The Dossier Is Vindicated: AI Doomer 'Grassroots' Org Confirms It Was Astroturf All Along
The “bipartisan” anti-innovation group just quietly conceded it was neither bipartisan nor grassroots.
One month after The Dossier reported that Humans First — the self-styled “nonpartisan social movement” lobbying for heavy handed AI regulation — was an Effective Altruist (EA) front operation built to launder a progressive censorship agenda through conservative voices, the group has responded in the most revealing way possible: by ditching the bipartisan pretense entirely.
Astroturf and EA Dollars: How AI Doomsayers Built a Fake Grassroots Movement to Infiltrate the Right
If you want to regulate what AI systems can say and do, don't send a progressive to make the case while President Trump is in power. Build a "bipartisan movement," recruit a War Room correspondent as co-founder, get Steve Bannon and Glenn Beck to sign the founding document, and let the bipartisan optics do the work.
On Thursday, Humans First announced that Amy Kremer will serve as its new chair. Kremer, a longtime Republican activist, is a MAGA world-aligned figure who has been placed atop the org chart as window dressing to pursue the organization’s Doomer-aligned agenda.
The announcement itself was startlingly candid about the strategic shift.
Humans First, the release says, is moving away from bipartisan coalition-building to focus exclusively on conservative activists. The progressive-aligned staffers, it adds, will “spin out into their own organization” to be announced shortly.
Read that again. This supposed bipartisan coalition, the one that was apparently representing everyday Americans across the political spectrum, is being dissolved, and its progressive elements are being quietly reconstituted as a separate vehicle.
The Effective Altruist-aligned figures who actually built this operation aren’t walking away. They’re simply rebranding into two organizations where one stood before: one to carry the conservative water, one to carry the progressive water. It’s the same donor ecosystem with the same agenda, but the hydra is merely regenerating into two parts.
It remains precisely the architecture I described in March, when we reported on not just Humans First, but the massive, multi billion dollar network that is attempting to sway lawmakers into action that benefits these heavily ideological interests.
Kremer’s launch statement, delivered through the customary populist-grievance idiom, is something to behold. She warns that the “same Big Tech billionaires who deplatformed President Trump and silenced covid dissent now seek unfettered power to develop dangerous AI technology.”
It is a stirring line. It is also incoherent, because the organization Kremer is now chairing was built and funded by precisely the kind of Big Tech billionaires she claims to oppose. The Center for AI Safety (CAIS), where Humans First’s original incorporators held their day jobs, has received more than $12 million from Dustin Moskovitz’s Coefficient Giving. Moskovitz is a billionaire Facebook co-founder and one of the largest donors in Democratic Party politics. He was bankrolling the deplatforming industry before deplatforming was a household word. For longtime readers of The Dossier, you may also recall that Moskovitz bankrolled Event 201 (through their Open Philanthropy organization, which has rebranded to Coefficient Giving), the high profile coronavirus simulation that took place mere months before the reported outbreak began, so it’s pretty entertaining that Kremer mentioned covid censorship in her statement.
Humans First staff is now being paid, in effect, to deliver a message drafted by those leftist donors, one that comes wrapped in MAGA window dressing. Of course, this does not change its origin, it only confirms that the architects of Humans First picked out a networked conservative face to carry a regulatory agenda that the grassroots right, if fully briefed, would run from.
What Humans First is now attempting is the second stage of a familiar play. Stage one was the bipartisan launch, in which high profile Pro-Human AI Declaration signatories were recruited to give the project its bipartisan legitimacy. Stage two, now underway, is the shedding of that pretense once it has outlived its usefulness
.The progressive sister organization, as the press release telegraphs, will reemerge under its own banner in the coming weeks. Both will claim to speak for “the people.” Both will continue pushing for AI content governance standards that would be written, interpreted, and enforced by the same EA-adjacent institutions that have been working on imposing their agenda for years. The funding ecosystem and the policy goals will remain unchanged.
In March, Humans First called itself a nonpartisan grassroots movement. In April, it now claims, in a new press release, that it is a conservative operation with a progressive twin spinning out next door.
Consider what this rebrand requires us to accept. A genuine political organization, one built on conviction and a coherent worldview, cannot simply flip from bipartisan to conservative over a weekend. Real movements don't work that way. Their members would revolt. You cannot simply repaint an ideological movement on command, like a shoe company pivoting to AI . That Humans First can execute this pivot without any internal backlash is itself the final piece of evidence. You cannot change the ideology of an authentic movement, but you can change the wrapper on a product.
Communism is an actual movement capable of doing a 180 overnight as on June 22-23, 1941. Of course, it was and is a highly centralized movement. For a modern equivalent, you would need to look further east than Moscow.
That said, based on local activity, I think there is an actual grassroots conservative resistance. It is not opposed to AI per se but to the data centers necessary to run it. It is rural and the issues revolve around water, power and land use.
Yes. Humans First is astroturf. Just like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other progressive manifestations.
Doesn't mean the cause they are parading around under with dupliciotous intentions isn't real or legitimate. Finding astroturf movements and focusing on them, discrediting them is a tried and true tactic of those with other agendas, themselves ulterior and malevolent.
You think the AI industry is filled with saintly good faith benevolent investors and supporters?!?!?
Again, as shared many times now on your newly reformulated Stack, where's your concern for civil liberties, police state surveillance capacity of AI? Oppressive intentions being built into the design of the AI grid? Do you give two shits about those concerns, Jordan? After seeing, experiencing first hand the abuses of technology in public-private partnerships during plandemic, the Reischtag Fire J6 entrapment operation? How can you be so unconcerned about our rights, liberties, "public safety" negates individual rights as determined by whoever holds high office, positions of authority? Giving them a tool that becomes the most dangerous weapon ever invented when held in the wrong hands...as in plandemic and false flag J6?
Why, Jordan? Why ZERO interest and 100% trust of any hands your AI investor heroes are?
Ok, the Humans First movement is astroturf. Probably bought and paid for like many anti-oil groups are backed by Big Oil. Controlled opposition? Chaos agents? Conspiracy actors intended to discredit legitimate opposition, debate?
Tell you what, Jordan, try publishing a piece that seriously addresses the very real, very serious concerns that people tricked into joining astroturf groups like HF have? Do you have, do you possess a fair, unbiased voice? Can you articulate their concerns without mocking or denigrating them? Do you have any proposals to mitigate, prevent the concerns that animate them? Me?
If you can't, don't, won't then you are a shill. Not a good faith source. What are you, Jordan? What, who's agenda are you really serving? Speaking of astroturf. Are you astroturf?