Insurance claims adjusters have never had a reputation for generosity. But at least they were human. That’s changing fast, and not in your favor. A report by Futurism details how AI automation is now a major trend in personal insurance, the health, home, and auto coverage most of us rely on. 

Is your doctor’s opinion even part of the process anymore?

It doesn’t seem that your doctor’s opinion carries that much weight now. A Palm Beach Post investigation found that Iris Smith, an 80-year-old suffering from arthritis, may be a victim of AI-fueled preauthorization denials.

In another case, UnitedHealth is currently facing a class-action lawsuit alleging that AI-denied Medicare nursing care contributed to patient deaths. Meanwhile, a National Association of Insurance Commissioners survey found 84% of health insurers are using AI, with 68% deploying it for prior authorization approvals.

Most people give up and don’t even appeal these rejections because the process is too confusing or exhausting, which, if you’re an insurance company, is the outcome you want.

The worst part is that we know AI isn’t always accurate and has a tendency to hallucinate. It’s one thing if it makes a mistake while writing a report, but it’s a completely different ball game when it ends up denying medical aid to someone who truly needs it.

Is there anyone protecting your interests?

Florida Representative Lois Frankel isn’t having any of it. She told the Palm Beach Post she plans to fight any expansion into other states. “We believe Medicare was based on a promise that if your doctor says you need care, if you’re hurt and you need care, Medicare will be there for you, not AI.”

But if the past is any indication, her fight alone won’t be enough. Florida lawmakers tried to pass a bill in 2025, requiring human review for AI-generated denials. It passed the House, died in the Senate, and a Trump executive order discouraging state AI regulations didn’t help.

The silver lining, if you can call it that: nonprofits like Counterforce Health now offer free AI tools that analyze your denial letter and draft a customized appeal, making it easier to fight back. It’s AI versus AI at this point, and the world is growing gloomier by the day.

from the hype-without-substance dept

There is a familiar media failure in which opposing viewpoints are presented as equally valid, even when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one side. It’s called Bothsidesism. This false balance phenomenon legitimizes misinformation and undermines public understanding by giving disproportionate weight to baseless claims.

Why bring this up? Because the new AI Doc film is based on it.

The film wants credit for being “balanced” because it assembles a wide range of experts. But putting Prof. Fei-Fei Li, a pioneering computer scientist, next to someone like Eliezer Yudkowsky, an author of a Harry Potter fanfic, is not “balance.”

Once you understand that false equivalence is baked into the film’s storytelling, you understand how misleading and manipulative the documentary is. And it is compounded by a series of falsehoods that go unchallenged and uncorrected.

This review addresses both failures. 

The “AI Doc” Movie

“The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist,” co-directed by Daniel Roher and Charlie Tyrell, sets out to explore AI, especially its potential for good and bad, with a strong emphasis on the filmmakers’ anxieties and fears. Its basic premise is: “A father-to-be tries to figure out what is happening with all this AI insanity.” As summarized by Andrew Maynard from Future of Being Human:

“The documentary progresses through the eyes of director Daniel Roher as he faces a tsunami of existential AI angst while grappling with the responsibility of becoming a father. Motivated by a fear that artificial intelligence could spell the end of everything that matters, he sets out to interview some of the largest (and loudest) voices in AI to fathom out whether this is the best of times or worst of times for him and his wife (filmmaker Caroline Lindy) to bring a kid into the world.”

The “loudest voices” include many AI doomer figures, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, Dan Hendrycks, Daniel Kokotajlo, Connor Leahy, Jeffrey Ladish, and two of the most populist voices on emerging tech (first social media and now AI): Tristan Harris and Yuval Noah Harari. The film also features voices on AI ethics, including David Evan Haris, Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Deborah Raji, and Karen Hao. On the more boosterish side, there are Peter Diamandis and Guillaume Verdon (AKA Beff Jezos). Three leading AI CEOs were also interviewed: OpenAI’s Sam Altman, DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic’s Amodei siblings, Dario and Daniela. (Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg declined, and xAI’s Elon Musk agreed but never showed up).

The movie started playing in theaters on March 27, but there are already plenty of reviews (dating back to the Sundance Film Festival). The praise is fairly consistent: It is timely, wide-ranging, visually energetic, and unusually well-connected, with access to major AI figures.

The most common criticism is that it is too deferential to interviewees and too thin on hard interrogation or concrete answers. As several reviewers put it:

1. “Roher’s willingness to blindly accept any and all of his speakers’ pronouncements leaves The AI Doc feeling toothless.”
2. “By giving its doomer and accelerationist voices so much time to present AI’s most hyperbolic potential outcomes with little pushback, the documentary’s first half plays more like an overlong advertisement for the technology as opposed to a piece of measured analysis.”
3. “Roher acts as a fantastic storyteller, but he treats his subjects too gently. The film desperately needs more pushback during the interviews.”

Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, told the AP: “My hope is that this film is kind of like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ or ‘The Social Dilemma’ for AI.”

That is not reassuring. It is more like a glaring warning sign. Harris’s “Social Dilemma” and “AI Dilemma” movies were full of misinformation and nonsensical hyperbole, and both were designed to be manipulative and dishonest. If anything, his endorsement tells you exactly what kind of movie this is.

After watching the AI Doc, I realized what the doomers had managed to accomplish here: The film absorbs the panic rather than investigates it.

The False Balance of The AI Doc

The AI Doc starts with what one reviewer called a “Doom Parade.” It aims to set the tone.

“The worst AI predictions are presented first,” another reviewer noted. “Eliezer Yudkowsky, co-founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, calmly talks of the ‘abrupt extermination’ of humanity.”

And it is worth remembering who Yudkowsky is and what he has actually advocated. In his notorious TIME op-ed, “Shut it All Down,” he argued that governments should “be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.” In his book “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which many reviewers found unconvincing and “unnecessarily dramatic sci-fi,” he (and his co-author Nate Soares) proposed that governments must bomb labs suspected of developing AI. Based on what exactly? On the authors’ overconfident, binary worldview and speculative scenarios, which they mistake for inevitability.

One review of that book observed, “The plan with If Anyone Builds It seems to be to sane-wash him [Yudkowsky] for the airport books crowd, sanding off his wild opinions.”

That is more or less what the new documentary does, too. The AI Doc sane-washes the loudest doomers for mainstream viewers, sanding off their wild opinions.

In his newsletter, David William Silva addresses the documentary’s “series of doomers,” who “describe AI-driven extinction with the calm confidence of people who have said these things so many times they have stopped noticing they have no evidence for them.”

“Roher’s reaction is full terror,” Silva adds. “I hope it is unequivocally evident that this is not journalism.”

That gets to the heart of it. The film pretends to weigh competing perspectives, but in practice, it grants disproportionate authority to people most invested in flooding the zone with AI panic. And there is a well-oiled machine behind this kind of AI panic. As Silva writes:

“The people behind the AI anxiety machine. […] They know that predicting human extinction by software is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. They know they don’t have it. They know ‘my kids won’t live to see middle age’ is nothing but performance. […] And they do it anyway. Why do you think that is? The calculation is simple. Some people will see through it, and they will be annoyed, write rebuttals, call it what it is. Ok, fine. Just an acceptable loss. The believers, on the other hand, are a market. As long as the ratio stays favorable, the machine is profitable.”

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this film is Harris.[¹] He is framed as if he is in the middle between the two main camps (doomers and accelerationists), and his narrative gradually becomes the film’s narrative (similar to the Social Dilemma). His call to action even serves as the ending (with a QR code directing viewers to a designated website).

The problem is that this framing has very little to do with reality. Harris’s Center for Humane Technology got $500,000 from the Future of Life Institute for “AI-related policy work and messaging cohesion within the AI X-risk [existential risk] community.” That is not a neutral player.

There’s a touching scene in the film where Roher mentions his father’s cancer treatment and expresses hope that AI might help. Harris appears visibly emotional. But in other contexts, Harris has argued against looking at AI for help with cancer treatment… in the belief that it would lead to extinction. Here he is on Glenn Beck’s show in 2023:

“My mother died from cancer several years ago. And if you told me that we could have AI that was going to cure her of cancer, but on the other side of that coin was that all the world would go extinct a year later, because of the, the only way to develop that was to bring something, some Demon into the world that would we would not be able to control, as much as I love my mother, and I would want her to be here with me right now, I wouldn’t take that trade.”

That sort of hyperbole seems relevant to Harris’ stance on such things, but was not mentioned in the film at all.

Connor Leahy of Conjecture and ControlAI gets a similar makeover. In the documentary, he appears as another pessimistic expert. Elsewhere, he said he does not expect humanity “to make it out of this century alive; I’m not even sure we’ll get out of this decade!” His “Narrow Path” proposal for policymakers begins with the claim that “AI poses extinction risks to human existence.” Instead of calling for a six-month AI pause, he argued for a 20-year pause, because “two decades provide the minimum time frame to construct our defenses.”

This is exactly why background checks matter. Viewers of the AI Doc deserve to know the full scope of the more extreme positions these interviewees have publicly taken elsewhere. If someone has publicly argued for destroying data centers by airstrikes or stopping AI for 20 years, the audience should know that.

Debunking the Falsehoods

The film goes way beyond just pushing a panic. It also recycles several misleading or plainly false claims, letting them pass as established facts. Three stood out in particular.  

Anthropic’s Blackmail study

One of the most repeated “facts” in reviews of the movie is that Anthropic’s AI model, Clause, decided, unprompted, to blackmail a fictional employee. In the film, Daniel Roher asks, “And nobody taught it to do that?” Jeffrey Ladish, of Palisade Research and Tristan’s Center for Humane Technology, replies: “No, it learned to do that on its own.”

That is a misleading characterization of the actual experiment, it has already been debunked in “AI Blackmail: Fact-Checking a Misleading Narrative.” Anthropic researchers admitted that they strongly pressured the model and iterated through hundreds of prompts before producing that outcome. It wasn’t a spontaneous emergence of “evil” behavior; the researchers explicitly ensured it would be the default. Telling viewers that the model has gone full “HAL 9000” omits the facts about the heavily engineered experimental setup.  

Although this is a classic case of big claims and thin evidence, the film offers so little pushback that viewers are left to take Ladish’s statements at face value.

It is also worth remembering that Ladish has fought against open-source AI, pushed for a crackdown on open-source models, and once said, “We can prevent the release of a LLaMA 2! We need government action on this asap.” He later updated his position (and it’s good to revise such views). But does the film mention his earlier public hysteria? No.

Is AI less regulated than sandwich shops? No.

Connor Leahy tells Daniel Roher, “There is currently more regulation on selling a sandwich to the public” than there is on AI development. This talking point has become a favorite slogan in AI doomer circles. It was repeatedly stated by The Future of Life Institute’s Max Tegmark and, more recently, by Senator Bernie Sanders. It’s catchy. It’s also false.

State attorneys general from both parties have explicitly argued that existing laws already apply to AI. Lina Khan, writing on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, stated that “AI is covered by existing laws. Each agency here today has legal authorities to readily combat AI-driven harm.” The existing AI regulatory stack already includes antitrust & competition regulation, civil rights & anti-discrimination law, consumer protection, data privacy & security, employment & labor law, financial regulation, insurance & accident compensation, property & contract law, among others.

So no, AI is not less regulated than sandwich shops. It’s a misleading soundbite, not a serious description of legal reality.  

Data center water usage

In the film, Karen Hao criticizes data centers, warning that “People are literally at risk, potentially of running out of drinking water.” That sounds alarming, which is presumably the point. But it is highly misleading.

In fact, Karen Hao had to issue corrections to her “Empire of AI” book because a key water-use figure was off by a factor of 4,500. The discrepancy was not 45x or 450x, but rather 4,500x. That is not a rounding error. For detailed rebuttals, see Andy Masley’s “The AI water issue is fake” and “Empire of AI is widely misleading about AI water use.”

There is also a basic proportionality issue here. As demonstrated by The Washington Post, “The water used by data centers caused a stir in Arizona’s drought-prone Maricopa County. But while they used about 905 million gallons there last year, that’s a small fraction of the 29 billion gallons devoted to the country’s golf courses.” To put that plainly: data centers accounted for just 0.1% of the county’s water use.

It is also worth noting that “most of the water used by data centers returns to its source unchanged.” In closed-loop cooling systems, for example, water is recirculated multiple times, which significantly reduces net consumption. 

None of this is hidden information. A basic fact-check by the filmmakers could have brought it to light. But that was not the film’s goal. They chose fear-based framing over actual reporting. They could have pressed interviewees on their track records, failed predictions, and political agendas. Instead, they let them narrate the stakes, unchallenged.

So, I think we can conclude that the AI Doc may want to appear balanced and thoughtful, but, unfortunately, too often it is not.

Final Remark

While Western filmmakers are busy platforming advocates for “bombing data centers” and “Stop AI for 20 years,” the Chinese Communist Party is building the actual infrastructure. The CCP is not making doom-and-gloom documentaries; it is racing ahead. This is a real strategic threat, and it is far more concerning than anything featured in this film.

—————————

Dr. Nirit Weiss-Blatt, Ph.D. (@DrTechlash), is a communication researcher and author of “The TECHLASH and Tech Crisis Communication” book and the “AI Panic” newsletter.

Filed Under: ai, ai doomerism, daniel roher, eliezer yudkowsky, the ai doc, tristan harris

Last June, Mia Ballard’s self-published novel Shy Girl took the internet by storm. After winning the hearts of readers and publisher Hachette alike, it was set for a major US debut in the coming months. 

Now, the novel may never become available through any official channel again. Hachette has officially pulled the plug on the novel’s US release following a wave of allegations that generative AI played a role in the manuscript’s creation. 

Originally self-published in February 2025, the horror novel was traditionally released by Hachette’s science fiction and fantasy label Orbit in the UK in November. After The New York Times provided evidence of AI usage in Shy Girl, Hachette canceled the planned spring US release and removed the book from its website completely.

“Hachette remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling,” the publisher said in a statement to the Times. 

Authors are required to disclose to Hachette whether AI was used in the creation of their work. Ballard has denied using AI tools to write the book, claiming an editor was responsible for the portions that appear to be AI-generated.

“My name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do,” Ballard wrote in an email to the New York Times.

Advertisement

The cancellation of Shy Girl by Hachette marks the first time a major publisher has publicly pulled an existing title due to suspicions of AI-generated prose.

For the past few months, readers online have raised concerns about the book’s apparent use of AI.

A video from YouTuber frankie’s shelf provides a lengthy analysis of the novel, pointing out linguistic patterns that are characteristic of AI writing. The video also lists words in Shy Girl that are repeated with unusual frequency (“edge” is used 84 times and “sharp” 159 times), often in ways that are abstract and nonsensical.

In January, Max Spero, founder and chief executive of Pangram, ran the text of Shy Girl through his AI detection program. He claimed that the novel was 78% AI-generated.

The rise of AI has caught the publishing industry off guard. Though AI writing has already appeared in many self-published books, traditional publishers like Hachette are more critical of the technology.

Representatives for Hachette didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Slapping the Xteink X3 onto an iPhone takes only a few seconds. This is owing in part to its built-in magnets, which exactly align with MagSafe and allow it to be easily snapped into place. You get a thin black or white slab that sits flush against the phone’s back without adding any bulk. Anyone who is continually reaching for their phone dozens of times per day would appreciate having a book right at their fingertips, all from the same move.

At only 58 grams, this device is easy to forget about until you need it, and then, as if by magic, it appears. Its overall size is a modest 100mm long and 60mm wide, so it goes unnoticed in a pocket until reading time beckons. Commuters and individuals waiting in lines can just pull out their phones and start reading a chapter without having to dig through their bags for another device.

XTEINK X4 E-Book Reader, 4.3″ Portable Pocket E-Ink eReader with Physical Page-Turn Buttons, Ultra-Thin…

• Pocket-Size Mini eReader for Reading Anywhere: Ultra-light at just 0.23 inch and only 2.72 oz, Xteink X4 is designed for true portability. Slip it…
• 4.3″ Paper-Like E-Ink Display: The 4.3-inch E-Ink screen delivers a natural paper-like reading experience that’s gentle on the eyes. Enjoy clear…
• Magnetic-Ready Design for Quick Access: Includes magnetic stick-on rings, so you can attach Xteink X4 to the back of your phone or other magnetic…

The 3.7-inch E Ink screen displays clear text, with over 250 pixels per inch. You can easily change the font size with a few simple adjustments, so even the smallest pages provide a comfortable reading experience. With adequate lighting, the characters simply pop, and there is no eye strain to contend with, as opposed to phone screens. You also have real buttons on the sides and bottom for turning pages and accessing menus. One-handed operation feels perfectly normal, whether you’re on a train or confined in bed. The gyroscope within detects even the tiniest shake and flips pages forward, allowing you to maintain a solid grip during those rapid reading periods.

Navigation is straightforward, with a grid of icons instead of swipes or touches. Choose a book or change the settings with a few presses, and it remains dependable even when your fingers are clumsy. The strategy minimizes distractions and allows you to concentrate on the words themselves. You can load books onto the device using either the 16GB microSD card included in the box or a companion app on your phone. Transferring EPUB files is quick and easy over Wi-Fi or by inserting the card into your computer, and storage increases up to 512 gigabytes, allowing you to carry thousands of titles without running out of space.

The battery will last you 10 to 14 days on a single charge, even if you only read for an hour or two every day, and charging is simple; simply insert the special cable with magnetic pogo pins into the gadget and it will clip right into place. Okay, there is one little flaw: there is no built-in front light (yet), but you can get a separate clip-on version for only $9.99 if you plan on reading late into the evening. If you need more connectivity, there are Bluetooth and NFC connections available, as well as Wi-Fi for the occasional update or transfer. It’s available now on the official Xteink website and can be purchased for $79.
[Source]

Artificial intelligence is no longer a back office enabler or a set of isolated automation software tools. It is becoming a core component of how organizations operate, compete, and deliver value.

As businesses accelerate their adoption of increasingly autonomous systems, often referred to as agentic AI, a significant leadership dilemma is emerging. The workforce is no longer exclusively human.