eric

Jazz Thornton looked out her window and saw the man from her DMs. He’d flown 11,000 miles to find her. She called the cops. By the time they arrived, the bench was empty. Then he messaged again. He’d f#cking SEEN them arrive. Jazz had no idea where he’d been watching from. He’d been in her Instagram DMs for weeks. When she didn’t reply, he told her housemate he was flying to New Zealand. Then he tagged Jazz in a Story holding a book only sold in New Zealand. He’d made it. A bag of Dutch snacks and two letters appeared outside her house. Jazz checked the signature. It was him. While Jazz waited for police, her housemate crawled to the blinds so he wouldn’t see her. A police letter quoted by 7NEWS says how long he spent watching Jazz through the windows. About an HOUR. Jazz and her housemates went to a hotel. The next morning, he messaged her housemate again. The last line read, “I hope to see you in the next life soon.” Jazz feared he’d hurt himself. Detectives feared he meant to kill her too. They arrested him near her house. Jazz later learned he’d withdrawn cash, rented a white van and gotten another phone. New Zealand had no standalone stalking offense at the time. Police gave him a harassment warning, barred him from her property and let him go. How did he find her house? There was a bridge in the background of one of her TikToks. He identified it with Google’s reverse image search. Then he matched old footage from her balcony with images on Google Earth. That gave him her address. Days later, he left the country on his own. Jazz backed the campaign to change the law. In May 2026, New Zealand made stalking a standalone criminal offense. Jazz stopped posting in real time. She added her address and the places she goes to her social media filters. Two years later, she still scans crowds for his face. After that, how would it feel to open the blinds in your own home?

Elon Musk’s Grok gave a woman a sexualized photo with her own face on it. She says it took less than 30 f#cking seconds. Then she held it up at the very hearing where the company was explaining its safeguards against deepfakes like this. The woman holding the phone is Julie Menin, the speaker of the New York City Council. Musk’s company skipped the first hearing. The council issued a subpoena to get it to show up for the second. Menin asked a SpaceXAI rep if Grok could show a real person in a sexualized image. The rep said Grok had strict safeguards. Menin already had an answer on her phone. That morning, her team had taken her official headshot and opened the free version of Grok. She said they kept going after the first image. Grok accepted follow-up requests, and the pictures got more explicit. Menin said her daughter would be horrified to see a picture like that of her mom. The rep apologized and offered to have the safety team look into it. Then Devin Kim took the mic. He was one of xAI’s first employees and helped build the systems used to train and test Grok. Kim said roughly 200 technical staff worked on the model during his time there. Three people worked on safety. He said the guidance he got back then allowed “tasteful nudity.” Who the f#ck decided what counted as tasteful? Kim said nobody was clearly assigned to make that call. He said he couldn’t speak to the company’s current rules. It started with a normal headshot. The kind you put on your profile so people recognize you. What the f#ck would stop Grok from doing to your photo what it did to Menin’s?

Sam Altman’s sister went to court and accused him of sexually abusing her as a child. The OpenAI CEO sued HER back. Then he asked the judge to dismiss his own claims, but only on one f#cking condition. The judge agreed. Annie alleged the abuse began when she was 3 and Sam was 12. Sam denies the allegations. In March, the judge threw out some of her claims as too late but let her amend her complaint. Most of Sam’s counterclaims stayed in the case. Annie had to make her own case and defend herself against his. Then Sam’s lawyers sought an independent medical exam. The judge ordered Annie to attend in person. She could go to Boston instead of St. Louis. A nurse could be in the room. The judge even said Annie could knit during the exam. Annie says she couldn’t fly after surgery. She offered to do the exam over video or closer to home. The judge counted 3 missed exams. The order also cites documents Annie hadn’t turned over on time. He found she was deliberately delaying the case. The last deadline passed on October 16. Three days later, the judge signed the order. Two days after that, Annie went on camera to explain why she hadn’t gone. There are two numbers in the last paragraph of the order. 109 and 150. Sam filed both motions. In the first, he asked the judge to dismiss his sister’s claims. In the second, he asked to dismiss his own counterclaims. But only if the judge dismissed hers first. Here’s what gets lost in the f#cking headline that both were dismissed. Annie’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. She can’t file those same claims again. Sam’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. He still has the option to bring them again. Annie’s case ended during discovery. If Sam files again, she could be back in court defending herself. Would you keep talking if telling the same story could get you f#cking sued?

A man filmed a woman with Zuckerberg’s glasses without her knowing. People she hadn’t heard from in years sent her the clip. She reckons it got over 200,000 views. Now imagine opening that message and seeing your own f#cking face. Her name is Toluwa Omitowoju. A stranger filmed her for a pickup prank. She told CBS nobody asked her permission to post it. There's a white light on the frame. It's supposed to warn you that the person in front of you is already recording. A CBS reporter tested that safeguard in August. She covered the light mid-recording, and the f#cking thing kept filming. In September, Meta said it updated the glasses. The company says the camera now shuts off if it detects tampering, even after recording starts. Then senators wrote to Zuckerberg. There's a detail on page 64 of Meta's own report. Before the first glasses launched, the company considered whether people with impaired vision could see the signal. The letter asks about another mode. The glasses can use the camera to answer an AI query. How did Meta test cases where the outward-facing light stays off? Workers at a Meta contractor in Kenya told reporters they'd seen footage of people changing clothes and using the bathroom. Meta ended its work with that contractor. The company says it gets user consent for humans to review AI content. The user gives consent. You could be the one in the frame. Senators asked Zuckerberg for the names of the contractors, the countries where footage is reviewed, and the contract terms for keeping and sharing it. Toluwa's clip was eventually taken down. At least someone sent her a link. By November 25, senators want to know whether someone caught on camera can ask Meta to delete their data. How the f#ck do you ask to delete footage you don't even know exists?