This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

It’s been just over two weeks since OpenAI reached a controversial agreement to allow the Pentagon to use its AI in classified environments. There are still pressing questions about what exactly OpenAI’s agreement allows for; Sam Altman said the military can’t use his company’s technology to build autonomous weapons, but the agreement really just demands that the military follow its own (quite permissive) guidelines about such weapons. OpenAI’s other main claim, that the agreement will prevent use of its technology for domestic surveillance, appears equally dubious.

It’s unclear what OpenAI’s motivations are. It’s not the first tech giant to embrace military contracts it had once vowed never to enter into, but the speed of the pivot was notable. Perhaps it’s just about money; OpenAI is spending lots on AI training and is on the hunt for more revenue (from sources including ads). Or perhaps Altman truly believes the ideological framing he often invokes: that liberal democracies (and their militaries) must have access to the most powerful AI to compete with China.

The more consequential question is what happens next. OpenAI has decided it is comfortable operating right in the messy heart of combat, just as the US escalates its strikes against Iran (with AI playing a larger role in that than ever before). So where exactly could OpenAI’s tech show up in this fight? And which applications will its customers (and employees) tolerate?

Targets and strikes

Though its Pentagon agreement is in place, it’s unclear when OpenAI’s technology will be ready for classified environments, since it must be integrated with other tools the military uses (Elon Musk’s xAI, which recently struck its own deal with the Pentagon, is expected to go through the same process with its AI model Grok). But there’s pressure to do this quickly because of controversy around the technology in use to date: After Anthropic refused to allow its AI to be used for “any lawful use,” President Trump ordered the military to stop using it, and Anthropic was designated a supply chain risk by the Pentagon. (Anthropic is fighting the designation in court.)

If the Iran conflict is still underway by the time OpenAI’s tech is in the system, what could it be used for? A recent conversation I had with a defense official suggests it might look something like this: A human analyst could put a list of potential targets into the AI model and ask it to analyze the information and prioritize which to strike first. The model could account for logistics information, like where particular planes or supplies are located. It could analyze lots of different inputs in the form of text, image, and video. 

A human would then be responsible for manually checking these outputs, the official said. But that raises an obvious question: If a person is truly double-checking AI’s outputs, how is it speeding up targeting and strike decisions?

For years the military has been using another AI system, called Maven, which can handle things like automatically analyzing drone footage to identify possible targets. It’s likely that OpenAI’s models, like Anthropic’s Claude, will offer a conversational interface on top of that, allowing users to ask for interpretations of intelligence and recommendations for which targets to strike first. 

It’s hard to overstate how new this is: AI has long done analysis for the military, drawing insights out of oceans of data. But using generative AI’s advice about which actions to take in the field is being tested in earnest for the first time in Iran.

Drone defense

At the end of 2024, OpenAI announced a partnership with Anduril, which makes both drones and counter-drone technologies for the military. The agreement said OpenAI would work with Anduril to do time-sensitive analysis of drones attacking US forces and help take them down. An OpenAI spokesperson told me at the time that this didn’t violate the company’s policies, which prohibited “systems designed to harm others,” because the technology was being used to target drones and not people. 

Anduril provides a suite of counter-drone technologies to military bases around the world (though the company declined to tell me whether its systems are deployed near Iran). Neither company has provided updates on how the project has developed since it was announced. However, Anduril has long trained its own AI models to analyze camera footage and sensor data to identify threats; what it focuses less on are conversational AI systems that allow soldiers to query those systems directly or receive guidance in natural language—an area where OpenAI’s models may fit.

The stakes are high. Six US service members were killed in Kuwait on March 1 following an Iranian drone attack that was not intercepted by US air defenses. 

Anduril’s interface, called Lattice, is where soldiers can control everything from drone defenses to missiles and autonomous submarines. And the company is winning massive contracts—$20 billion from the US Army just last week—to connect its systems with legacy military equipment and layer AI on them. If OpenAI’s models prove useful to Anduril, Lattice is designed to incorporate them quickly across this broader warfare stack. 

Back-office AI

In December, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth started encouraging millions of people in more administrative roles in the military—contracts, logistics, purchasing—to use a new AI tool. Called GenAI.mil, it provided a way for personnel to securely access commercial AI models and use them for the same sorts of things as anyone in the business world. 

Google Gemini was one of the first to be available. In January, the Pentagon announced that xAI’s Grok was going to be added to the GenAI.mil platform as well, despite incidents in which the model had spread antisemitic content and created nonconsensual deepfakes. OpenAI followed in February, with the company announcing that its models would be used for drafting policy documents and contracts and assisting with administrative support of missions.

Anyone using ChatGPT for unclassified tasks on this platform is unlikely to have much sway over sensitive decisions in Iran, but the prospect of OpenAI deploying on the platform is important in another way. It serves the all-in attitude toward AI that Hegseth has been pushing relentlessly across the Pentagon (even if many early users aren’t entirely sure what they’re supposed to use it for). The message is that AI is transforming every aspect of how the US fights, from targeting decisions down to paperwork. And OpenAI is increasingly winning a piece of it all.

Human-made glass is thousands of years old. But it’s now poised to find its way into the AI chips used in the world’s newest and largest data centers.

This year, a South Korean company called Absolics is planning to start commercial production of special glass panels designed to make next-generation computing hardware more powerful and energy efficient. Other companies, including Intel, are also pushing forward in this area.

If all goes well, such glass technology could reduce the energy demands of the sorts of high-performance computing chips used in AI data centers—and it could eventually do the same for consumer laptops and mobile devices if production costs fall.

The idea is to use glass as the substrate, or layer, on which multiple silicon chips are connected. This form of “packaging” is an increasingly popular way to build computing hardware, because it lets engineers combine specialized chips designed for specific functions into a single system. But it presents challenges, including the fact that hardworking chips can run so hot they physically warp the substrate they’re built on. This can lead to misaligned components and may reduce how efficiently the chips can be cooled, leading to damage or premature failure. 

“As AI workloads surge and package sizes expand, the industry is confronting very real mechanical constraints that impact the trajectory of high-performance computing,” says Deepak Kulkarni, a senior fellow at the chip design company Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). “One of the most fundamental is warpage.”

That’s where glass comes in. It can handle the added heat better than existing substrates, and it will let engineers keep shrinking chip packages—which will make them faster and more energy efficient. It “unlocks the ability to keep scaling package footprints without hitting a mechanical wall,” says Kulkarni. 

Momentum is building behind the shift. Absolics has finished building a factory in the US that is dedicated to producing glass substrates for advanced chips and expects to begin commercial manufacturing this year. The US semiconductor manufacturer Intel is working toward incorporating glass in its next-generation chip packages, and its research has spurred other companies in the chip packaging supply chain to invest in it as well. South Korean and Chinese companies are among the early adopters. “Historically, this is not the first attempt to adopt glass in semiconductor packaging,” says Bilal Hachemi, senior technology and market analyst at the market research firm Yole Group. “But this time, the ecosystem is more solid and wider; the need for glass-based [technology] is sharper.” 

Fragile but mighty

Chip packaging has relied on organic substrates such as fiberglass-reinforced epoxy since the 1990s, says Rahul Manepalli, vice president of advanced packaging at Intel. But electrochemical complications limit how closely designers can place drilled holes to create copper-coated signal and power connections between the chips and the rest of the system. Chip designers must also account for the unpredictable shrinkage and distortion that organic substrates undergo as chips heat up and cool down. “We realized about a decade ago that we are going to have some limitations with organic substrates,” says Manepalli.

INTEL CORPORATION

Glass may help overcome a lot of these limitations. Its thermal stability could allow engineers to create 10 times more connections per millimeter than organic substrates, says Manepalli. With denser connections, Intel’s designers can then stuff 50% more silicon chips into the same package area, improving computational capability. The denser connections also enable more efficient routing for the copper wires that deliver power to the chip. And the fact that glass dissipates heat more efficiently allows for chip designs that reduce overall power consumption. 

“The benefits of glass core substrates are undeniable,” says Manepalli. “It’s clear that the benefits will drive the industry to make this happen sooner rather than later, and we want to be one of the first ones who do it.” 

However, working with glass creates its own challenges. For one thing, it’s fragile. Glass substrates for data center chip packages are made from panels that are only about 700 micrometers to 1.4 millimeters thick, which leaves them susceptible to cracking or even shattering, says Manepalli. Researchers at Intel and other organizations have spent years figuring out how to use other materials and special tools to integrate the glass panels safely into semiconductor manufacturing processes. 

Now, Manepalli says, Intel’s research and development teams are reliably fabricating glass panels and churning out test chip packages that incorporate glass—and in early 2025 they demonstrated that a functional device with a glass core substrate could boot up the Windows operating system. It’s a significant improvement from the early testing days, when hundreds of glass panels got cracked every couple of days, he says.

Semiconductor manufacturers already use glass for more limited purposes, such as temporary support structures for silicon wafers. But the independent market research firm IDTechEx estimates there’s a big market for glass substrates, one that could boost the semiconductor market for glass from $1 billion in 2025 to as much as $4.4 billion by 2036. 

The material could have additional benefits if it takes off. Glass can be made astoundingly smooth—5,000 times smoother than organic substrates. This would eliminate defects that can arise as metal gets layered onto semiconductors, says Xiaoxi He, a research analyst at IDTechEx. Defects in these layers can worsen chips’ performance or even render them unusable.  

Glass could also help speed the movement of data. The material can guide light, which means chip designers could use it to build high-speed signal pathways directly into the substrate. Glass “holds enormous potential for the future of energy-efficient AI compute,” says Kulkarni at AMD, because a light-based system could move signals around with far less energy than the “power-hungry” copper pathways that are currently used to carry signals between chips in a package.

A panel pivot

Early research on glass packaging started at the 3D Systems Packaging Research Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2009. The university eventually partnered with Absolics, a subsidiary of SKC, a South Korean company that produces chemicals and advanced materials. SKC constructed a semiconductor facility for manufacturing glass substrates in Covington, Georgia, in 2024, and the glass substrate partnership between Absolics and Georgia Tech was eventually awarded two grants in the same year—worth a combined $175 million—throughthe US government’s CHIPS for America program, established under the administration of President Joe Biden.

COURTESY OF ABSOLICS INC

Now Absolics is moving toward commercialization; it plans to start manufacturing small quantities of glass substrates for customers this year. The company has led the way in commercializing glass substrates, says Yongwon Lee, a research engineer at Georgia Tech who is not directly involved in the commercial partnership with Absolics.

Absolics says its facility can currently produce a maximum of 12,000 square meters of glass panels a year. That’s enough, Lee estimates, to provide glass substrates for between 2 million and 3 million chip packages the size of Nvidia’s H100 GPU.

But the company isn’t alone. Lee says that multiple large manufacturers, including Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electro-Mechanics, and LG Innotek, have “significantly accelerated” their research and pilot production efforts in glass packaging over the past year. “This trend suggests that the glass substrate ecosystem is evolving from a single early mover to a broader industrial race,” he says.

Other companies are pivoting to play more specialized roles in the glass substrate supply chain. In 2025, JNTC, a company that makes electrical connectors and tempered glass for electronics, established a facility in South Korea that’s capable of producing 10,000 semi-finished glass panels per month. Such panels include drilled holes for vertical electrical connections and thin metal layers coating the glass, but they require additional manufacturing work for installation in chip packages. 

Last year, that South Korean facility began taking orders to supply semi-finished glass to both specialized substrate companies and semiconductor manufacturers. The company plans to expand the facility’s production in 2026 and open an additional manufacturing line in Vietnam in 2027.  Such industry actions show how quickly glass substrate technology is moving from prototype to commercialization—and how many tech players are betting that glass could be a surprisingly strong foundation for the future of computing and AI.

The US military might use generative AI systems to rank lists of targets and make recommendations—which would be vetted by humans—about which to strike first, according to a Defense Department official with knowledge of the matter. The disclosure about how the military may use AI chatbots comes as the Pentagon faces scrutiny over a strike on an Iranian school, which it is still investigating.  

A list of possible targets might be fed into a generative AI system that the Pentagon is fielding for classified settings. Then, said the official, who requested to speak on background with MIT Technology Review to discuss sensitive topics, humans might ask the system to analyze the information and prioritize the targets while accounting for factors like where aircraft are currently located. Humans would then be responsible for checking and evaluating the results and recommendations. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and xAI’s Grok could, in theory, be the models used for this type of scenario in the future, as both companies recently reached agreements for their models to be used by the Pentagon in classified settings.

The official described this as an example of how things might work but would not confirm or deny whether it represents how AI systems are currently being used.

Other outlets have reported that Anthropic’s Claude has been integrated into existing military AI systems and used in operations in Iran and Venezuela, but the official’s comments add insight into the specific role chatbots may play, particularly in accelerating the search for targets. They also shed light on the way the military is deploying two different AI technologies, each with distinct limitations.

Since at least 2017, the US military has been working on a “big data” initiative called Maven. It uses older types of AI, particularly computer vision, to analyze the oceans of data and imagery collected by the Pentagon. Maven might take thousands of hours of aerial drone footage, for example, and algorithmically identify targets. A 2024 report from Georgetown University showed soldiers using the system to select targets and vet them, which sped up the process to get approval for these targets. Soldiers interacted with Maven through an interface with a battlefield map and dashboard, which might highlight potential targets in one color and friendly forces in another.

The official’s comments suggest that generative AI is now being added as a conversational chatbot layer—one the military may use to find and analyze data more quickly as it makes decisions like which targets to prioritize. 

Generative AI systems, like those that underpin ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok, are a fundamentally different technology from the AI that has primarily powered Maven. Built on large language models, they are much less battle-tested. And while Maven’s interface forced users to directly inspect and interpret data on the map, the outputs produced by generative AI models are easier to access but harder to verify. 

The use of generative AI for such decisions is reducing the time required in the targeting process, added the official, who did not provide details when asked how much additional speed is possible if humans are required to spend time double-checking a model’s outputs.

The use of military AI systems is under increased public scrutiny following the recent strike on a girls’ school in Iran in which more than 100 children died. Multiple news outlets have reported that the strike was from a US missile, though the Pentagon has said it is still under investigation. And while the Washington Post has reported that Claude and Maven have been involved in targeting decisions in Iran, there is no evidence yet to explain what role generative AI systems played, if any. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that a preliminary investigation found outdated targeting data to be partly responsible for the strike. 

The Pentagon has been ramping up its use of AI across operations in recent months. It started offering nonclassified use of generative AI models, for tasks like analyzing contracts or writing presentations, to millions of service members back in December through an effort called GenAI.mil. But only a few generative AI models have been approved by the Pentagon for classified use. 

The first was Anthropic’s Claude, which in addition to its use in Iran was reportedly used in the operations to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in January. But following recent disagreements between the Pentagon and Anthropic over whether Anthropic could restrict the military’s use of its AI, the Defense Department designated the company a supply chain risk and President Trump demanded on social media that the government stop using its AI products within six months. Anthropic is fighting the designation in court. 

OpenAI announced an agreement on February 28 for the military to use its technologies in classified settings. Elon Musk’s company xAI has also reached a deal for the Pentagon to use its model Grok in such settings. OpenAI has said its agreement with the Pentagon came with limitations, though the practical effectiveness of those limitations is not clear. 

If you have information about the military’s use of AI, you can share it securely via Signal (username jamesodonnell.22).

Just a few years ago, the battery industry was hot, hot, hot. There was a seemingly infinite number of companies popping up, with shiny new chemistries and massive fundraising rounds. My biggest problem was sifting through the pile to pick the most exciting news to cover.

That tide has turned, and in 2026, what seems to be in unlimited supply isn’t battery success stories but stumbles or straight-up implosions. Companies are failing, investors are pulling back, and batteries, especially for EVs, aren’t looking so hot anymore. On Monday, Steve Levine at The Information (paywalled link) reported that 24M Technologies, a battery company founded in 2010, was shutting down and would auction off its property.

The company itself has been silent, but this is the latest in a string of bad signs, and it’s a big one—at one point 24M was worth over $1 billion, and the company’s innovations could have worked with existing technology. So where does that leave the battery industry?

Many buzzy battery startups in recent years have been trying to sell some new, innovative chemistry to compete with lithium-ion batteries, the status quo that powers phones, laptops, electric vehicles, and even grid storage arrays today. Think sodium-ion batteries and solid-state cells.

24M wasn’t trying to sell a departure from lithium-ion but improvements that could work with the tech. One of the company’s major innovations was its manufacturing process, which involved essentially smearing materials onto sheets of metal to form the electrodes, a simpler and potentially cheaper technique than the standard one. 

The layers in the company’s batteries were thicker, which cut down on some of the inactive materials in cells and improved the energy density. That allows more energy to be stored in a smaller package, boosting the range of EVs—the company famously had a goal of a 1,000-mile battery (about 1,600 kilometers).

We’re still thin on details of what exactly went down at 24M and what comes next for its tech. The company didn’t get back to my questions sent to the official press email, and nobody picked up the phone when I called. 24M cofounder and MIT professor Yet-Ming Chiang declined to speak on the record.

For those who have been closely following the battery industry, more bad news isn’t too surprising. It feels as if everyone is short on money these days, and as purse strings tighten, there’s less interest in novel ideas. “It just feels like there’s not a lot of appetite for innovation,” says Kara Rodby, a technical principal at Volta Energy Technologies, a venture capital firm that focuses on the energy storage industry.

Natron Energy, one of the leading sodium-ion startups in the US, shut down operations in September last year. Ample, an EV battery-swapping company, filed for bankruptcy in December 2025.  

There were always going to be failures from the recent battery boom. Money was flowing to all sorts of companies, some pitching truly wild ideas. But what recent months have made clear is that the battery market is turning brutal, even for the relatively safe bets.

Because 24M’s technology was designed to work into existing lithium-ion chemistry, it could have been an attractive candidate for existing battery companies to license or even acquire. “It’s a great example of something that should have been easier,” Rodby says.  

The gutting of major components of the Inflation Reduction Act, key legislation in the US that provided funding and incentives for batteries and EVs, certainly hasn’t helped. The EV market in the US is cooling off, with automakers canceling EV models and slashing factory plans.

There are bright spots. China’s battery industry is thriving, and its battery and EV giants are looking ever more dominant. The market for stationary energy storage is also still seeing positive signs of growth, even in the US. 

But overall, it’s not looking great. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

Feng Qingyang had always hoped to launch his own company, but he never thought this would be how—or that the day would come this fast. 

Feng, a 27-year-old software engineer based in Beijing, started tinkering with OpenClaw, a popular new open-source AI tool that can take over a device and autonomously complete tasks for a user, in January. He was immediately hooked, and before long he was helping other curious tech workers with less technical proficiency install the AI agent.

Feng soon realized this could be a lucrative opportunity. By the end of January, he had set up a page on Xianyu, a secondhand shopping site, advertising “OpenClaw installation support.” “No need to know coding or complex terms. Fully remote,” reads the posting. “Anyone can quickly own an AI assistant, available within 30 minutes.” 

At the same time, the broader Chinese public was beginning to catch on—and the tool, which had begun as a niche interest among tech workers, started to evolve into a popular sensation.

Feng quickly became inundated with requests, and he started chatting with customers and managing orders late into the night. At the end of February, he quit his job. His side gig has now grown into a full-fledged professional operation with over 100 employees. So far, the store has handled 7,000 orders, each worth about 248 RMB or approximately $34. 

“Opportunities are always fleeting,” says Feng. “As programmers, we are the first to feel the winds shift.”

Feng is among a small cohort of savvy early adopters turning China’s OpenClaw craze into cash. As users with little technical background want in, a cottage industry of people offering installation services and preconfigured hardware has sprung up to meet them. The sudden rise of these tinkerers and impromptu consultants shows just how eager the general public in China is to adopt cutting-edge AI—even when there are huge security risks. 

A “lobster craze”

“Have you raised a lobster yet?” 

Xie Manrui, a 36-year-old software engineer in Shenzhen, says he has heard this question nonstop over the past month. “Lobster” is the nickname Chinese users have given to OpenClaw—a reference to its logo.

Xie, like Feng, has been experimenting with OpenClaw since January. He’s built new open-source tools on top of the ecosystem, including one that visualizes the agent’s progress as an animated little desktop worker and another that lets users voice-chat with it. 

“I’ve met so many new people through ‘lobster raising,’” says Xie. “Many are lawyers or doctors, with little technical background, but all dedicated to learning new things.”

Lobsters are indeed popping up everywhere in China right now—on and offline. In February, for instance, the entrepreneur and tech influencer Fu Sheng hosted a livestream showing off OpenClaw’s capabilities that got 20,000 views. And just last weekend, Xie attended three different OpenClaw events in Shenzhen, each drawing more than 500 people. These self-organized, unofficial gatherings feature power users, influencers, and sometimes venture capitalists as speakers. The biggest event Xie attended, on March 7, drew more than 1,000 people; in the packed venue, he says, people were shoulder to shoulder, with many attendees unable to even get a seat.

Now China’s AI giants are starting to piggyback on the trend too, promoting their models, APIs,  and cloud services (which can be used with OpenClaw), as well as their own OpenClaw-like agents. Earlier this month, Tencent held a public event offering free installation support for OpenClaw, drawing long lines of people waiting for help, including elderly users and children.

This sudden burst in popularity has even prompted local governments to get involved. Earlier this month the government of Longgang, a district in Shenzhen, released several policies to support OpenClaw-related ventures, including free computing credits and cash rewards for standout projects. Other cities, including Wuxi, have begun rolling out similar measures.

These policies only catalyze what’s already in the air. “It was not until my father, who is 77, asked me to help install a ‘lobster’ for him that I realized this thing is truly viral,” says Henry Li, a software engineer based in Beijing. 

A programmer gold rush

What’s making this moment particularly lucrative for people with technical skills, like Feng, is that so many people want OpenClaw, but not nearly as many have the capabilities to access it. Setting it up requires a level of technical knowledge most people do not possess, from typing commands into a black terminal window to navigating unfamiliar developer platforms. On the hardware side, an older or budget laptop may struggle to run it smoothly. And if the tool is not installed on a device separate from someone’s everyday computer, or if the data accessible to OpenClaw is not properly partitioned, the user’s privacy could be at risk—opening the door to data leaks and even malicious attacks. 

Chris Zhao, known as “Qi Shifu” online, organizes OpenClaw social media groups and events in Beijing. On apps like Rednote and Jike, Zhao routinely shares his thoughts on AI, and he asks other interested users to leave their WeChat ID so he can invite them to a semi-private group chat. The proof required to join is a screenshot that shows your “lobster” up and running. Zhao says that even in group chats for experienced users, hardware and cloud setup remain a constant topic of discussion.

The relatively high bar for setting up OpenClaw has generated a sense of exclusivity, creating a natural opening for a service industry to start unfolding around it. On Chinese e-commerce platforms like Taobao and JD, a simple search for “OpenClaw” now returns hundreds of listings, most of them installation guides and technical support packages aimed at nontechnical users, priced anywhere from 100 to 700 RMB (approximately $15 to $100). At the higher end, many vendors offer to come to help you in person. 

Like Feng, most providers of these services are early adopters with some technical ability who are looking for a side gig. But as demand has surged, some have found themselves overwhelmed. Xie, the developer in Shenzhen who created tools to layer on OpenClaw, was asked by a friend who runs one such business to help out over the weekend; the friend had a customer who worked in e-commerce and had little technical experience, so Xie had to show up in person to get it done. He walked away with 600 RMB ($87) for the afternoon.

The growing demand has also pushed vendors like Feng to expand quickly. He has now standardized his operation into tiers: a basic installation, a custom package where users can make specific requests like configuring a preferred chat app, and an ongoing tutoring service for those who want a hand to hold as they find their footing with the technology.

Other vendors in China are making money combining OpenClaw with hardware. Li Gong, a Shenzhen-based seller of refurbished Mac computers, was among the first online sellers to do this—offering Mac minis and MacBooks with OpenClaw preinstalled. Because OpenClaw is designed to operate with deep access to a hard drive and can run continuously in the background unattended, many users prefer to install it on a separate device rather than on the one they use every day. This would help prevent bad actors from infiltrating the program and immediately gaining access to a wide swathe of someone’s personal information. Many turn to secondhand or refurbished options to keep the cost down. Li says that in the last two weeks, orders have increased eightfold.

Though OpenClaw itself is a new technology, the general practice of buying software bundles, downloading third-party packages, and seeking out modified devices is nothing new for many Chinese internet users, says Tianyu Fang, a PhD candidate studying the history of technology at Harvard University. Many users pay for one-off IT support services for tasks from installing Adobe software to jailbreaking a Kindle.

Still, not everyone is getting swept up. Jiang Yunhui, a tech worker based in Ningbo, worries that ordinary users who struggle with setup may not be the right audience for a technology that is still effectively in testing. 

“The hype in first-tier cities can be a little overblown,” he says. “The agent is still a proof of concept, and I doubt it would be of any life-changing use to the average person for now.” He argues that using it safely and getting anything meaningful out of it requires a level of technical fluency and independent judgment that most new users simply don’t have yet.

He’s not alone in his concerns. On March 10, the Chinese cybersecurity regulator CNCERT issued a warning about the security and data risks tied to OpenClaw, saying it heightens users’ exposure to data breaches.

Despite the potential pitfalls, though, China’s enthusiasm for OpenClaw doesn’t seem to be slowing.

Feng, now flush with the earnings from his operation, wants to use the momentum—and the capital—to keep building out his own venture with AI tools at the center of it.

“With OpenClaw and other AI agents, I want to see if I can run a one-person company,” he says. “I’m giving myself one year.”

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

“Anyone wanna host a get together in SF and pull this up on a 100 inch TV?” 

The author of that post on X was referring to an online intelligence dashboard following the US-Israel strikes against Iran in real time. Built by two people from the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, it combines open-source data like satellite imagery and ship tracking with a chat function, news feeds, and links to prediction markets, where people can bet on things like who Iran’s next “supreme leader” will be (the recent selection of Mojtaba Khamenei left some bettors with a payout). 

I’ve reviewed over a dozen other dashboards like this in the last week. Many were apparently “vibe-coded” in a couple of days with the help of AI tools, including one that got the attention of a founder of the intelligence giant Palantir, the platform through which the US military is accessing AI models like Claude during the war. Some were built before the conflict in Iran, but nearly all of them are being advertised by their creators as a way to beat the slow and ineffective media by getting straight to the truth of what’s happening on the ground. “Just learned more in 30 seconds watching this map than reading or watching any major news network,” one commenter wrote on LinkedIn, responding to a visualization of Iran’s airspace being shut down before the strikes.

Much of the spotlight on AI and the Iran conflict has rightfully been on the role that models like Claude might be playing in helping the US military make decisions about where to strike. But these intelligence dashboards and the ecosystem surrounding them reflect a new role that AI is playing in wartime: mediating information, often for the worse.

There’s a confluence of factors at play. AI coding tools mean people don’t need much technical skill to assemble open-source intelligence anymore, and chatbots can offer fast, if dubious, analysis of it. The rise in fake content leaves observers of the war wanting the sort of raw, accurate analysis normally accessible only to intelligence agencies. Demand for these dashboards is also driven by real-time prediction markets that promise financial rewards to anyone sufficiently informed. And the fact that the US military is using Anthropic’s Claude in the conflict (despite its designation as a supply chain risk) has signaled to observers that AI is the intelligence tool the pros use. Together, these trends are creating a new kind of AI-enabled wartime circus that can distort the flow of information as much as it clarifies it.

As a journalist, I believe these sorts of intelligence tools have a lot of promise. While many of us know that real-time data on shipping routes or power outages exist, it’s a powerful thing to actually see it all assembled in one place (though using it to watch a war unfold while you munch on popcorn and place bets turns the war into perverse entertainment). But there are real reasons to think that these sorts of raw data feeds are not as informative as they may feel. 

Craig Silverman, a digital investigations expert who teaches investigative techniques, has been keeping a log of these dashboards (he’s up to 20). “The concern,” he says, “is there’s an illusion of being on top of things and being in control, where all you’re really doing is just pulling in a ton of signals and not necessarily understanding what you’re seeing, or being able to pull out true insights from it.” 

One problem has to do with the quality of the information. Many dashboards feature “intel feeds” with AI-generated summaries of complex, ever-changing news events. These can introduce inaccuracies. By design, the data is not especially curated. Instead, the feeds just display everything at once, with a map of strike locations in Iran next to the prices of obscure cryptocurrencies. 

Intelligence agencies, on the other hand, pair data feeds with people who can offer expertise and historical context. They also, of course, have access to proprietary information that doesn’t show up on the open web. 

The implicit promise from the people building and selling this sort of information pipeline about the Iran conflict is that AI can be a great democratizing force. There’s a secret feed of information that only the elites have had access to, the thinking goes, but now AI can bring it to everyone to do with what they wish, whether that’s simply to be more informed or to make bets on nuclear strikes. But an abundance of information, which AI is undeniably good at assembling, does not come with the accuracy or context required for real understanding. Intelligence agencies do this in-house; good journalism does the same work for the rest of us.

It is, by the way, hard to overstate the connection this all has with betting markets. The dashboard created by the pair at Andreessen Horowitz has a scrolling list of bets being made on the prediction platform Kalshi (which Andreessen Horowitz has invested in). Other dashboards link to Polymarket, offering bets on whether the US will strike Iraq or when Iran’s internet will return.

AI has also long made it cheaper and easier to spread fake content, and that problem is on full display during the Iran conflict: last week the Financial Times found a slew of AI-generated satellite imagery spreading online. 

“The emergence of manipulated or outright fake satellite imagery is really concerning,” Silverman says. The average person tends to see such imagery as very trustworthy. The spread of such fakes could erode confidence in one of the most important pieces of evidence used to show what’s actually happening in the war. 

The result is an ocean of AI-enabled content—dashboards, betting markets, photos both real and fake—that makes this war harder, not easier, to comprehend.

The ongoing public feud between the Department of Defense and the AI company Anthropic has raised a deep and still unanswered question: Does the law actually allow the US government to conduct mass surveillance on Americans?

Surprisingly, the answer is not straightforward. More than a decade after Edward Snowden exposed the NSA’s collection of bulk metadata from the phones of Americans, the US is still navigating a gap between what ordinary people think and what the law allows. 

The flashpoint in the standoff between Anthropic and the government was the Pentagon’s desire to use Anthropic’s AI Claude to analyze bulk commercial data on Americans. Anthropic demanded that its AI not be used for mass domestic surveillance (or for autonomous weapons, which are machines that can kill targets without human oversight). A week after negotiations broke down, the Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, a label typically reserved for foreign companies that pose a threat to national security. 

Meanwhile, OpenAI, the rival AI company behind ChatGPT, sealed a deal that allowed the Pentagon to use its AI for “all lawful purposes”—language that critics say left the door open to domestic surveillance. Over the following weekend, users uninstalled ChatGPT in droves. Protesters chalked messages around OpenAI’s headquarters in San Francisco: “What are your redlines?” 

OpenAI announced on Monday that it had reworked its deal to make sure that its AI will not be used for domestic surveillance. The company added that its services will not be used by intelligence agencies, such as the NSA. 

CEO Sam Altman suggested that existing law prohibits domestic surveillance by the Department of Defense (now sometimes called the Department of War) and that OpenAI’s contract simply needed to reference this law. “The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement,” he wrote on X. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argued the opposite. “To the extent that such surveillance is currently legal, this is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI,” he wrote in a policy statement. 

So, who is right? Does the law allow the Pentagon to surveil Americans using AI?

Supercharged surveillance

The answer depends on what we think counts as surveillance. “A lot of stuff that normal people would consider a search or surveillance … is not actually considered a search or surveillance by the law,” says Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. That means public information—such as social media posts, surveillance camera footage, and voter registration records—is fair game. So is information on Americans picked up incidentally from surveillance of foreign nationals. 

Most notably, the government can purchase commercial data from companies, which can include sensitive personal information like mobile location and web browsing records. In recent years, agencies from ICE and IRS to the FBI and NSA have increasingly tapped into this data marketplace, fueled by an internet economy that harvests user data for advertising. These data sets can let the government access information that might not be available without a warrant or subpoena, which are normally required to obtain sensitive personal data.

“There’s a huge amount of information that the government can collect on Americans that is not itself regulated either by the Constitution, which is the Fourth Amendment, or statute,” says Rozenshtein. And there aren’t meaningful limits on what the government can do with all this data. 

That’s because until the last several decades, people weren’t generating massive clouds of data that opened up new possibilities for surveillance. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, was written when collecting information meant entering people’s homes. 

Subsequent laws, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, were passed when surveillance involved wiretapping phone calls and intercepting emails. The bulk of laws governing surveillance were on the books before the internet took off. We weren’t generating vast trails of online data, and the government didn’t have sophisticated tools to analyze the data. 

Now we do, and AI supercharges what kind of surveillance can be carried out. “What AI can do is it can take a lot of information, none of which is by itself sensitive, and therefore none of which by itself is regulated, and it can give the government a lot of powers that the government didn’t have before,” says Rozenshtein. 

AI can aggregate individual pieces of information to spot patterns, draw inferences, and build detailed profiles of people—at massive scale. And as long as the government collects the information lawfully, it can do whatever it wants with that information, including feeding it to AI systems. “The law has not caught up with technological reality,” says Rozenshtein.

While surveillance can raise serious privacy concerns, the Pentagon can have legitimate national security interests in collecting and analyzing data on Americans. “In order to collect information on Americans, it has to be for a very specific subset of missions,” says Loren Voss, a former military intelligence officer at the Pentagon. 

For example, a counterintelligence mission might require information about an American who is working for a foreign country, or plotting to engage in international terrorist activities. But targeted intelligence can sometimes stretch into collecting more data. “This kind of collection does make people nervous,” says Voss. 

Lawful use

OpenAI has amended its contract to say that the company’s AI system “shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals,” in line with relevant laws. The amendment clarifies that this prohibits “deliberate tracking, surveillance or monitoring of U.S. persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information.”

But the added language might not do much to override the clause that the Pentagon may use the company’s AI system for all lawful purposes, which could include collecting and analyzing sensitive personal information. “OpenAI can say whatever it wants in its agreement … but the Pentagon’s gonna use the tech for what it perceives to be lawful,” says Jessica Tillipman, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School. That could include domestic surveillance. “Most of the time, companies are not going to be able to stop the Pentagon from doing anything,” she says.

The language also leaves open questions about “inadvertent” surveillance, and the surveillance of foreign nationals or undocumented immigrants living in the US. “What happens when there’s a disagreement about what the law is, or when the law changes?” says Tillipman.

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment. The company has not publicly shared the full text of its new contract. 

Beyond the contract, OpenAI says that it will impose technical safeguards to enforce its red line against surveillance, including a “safety stack” that monitors and blocks prohibited uses. The company also says it will deploy its own employees to work with the Pentagon and remain in the loop. But it’s unclear how a safety stack would constrain the Pentagon’s use of the AI, and to what extent OpenAI’s employees would have visibility into how its AI systems are used. More important, it’s unclear whether the contract gives OpenAI the power to block a legal use of the technology. 

But that might not be a bad thing. Giving an AI company power to pull the plug on its technology in the middle of government operations also carries its own risks. “You wouldn’t want the US military to ever be in a situation where they legitimately needed to take actions to protect this country’s national security, and you had a private company turn off technology,” says Voss. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be hard lines drawn by Congress, she says.

None of these questions are simple. They involve brutally difficult trade-offs between privacy and national security. And that’s why perhaps they should be decided by the public—not in backroom negotiations between the executive branch and a handful of AI companies. For now, military AI is being regulated by contracts, not legislation. 

Some lawmakers are starting to weigh in. On Monday, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon will seek bipartisan support for legislation addressing mass surveillance. He has championed bills restricting the government’s purchase of commercial data, including the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which was first introduced in 2021 but has not been passed into law. “Creating AI profiles of Americans based on that data represents a chilling expansion of mass surveillance that should not be allowed,” he said in a recent statement.