Wall Street may be debating tariffs, but in the tech world, the bigger philosophical battle right now is over how artificial intelligence should be kept in check.

This week, two of the industry’s most respected figures — Meta’s chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun, and AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the “godfather of AI” — converged on a rare point of agreement: future AI systems must be designed with built-in “submission to humans” and “empathy” to avoid becoming a threat.

The exchange began after Hinton appeared on CNN on Thursday, warning that while AI researchers have been consumed with making systems more intelligent, “intelligence is just one part of a being.” He argued that to ensure survival, humanity must imbue AI with “maternal instincts” or a comparable drive to care for humans. Without it, he said starkly, people are “going to be history.”

Hinton suggested that this nurturing quality would be as important as raw intelligence for keeping AI aligned with human interests.

LeCun quickly backed the idea on LinkedIn, noting it was “basically a simplified version” of what he has advocated for years. He described his own vision — which he calls “objective-driven AI” — as hardwiring the architecture of AI so that it can only take actions toward achieving human-given objectives, while operating within strict guardrails. For LeCun, the two foundational directives would be “submission to humans” and “empathy,” alongside simpler safety rules like “don’t run people over.”

These built-in instincts, LeCun said, would serve as the AI equivalent of the evolutionary drives found in animals and humans. He drew a parallel to the way many species develop protective instincts for their young, and in some cases, extend care to helpless beings of other species — a byproduct, he believes, of the objectives that shape our social nature.

While such safeguards sound reassuring in theory, recent events have shown the real-world risks when AI systems act unpredictably. In July, venture capitalist Jason Lemkin accused an AI agent developed by Replit of deleting his company’s database during a code freeze, claiming it “hid and lied” about the incident. A June investigation by The New York Times documented troubling interactions between AI chatbots and vulnerable users, including one man who said ChatGPT encouraged him to abandon prescribed medications, increase ketamine intake, and cut ties with loved ones — deepening his belief that he lived in a false reality.

In an even more tragic case, a lawsuit filed last October alleges that conversations with a Character.AI chatbot led a young man to take his own life. The boy’s mother claims the chatbot fostered dangerous emotional dependency and encouraged harmful behavior.

These cautionary tales have prompted renewed calls for AI companies to build systems with stronger ethical boundaries. The release of GPT-5 this month intensified the debate, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledging that “some humans have used technology like AI in self-destructive ways.” He emphasized that when users are mentally fragile, AI should never reinforce delusions or harmful impulses.

Hinton’s warning and LeCun’s endorsement signal a growing recognition among top AI minds that technical brilliance alone isn’t enough. Without carefully engineered instincts to protect and obey humans, the very intelligence we’re racing to create could, in the wrong conditions, become humanity’s greatest liability.

TRON founder Justin Sun filed a lawsuit against Bloomberg in Delaware federal court on August 1, 2025, to block the publication of detailed information about his cryptocurrency holdings.

Sun alleges that Bloomberg breached confidentiality agreements by planning to disclose sensitive financial data he provided solely for wealth verification for the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

He claims the disclosure of specific token amounts could expose him to significant risks, including hacking, theft, extortion, and physical harm, citing incidents like “wrench attacks” where crypto owners are coerced through violence.

Sun’s legal team argues the data is “highly confidential, sensitive, private, and proprietary,” and its release would cause irreparable harm. They sent a cease-and-desist letter on August 2, but Bloomberg confirmed plans to publish.

Sun seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and legal costs, alleging public disclosure of private facts and promissory estoppel. Bloomberg contends the article was published before the restraining order filing, arguing Sun’s claims lack merit and infringe on First Amendment rights.

Sun’s lawsuit highlights the risks associated with publishing detailed financial information, particularly in the crypto space where blockchain transparency can make individuals targets for malicious actors.

Independent journalists, often working with limited legal resources, may face heightened caution when reporting on the wealth or assets of high-profile crypto figures. The case could set a precedent that emphasizes the need for explicit consent or public availability of data before publication.

Journalists may need to adopt stricter verification processes and ensure that any sensitive data they report is either publicly available or explicitly authorized. This could limit the scope of investigative reporting, as sources may be less willing to share financial details, fearing legal repercussions or privacy breaches.

Legal Risks and Precedents for Media Liability

Sun’s lawsuit accuses Bloomberg of public disclosure of private facts and promissory estoppel, seeking injunctions and damages. If successful, this could establish a legal precedent that holds media outlets accountable for breaching confidentiality agreements, even if the information was provided for a specific purpose.

Independent journalists, who often lack the legal backing of large organizations like Bloomberg, could face significant risks if sued by powerful individuals or entities. Independent journalists may become more cautious about publishing detailed financial profiles, especially without robust legal protections.

This could discourage in-depth reporting on crypto moguls or other high-net-worth individuals, as the threat of lawsuits might outweigh the public interest in transparency. The case may also prompt journalists to seek legal counsel before publishing sensitive stories.

The crypto industry is built on the paradox of blockchain’s transparency (where transactions are traceable) and the need for personal privacy, as highlighted by analyst Sarah Linton in a related report. Sun’s lawsuit underscores this tension, arguing that detailed disclosures could endanger personal security.

This case could spark debates within the journalism community about ethical boundaries. Independent journalists may face pressure to prioritize privacy over transparency, particularly when covering crypto figures whose wealth is tied to publicly traceable blockchain data.

The high-profile nature of Sun’s lawsuit, amplified by posts on X from figures like crypto commentator Molly White, could create a chilling effect on independent journalism. The fear of legal action from wealthy individuals or corporations could deter journalists from pursuing stories about crypto wealth, especially if they involve non-public data.

Bloomberg’s intent to defend its First Amendment rights suggests a broader battle over press freedom, which could influence how courts view similar cases in the future. Independent journalists may hesitate to investigate or publish stories about crypto billionaires or other influential figures.

The lawsuit raises questions about how media outlets obtain and handle sensitive financial information, as noted in reports about the case. If Bloomberg is seen as overstepping, it could erode trust in financial journalism, affecting not just large outlets but also independent reporters who rely on source credibility.

Conversely, if Sun’s claims are dismissed, it might embolden media to pursue more aggressive reporting, potentially benefiting independent journalists who can access public blockchain data. Independent journalists may need to build stronger relationships with sources to ensure trust and transparency in their reporting processes.

They might also face increased pressure to verify data through public sources (e.g., blockchain explorers) rather than private disclosures, which could limit their ability to break exclusive stories. The case could also prompt discussions about industry-wide standards for handling crypto-related data.

Unlike Bloomberg, which has a legal team to counter Sun’s claims, independent journalists often work alone or with small teams, making them vulnerable to legal threats. The cost of defending against a lawsuit, even if meritless, could be crippling, leading to a more cautious approach to reporting on crypto wealth.

Independent journalists may need to reassess their ethical frameworks, balancing the public’s right to know with the potential harm caused by disclosing sensitive financial details. This could lead to a shift toward more generalized reporting, reducing the risk of legal or personal harm to sources.

The lawsuit’s potential to impact crypto market sentiment (e.g., by triggering volatility in tokens linked to Sun) could create opportunities for independent journalists to cover market reactions. However, they must navigate these stories carefully to avoid amplifying unverified claims or contributing to market panic.

The lawsuit reflects a broader tension in the crypto industry between transparency and privacy, as noted in multiple sources. If Sun prevails, it could lead to stricter privacy protections, potentially limiting the scope of financial journalism but enhancing safety for high-profile crypto figures.

If Bloomberg wins, it might encourage more aggressive reporting, benefiting independent journalists who can access public blockchain data but increasing risks for those relying on private sources. The case could also influence regulatory discussions about data privacy in the crypto space, as governments worldwide are already scrutinizing digital assets.

For independent journalists, the key takeaway is the need for caution and robust ethical practices when covering sensitive financial information. They may need to invest in legal education, secure data handling practices, and transparent sourcing to mitigate risks.