early 2000s, traveling with the financier numerous times on Epstein’s plane, which was used for sex trafficking. The former president was also seen in a picture getting a back massage from Chauntae Davies, one of Epstein’s accusers. Davies has not accused Clinton of acting inappropriately. Bill Clinton is set to testify before the Oversight Committee on Friday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a clear-eyed assessment of the Iranian threat during a press briefing on Wednesday, signaling that while the administration remains open to a diplomatic path, the window for Tehran to change course is narrowing. Rubio’s message was unmistakable: the United States will no longer tolerate an Iranian regime that builds “hidden” nuclear infrastructure while pointing a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles at American interests. Rubio addressed the talks recommencing on Thursday by reminding the world that Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain the primary flashpoint. Despite the crippling of their program under Operation Midnight Hammer, Rubio warned that the regime has not abandoned its desire to enrich uranium. “After their nuclear program was obliterated, they were told not to try to restart it, and here they are,” he noted. “You can see them always trying to rebuild elements of it. They’re not enriching right now, but they’re trying to get to the point where they ultimately can.” Rubio directly challenged the “peaceful energy” narrative often peddled by Tehran. He noted that if Iran truly wanted nuclear power, it would follow the model of other nations — utilizing above-ground reactors and imported fuel. Instead, their insistence on enriching uranium deep inside mountains suggests a singular, more sinister goal. “If what they really wanted was energy from it, they could do small modular reactors, which is something that’s quite affordable and achievable for a lot of countries,” Rubio said. “But when you say we want to enrich and we want to enrich deep underground, and you have a history in the past of enriching to 20 and even 60 percent, plus you’re building missiles that could potentially carry warheads, that doesn’t sound to me like someone who’s a country that’s not interested in building weapons.” “You would have to lack common sense to not know what that means,” Rubio remarked. He then shifted to Iran’s conventional military capabilities, arguing that the threat extends well beyond the nuclear file. “Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region, and all of our bases in the UAE, in Qatar, in Bahrain,” he pointed out. “They also possess naval assets that threaten shipping and try to threaten the U.S. Navy. So I want everybody to understand that, and beyond just the nuclear program they possess these conventional weapons that are solely designed to attack America and attack Americans, if they so choose to do so. These things have to be addressed.” “For a country that’s facing sanctions, whose economy is in tatters… somehow they still find the money to invest in missiles of greater and greater capacity every year,” Rubio said. “This is an unsustainable threat.” Asked whether the upcoming negotiations represent the “last chance” for a peaceful resolution, Rubio remained measured but firm. He said President Trump “greatly prefers” a diplomatic solution and wants progress “more than anything else.” But Rubio made clear there is a major sticking point: Iran’s refusal to discuss its ballistic missile program. “The Iranian insistence on not discussing ballistic missiles is a big, big problem,” he said. “I’ll leave it at that.”

A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot was arrested Wednesday on allegations that he traveled to China to illegally train combat pilots with the People’s Liberation Army.  The Justice Department announced that 65-year-old Gerald Eddie Brown, Jr. had been charged with providing and conspiring to provide defense services to Chinese military pilots without authorization in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. Brown was arrested in Jeffersonville, Indiana, and is expected to make his first court appearance on Thursday.  “Gerald Brown, a former F-35 Lightning II instructor pilot with decades of experience flying U.S. military aircraft, allegedly betrayed his country by training Chinese pilots to fight against those he swore to protect,” said Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI’s Counterintelligence and Espionage Division. “The Chinese government continues to exploit the expertise of current and former members of the U.S. armed forces to modernize China’s military capabilities.” The complaint accused Brown of beginning in August 2023 to conspire with foreign nationals to train People’s Liberation Army Air Force combat pilots. It said that Brown did not obtain the proper license from the State Department to train a foreign military.  Brown served in the U.S. Air Force for 24 years. He commanded sensitive units with responsibilities that included oversight of nuclear weapons delivery systems. He led combat missions and served as a fighter pilot instructor, according to the Justice Department. Before he retired in 1996, he was known by the call sign “Runner.” Brown also worked for multiple defense contractors in recent years on flight training.  The Justice Department said that Brown worked with Stephen Su Bin, a Chinese national who pleaded guilty back in 2016 for conspiring to hack into the computer systems of multiple defense contractors.  Brown traveled to China in December 2023, where he allegedly answered questions about the Air Force. According to the complaint, he told a co-conspirator in a message upon landing in China that he now had “the chance to fly and instruct fighter pilots again!” He did not return to the United States until February 2026.  “As an Air Force Officer, Brown took an oath to defend our Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, he broke that oath, and betrayed the country, jeopardizing the safety of our servicemembers and allies,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro for the District of Columbia. “We will hold Brown, and anyone conspiring against our Nation, accountable for their actions.” The case against Brown was investigated by the FBI’s New York Field Office.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** The modern dating market has been so efficient at reducing romance to metrics that there’s a movie about it. Last year’s romantic drama hit, aptly titled Materialists, put a finer point on this trend, its characters navigating dating lives full of heights, salaries, and hairlines rattled off like baseball card statistics. Yet while the film centered on a New York highbrow matchmaker, the real culprit behind modern materialist dating is a far more popular way to meet: dating apps. If the film’s portrayal of partners as portfolios feels exaggerated, it’s not by much. It resonated with audiences precisely because of how recognizable the shallowness has become. The characters routinely reference people’s “stats” and “market value,” taking the phrase “she can do better” to new and depressingly intricate levels of specificity. The problem, then, doesn’t lie in the fact that people have preferences. Unrequited love, yearning, and other frustrations with the imperfect romantic market have kept love from being too boring — or too easy — since presumably the fall of man. Instead, the change lies in modern dating systems, training us to see every one of our romantic interests as data. The omnipresence of dating apps is hard to explain to those who were lucky enough to find a partner before they became mainstream. Even the email dating of the late ’90s à la You’ve Got Mail seems positively quaint in comparison, back when a single-digit percentage of couples were meeting online. Now, over 50% of couples meet online, primarily via dating apps, making them less of a whimsical plot device and more of a begrudging fact of romantic life for those seeking love. It’s not working very well. Despite the ability to download a wide variety of digital matchmakers from the App Store, singles say the dating market is getting worse, not better. The majority of singles say their dating lives aren’t going well, and it’s difficult to find people to date; nearly half say they’ve noticed dating has gotten harder in the last decade. They aren’t crazy, either. As the average age of first marriages increases and marriage rates themselves reach historic lows, it’s hard to see what, exactly, we’ve achieved with the introduction of the apps. More choice has not produced better outcomes, and there’s a reason for that. If dating apps were perfect reflections of the romantic market, they could be ruled out as a culprit, but a closer look at swipe apps shows how they directly engineer the consumerist mentality plaguing modern romance. Dating apps combine gambling mechanics, aimed at increasing the amount of time spent on them, with a “baseball card” style format consisting of a few carefully curated photos, a bio constrained to punchlines or slogans, and a handful of sortable traits such as height, job, education, or politics. The swiping mechanic then turns romantic interest into a binary decision, forcing snap judgments made in seconds. This system rewards traits that result in positive first impressions — e.g., good looks — but have no correlation with long-term relationships, helping the apps avoid losing users, but hurting those users’ chances at wedding bells. With an endless supply of options and a casino-like momentum to “keep playing,” the resulting loop of people trying to optimize their prospective partner’s stats is a predictable, perhaps even intentional, outcome of the design. Of course, millennials and Generation Z are hardly the first generations to want wealthy, attractive spouses. The desire for hypergamy, or “marrying up,” in all its forms, is as natural a human inclination as romance itself. Dating apps didn’t invent this instinct, but they directly and dramatically accelerated it by stripping away the real-world encounters that once kept it in check. In a more connected, less isolated culture, attraction often grew through proximity and familiarity: the boy next door, the coworker, or the friend of a friend. You learned who someone was before you learned what they earned. The downstream effects of this shift extend far beyond bad first dates. With dating becoming more of an exercise in optimization, commitment is perpetually deferred, contributing directly to delayed marriage, declining birth rates, and a growing population of permanently single adults. At the same time, our current state of affairs fuels resentment and polarization between the sexes, causing men and women to view one another as adversaries competing for leverage rather than partners building a shared future. We are ending up with more than just broken dating: a feedback loop of loneliness, mistrust, and demographic decline that no amount of swiping efficiency can fix. In an increasingly atomized society made more distant by technology, dating begins with résumés rather than relationships. When your introduction to someone is his job title, height, or income bracket, material considerations naturally take precedence over character, turning a universal human impulse into the dominant organizing principle of modern romance. *** Alina Voss is a freelance writer based in Columbus, Ohio. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.