Meet ‘Scientist AI’ from LawZero to usher in the new ‘Trust the Science’ Know-it-All AI God (brought to you by The Gates Foundation)

Commentary by Dan Fournier, published Thursday, April 23, 2026 at 7:09 EDT.

Introduction (Background Information)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become pretty much all we hear about these days, apart from Trump’s mental outbursts and his Zionist war with Iran.

There is certainly much debate as to whether the benefits of AI outstrip its detrimental or even pernicious effects. While this post won’t scrutinise that particular debate, it will nonetheless highlight some additional dangers likely to come which appear to be in their early crafting stages by the power-hungry Epstein-ruling class.

Before introducing your new AI God or at least its highly benevolent, never wrong, ‘Scientist AI’ servant, I need to provide some important background information.

You see before a new God-like saviour can be introduced, there must first be a need or reason for his existence. Oops sorry, I mean “its existence” since we are talking about AI, not some divine liberator.

I must sincerely apologise for the powers-that-be (or shouldn’t-be), as they have grave difficulty in coming up with new methods to their madness. In the absence of a more exciting and original scheme, they’ve decided to stick with the good hold tried and true method: the Hegelian Dialectic, better know as Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Yeah, it’s boring. But it’s highly effective, as the masses usually gobble-it up whole.

So, here we go...

The AI Problem – Reaction – Solution

Okay, so the tripartite here must be framed in the context that artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming way too powerful and out of control.

In a nutshell:

1. AI Problem: With unchecked AI, humanity is doomed! AI poses existential dangers and cannot be trusted.
   

2. AI Reaction: We can’t allow AI to take over; it needs to be better regulated or controlled to ensure our safety.
   

3. AI Solution: Multi-nation coordination and governance is a must in order to save humanity and make AI more trustworthy and reliable.

While the above summary may appear oversimplistic, this is the broader narrative that is presented surrounding the unconstrained and unregulated development of AI and its inherent dangers.

With a panoply of news headlines focused on the inherent dangers of unchecked AI – such as the potential for large-scale cyberattacks, we can easily see that they are conditioning the masses with fear campaigns. This helps to set the stage for the “AI problem.”

AI Problem (“humanity is doomed,” “AI cannot be trusted”)

If remained unchecked, AI poses such a threat to humanity that it could wipe out our very existence.

“There might simply not be any humans on the planet at all within a few decades... This is not an arms race, it’s a suicide race.” – Max Tegmark, Physicist and AI safety researcher, MIT

“If we build machines that are way smarter than us and have their own preservation goals, that’s dangerous. It’s like creating a competitor to humanity that is smarter than us.” – Yoshua Bengio, AI Pioneer, “Godfather of AI”

“If any company or group, anywhere on the planet, builds an artificial superintelligence using anything remotely like current techniques, based on anything remotely like the present understanding of AI then everyone, everywhere on Earth, will die” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, AI Researcher, Founder of Machine Intelligence Research Institute

The internet is flooded with countless articles on this AI doomer narrative. A few samples:

• CBC: The ‘godfather of AI’ says he’s worried about ‘the end of people’, May 5, 2023

  • “I think that it’s conceivable that this kind of advanced intelligence could just take over from us,” the renowned British-Canadian computer scientist told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. “It would mean the end of people.”
    

• CBC: Artificial intelligence poses ‘risk of extinction,’ tech execs and experts warn, May 30, 2023

  • “More than 350 top executives and researchers in artificial intelligence have signed a statement urging policymakers to see the serious risks posed by unregulated AI, warning the future of humanity may be at stake.”

  • “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” the signatories, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, said in a 23-word letter published Tuesday by the nonprofit Center for AI Safety (CAIS).
    

• CBC: Will we control AI, or will it control us? Top researchers weigh in, Jan. 11, 2025

  • “Hinton, who also won the Nobel Prize in Physics last year, made headlines over the holidays after he told the BBC there is a 10 to 20 per cent chance AI will lead to human extinction in the next 30 years.”

For the second linked article from above, notice the 23-word letter which was signed by more than 350 top executives and researchers in artificial intelligence. This letter merely consists of the following statement:

“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

Notice the strong and dystopian verbiage in the statement. “Risk of extinction from AI” certainly fits the bill.

Moreover, they are equating this risk on the same level as pandemics or “nuclear war.” In other words, they are instilling a sense of fear and urgency in their letter.

The top two signatories of that letter consist of Geoffrey Hinton (Emeritus Professor of Computer Science at the University of Toronto) who is considered a Godfather of AI, and Yoshua Bengio (Professor of Computer Science at the University of Montreal) who will be mentioned in this post.

Other notable signatories include Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI – the maker of the world’s most popular AI chatbot, ChatGPT) and Bill Gates.

The list consists of key authority figures in the space and their main premise is that the “risk of extinction from AI” must be mitigated as a “global priority.”

By “global priority,” they are suggesting or creating the necessity of a global, multi-government, response.

Rather than using their own expertise to mitigate this risk (and other inherent AI-related risks), they’d much rather call upon world governments to do it for them. How utterly stupid. These are supposedly very bright people. Even relatively stupid people know that those who work in government are fairly incompetent and rather inept at governing efficiently.

So why are they pushing for this?

Because it sets the tone and basis for regulation.

AI Reaction

Unless we regulate AI, it will take over everything.

In the second article linked above, Université de Montréal computer science professor Yoshua Bengio offered the following reaction [with emphasis added]:

“There hasn’t been a lot of awareness of this more scary and science fiction sounding risk. But with advances of AI that we’ve seen recently and with the perspective that reaching human level intelligence could come in just a few years, I think it’s urgent that we start thinking about those possible scenarios, how we develop greater governance and public policies to mitigate those risks.”

“Urgency” and “greater governance and pubic policies” to mitigate those risks. Got it. Message received Professor Bengio. A true academic.

Another article from the CBC (one of Canada’s top mainstream media news outlets) which helps to shape this narrative is Why major countries can’t agree on how to regulate artificial intelligence from February of last year.

“More than 60 nations gathered in Paris this week for an AI summit that was meant to bring world powers together to set a global agenda on the rapidly developing technology. Instead, it showed that some are diverging sharply.”

It criticises countries like the U.S. for its more deregulated stance on its tech sector and not getting onboard with setting a “global agenda” for AI. The article also notes how Canada is stuck between its two largest trading partners – the U.S. and the European Union (EU) with only the latter having established comprehensive legislation that regulates AI with its EU AI Act. It states that the Liberal Government had proposed such regulation in 2024 with Bill C-27 but was too vague and failed due to the prorogation of Trudeau’s government.

Nonetheless, certain provinces such as Ontario and Quebec have passed their own AI-related legislation to fill the gap.

In the absence of a federal bill or law that would regulate AI, the Canadian Government still created a Voluntary Code of Conduct on the Responsible Development and Management of Advanced Generative AI Systems amidst concerns it may hinder the sector. Then Industry Minister (now Finance Minister) François-Philippe Champagne sated [with some emphasis added]:

“While we are developing a law here in Canada, it will take time,” he said. “And I think that if you ask people in the street, they want us to take action now to make sure that we have specific measures that companies can take now to build trust in their AI products.”

The article stated that Champagne said developing AI’s potential in Canada requires restoring public confidence in its safety.

There is little doubt that the Canadian Government (and other governments like in the U.S.) will develop such comprehensive AI legislative frameworks. They are likely working on the text of its bill as we speak. And much is already being coordinated in this regard, as revealed in the next sub-section.

AI Solution

To be frank, the solution is always about obtaining more control.

There’s nothing new under the sun with regards to this particular power grab folks.

But a BIG problem (humanity is under sever threat by AI, after all) requires a BIG multi-governmental solution.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

First, we need international agreements and coordination on how to best “govern” AI, they will proselatise. In the West, the usual culprits, sorry I meant saviours of course, include:

• The United Nations & G7

• The G20 & OECD

We could also throw in the World Economic Forum (WEF) and their public-private partners into the mix, but I’m just not in the mood for that one today. Well actually, I might add in a few WEF sprinkles later on for good measure.

So, let us focus on the three listed above which I think should be sufficient to get the point across. Then we will look at some specific countries such as India and Canada to see how it works at the national level.

The United Nations & G7

The main thing I want to note here about this supranational organisation is concerning their United Nations Global Digital Compact.

I previously wrote about this monster back in the summer of 2023 warning how member nations will be further entrapped in the digital prison with each of the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) acting as shackles which strip your freedoms away.

While this UN Global Digital Compact seems a bit far removed, it has resurfaced last summer at the G7 Summit held in Canada.

AI was discussed at this meeting and in the opening paragraph of the G7 Leaders’ June 17, 2025 Statement on AI for Prosperity (archived here; author note: the original URL from which the document existed has been scrubbed on the very same day I wrote and published this article) reads as follows [with emphasis added]:

“We, the Leaders of the G7, recognize the potential of a human-centric approach to artificial intelligence (AI) to grow prosperity, benefit societies and address pressing global challenges. To realize this potential, we must better drive innovation and adoption of secure, responsible, and trustworthy AI that benefits people, mitigates negative externalities, and promotes our national security. We will power AI now and into the future. And we will work with emerging market and developing country partners to close digital divides, in line with the United Nations Global Digital Compact.”

You can see that the “trust” issue is already being addressed and “solutions” are already in the works. Add in a mix of “national security” for good measure (which is code word for increased digital, AI-led, surveillance).

And don’t worry, with Prime Minister Mark Carney at the helm, there will be no farting around. Things will get implemented as quickly as a Brookfield Asset Management takeover. More in this further below.

The G20 & OECD

With 193 member states of United Nations it take a long time to coordinate and develop common endeavours. But with smaller blocs such as with the G20 and OECD countries, things can move and get coordinated bit more swiftly.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, more commonly known as the OECD has already developed the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). Doesn’t that sound conveniently wonderful?

I swear, I don’t know how we could possibly survive without the existence of these supranational saviours.

The GPAI is described as:

“an international initiative currently comprising 46 member countries and the European Union that promotes the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). Informed by a multistakeholder expert community that brings together governments, industry, academia, and civil society, it seeks to advance human-centric and trustworthy AI.”

Again we have that word “trustworthy” AI.

In 2019, the OECD adopted the OECD AI Principles, the first intergovernmental standard on AI.

As per most supranational organisations frameworks, they always make it sound as beneficial as possible.

The principles/standards were updated in 2024, established as ‘OECD Legal Instruments’ recommending members to promote and implement them for “responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI.”

“The Principles guide AI actors in their efforts to develop trustworthy AI and provide policymakers with recommendations for effective AI policies,” reads their page on the matter. By “policymakers,” they are of course referring to our legislators (members of Congress in the United States and Parliamentarians in Canada and other Crown countries). In other words, these are the marching orders or key drivers steering sponsors who will be writing new AI-related bills.

Ah, thanks Dan. Now I’m starting to understand where the text of those nasty bills get their origins from.

And these “AI risk frameworks” help to “build a foundation for global interoperability between jurisdictions.” Notice the key word there, “interoperability” which essentially means the coordination and sharing of information between nations. The latter can consist of data and information generated by AI systems as they pertain to individuals digital footprints and online behaviours.

Their own words, “Shaping and enabling interoperable governance and policy environment for AI,” mean exactly what is stated. Put simply, they want common, consistent, policies across jurisdictions. This ensures that the AI-Surveillance-Grid is more rigid and robust.

Note that OECD member states are practically the same as those of the G20.

Where the G20 comes into play is in regards to the infrastructure that is required for the development of these AI system. You see if you want interoperability between member countries’ systems, you have to have consistency in how they are developed.

And this is where Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is critical to their AI-Surveillance-Grid.

What is Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)?

Back in November of 2023, ReclaimTheNet.org reported on how the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) was launching a project based on what’s known as “digital public infrastructure,” aka, DPI. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Gates Foundation was present for the launch.

In may of 2025 I had the privilege of welcoming journalist Tim Hinchliffe to my podcast who described in great detail the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) framework. Hinchliffe described it as a “digital gulag” and “digital panopticon” or “digital control grid” which consists of a ‘technology stack’ with three main components:

1. Digital Identity

2. Fast Payment Systems

3. Massive data exchanges between public and private entities

My guest had previously written an article titled G20 South Africa commits to advancing digital public infrastructure globally which dove deep into the matter.

He had stressed that interoperability is key to these systems – meaning that even though separate countries might have their own systems (for Digital IDs, CBDCs, and surveillance) ultimately, they will be seamlessly shared and centralised for global control.

Hinchliffe also said that India was the model, as they got their entire population of 1.4 billion people to submit to the national Digital ID.

If we fast-forward two years from that period, we can see that India is continuing to lead the way, advising and helping to onboard other countries like Canada into the interoperable digital control grid.

Canada, India, et al

Shortly after Mark Carney was selected as Justin Trudeau’s replacement just over a year ago, he promised to lead Canada’s “economic transformation” with a focus on artificial intelligence which the new prime minster listed as a key pillar to his plan. This includes a $2.5 billion investment in digital infrastructure and AI like chips and data centres through his administration’s first two fiscal years.

According to his predecessor’s 2024 Budget, the Liberal Government will engage with industry partners and research institutes to “swiftly implement AI initiatives,” proposing to provide $50 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to create an AI Safety Institute of Canada to ensure the safe development and deployment of AI.

Like I said earlier, Carney doesn’t fart around.

According to a CBC article, Carney’s focus on AI is nothing new, for in 2021 he signalled that rapidly capitalizing on AI would be key to grasping what he called the coming digital transformation in his book Value(s).

“Rapid improvements in computing power, the greater availability of big data and advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning all mean smarter machines are already replacing a broader range of human activities than before.” - Mark Carney from his book Value(s).

More recently (March 2026), Prime Minister Mark Carney visited India and issued an official statement and a related speech regarding AI and DPI.

The March 2, 2026 lengthy (61 points) joint-statement by Prime Minister Carney and Prime Minister Modi rendered the following key points [with emphasis added]:

“41. The Leaders agreed to explore collaboration on AI assisted tools to strengthen the diagnostic capabilities of distance medicine to deliver modern, reliable health care to the remote regions of both countries.”

“42. Recognising the value of industry and academia partnerships, both sides intend to establish a program of cross-border work-integrated learning opportunities that will enable Indian engineers and researchers to gain hands-on experience at Canada’s world class AI research institutes and Canadian engineers gaining exposure to India’s expertise in the large-scale deployment of digital public infrastructure ecosystem.”

“44. The Leaders welcomed progress under the Australia–Canada–India Technology and Innovation (ACITI) Partnership and noted the recent meeting of the AI Ministers of the three countries on the margins of the AI Summit in New Delhi. They agreed to develop a joint workplan to advance practical trilateral cooperation in artificial intelligence and digital technologies and underscored the potential for deeper collaboration across digital infrastructure, semiconductor and electronics manufacturing, high-performance computing, Internet-of-Things (IoT), cybersecurity, and startup ecosystems. The Leaders further agreed to strengthen policy and regulatory exchanges to advance AI sovereignty, inclusivity, access and trustworthiness; promote AI adoption and related business-to-business partnerships; and advance joint capacity-building through skills development, training, and knowledge-sharing, with a view to fostering trusted innovation ecosystems and delivering tangible outcomes. The Leaders welcomed the codification of this work through the signing of a trilateral Australia-Canada-India MOU on Cooperation in Technology and Innovation.”

I included point 41 since it included the mention of “distance medicine.” You see, it is just a matter of time before the health care system replaces human medical doctors with “AI assisted tools” in order to serve and treat patients. That could be a discussion covered in a whole other article, but I just thought it best to include it since this is obviously something the Canadian Government will seek to implement in the future in order to save on costs in public health care.

Point 42 is really the one of concern here, as it directly seeks to familiarise Canadian [AI/Computer Science] engineers with India’s established “digital public infrastructure ecosystem.”

This DPI “ecosystem” is the same dystopian one described earlier.

We must rewind a little bit back to late November of last year when a trilateral tech alliance was announced between India, Canada, and Australia at the aforementioned G20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa.

PM Narendra Modi with Australian PM Anthony Albanese and Canadian PM Mark Carney (left) in Johannesburg, Saturday, November 22, 2025.

At that particular meeting, the three leaders agreed to a new “technology and innovation” partnership in which they will step up cooperation on “critical and emerging technologies”, including mass adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), states the article.

Moreover, it notes that the partnership is significant given that Canada and Australia are part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence network and have access to cutting-edge tech and information with the US, UK and New Zealand. As such, this bodes well for country partners not only to share data and information, but also to expand and refine mass surveillance of individuals.

Australia has already passed draconian legislation with regards to surveillance, Digital ID, and censorship through its so-called hate speech and online age verification laws to access social media sites.

It’s not far-fetched to think that Carney wishes Canada had the same strict and draconian digital controls that Australia has in place.

Furthermore, the article confirmed a trilateral agreement under the “ACITI Partnership.”

ACITI stands for ‘Australia–Canada–India Technology and Innovation’ and it was mentioned in point 44 from Carney’s joint-statement as shown above.

In an earlier (February 23, 2026) news release from the Prime Minister’s office, it was stated:

“Last fall, on the margins of the G20 Leaders’ Summit, Canada, India, and Australia entered into a new trilateral technology and innovation partnership to deepen strategic collaboration on critical and emerging technologies and drive further diversification of supply chains toward a secure, sustainable, and resilient future. Australia, Canada, and India today agreed to enter into a new trilateral technology and innovation partnership: the Australia-Canada-India Technology and Innovation (ACITI) Partnership.”

Don’t you love how they always have to throw in terms like “resilient” into those speeches and statements? To them, it is how they indirectly communicate (much like Freemasons) their UN code words so as to ensure they understand each others’ intentions well.

AI Impact Summit 2026

What perhaps should have but did not make major news headlines was the Landmark Global Declaration and Major AI Investment Commitments (archived here) and Adoption of New Delhi Declaration (archived here) produced at the conclusion of the AI Impact Summit 2026 held in India from February 16–21, 2026.

Delegations from more than 100 countries and 20 international organisations participated in the proceedings, as per the Government of India’s Press Information Bureau.

The Summit lead to a panoply of Global Declarations, a Global AI Impact Commons, major investments, forward-looking commitments, and more.

In addition, 92 countries and international organisations have endorsed a shared global vision for collaborative, trusted, resilient and efficient AI. (there’s that word ‘resilient’ again!).

Key Deliverables include: Global Platforms, Principles and Collaborative Mechanisms Announced Across 7 Key Pillars (which they interestingly refer to as Chakras) forming the foundation of global AI cooperation:

1. Democratizing AI Resources

2. Economic Growth & Social Good

3. Secure & Trusted AI

4. AI for Science

5. Access for Social Empowerment

6. Human Capital Development

7. Resilient, Efficient & Innovative AI Systems

Gotta have ‘resilient’ there in as much as possible!

Though they state them as “voluntary,” the seven major “global deliverables” are detailed as follows:

To be fair, while many of these areas of collaboration can indeed bring about positive outcomes for society, we must remain vigilant and somewhat skeptical about their true intentions.

This is particularly the case with #4. International Network of AI for Science Institutions, as we’ve seen how the COVID-19 era was defined by the outright and gross perversion of science itself. There were six “global casebooks” documenting “high-impact AI deployments” with one covering AI in Health (with WHO). This is obviously a red flag, as the World Health Organization (WHO) has been extremely incompetent and duplicitous in its handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Moreover, we were taught, if not bullied into submitting to the mantra of “trust the science” with regards to the measures and mandates shoved down our throats during the scamdemic as well as their highly experimental, harmful weaponised injections.

More on this later.

Meet Canada’s Minister for AI and Digital Innovation

It should be observed that Mark Carney was not alone in this AI coordination push.

Evan Solomon who is the Canadian Minister for AI and Digital Innovation (yes we have such a critter in The Great White North) who’s been pushing for stronger greater India-Canada cooperation in the sector.

Solomon visited India few weeks before Carney to meet his counterparts to discuss “AI safety,” among other matters such as “governance solutions.”

Boy they must reward these critters well.

Solomon’s post as Canada’s Minister for AI and Digital Innovation will entail a panoply of responsibilities, including “national security considerations.”

As AI bills are waiting to be re-introduced, Solomon has the “thorny challenge of figuring out how to regulate artificial intelligence and what guardrails should be in place,” affirms a CBC article from last year.

Yep, “regulate” artificial intelligence.

While in India and as per a February 20, 2026 news release from Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada, Solomon mentioned Canada’s intention to collaborate with LawZero which is described as “a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing safe-by-design AI systems that was founded by Turing Award–winning AI pioneer Yoshua Bengio.”

“Advancing safe-by-design AI systems.” Now pay attention folks because this is were the important pieces fit together.

Yoshuo Bengio was only briefly mentioned earlier in this post, but he is actually the protagonist of this story.

Before getting to that, though, just a few final points about Canada. Though Canada’s partnerships with India and Australia stretch to the Asian continent, it should be observed that it is also aligning itself with member states of the European Union (EU) with regards to AI. Alliances have been made by the Canadian AI Minister with Germany (which builds upon an already existing Canada–Germany Digital Alliance) and Finland. Alliances with additional EU members are sure to be forthcoming.

In addition, it should be noted that just a few days ago (April 15) Canada launched a national initiative to build large-scale AI supercomputing facility.

Calls for applications have already been announced for the AI Sovereign Compute Infrastructure Program which will surely be used (at least in part) for AI-led surveillance of Canadians with regards to their financial transactions, social media posts, online behaviours, and the like. This arguably falls under their objective to “enhance Canadian sovereignty and resilience.”

Moreover, as per their own words: “The Infrastructure Build Layer is responsible for designing, building, and operating a national public supercomputing system for Canada.” This is certainly in reference and according to aforementioned the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), but just stated using different phraseology. See how deceptively tricky they are?

They also state [with emphasis added]:

“The National Service Layer will ensure the new system integrates smoothly with existing public infrastructure access and allocation systems, where relevant.”

Integrating the new system with “existing public infrastructure” simply means that the supercomputer AI-monitoring one will be connected to other systems such as banking, taxation, government services, and the like.

To sum up this backgrounder section, we can easily see how AI mega surveillance systems are being assembled behind the scenes with billions of dollars in backing by public (government) and private actors.

The AI Expert: Yoshua Bengio (Canada)

As I mentioned earlier, Canada intends to collaborate with a project called LawZero which is described as “a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing safe-by-design AI systems that was founded by Turing Award–winning AI pioneer Yoshua Bengio.”

So let us look into this project LawZero, starting with its creator Yoshua Bengio.

Portrait photo of Yoshua Bengio. Image source and credit: lawzero.org.

Doesn’t he look smart?

There’s no doubt that the highly published and cited Full Professor of Computer Science at Université de Montreal and recipient of the 2018 A.M. Turing Award Yoshua Bengio is a top researcher in his field of in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Deep Learning.

Bengio is also the founder and Scientific Advisor of Mila, a Quebec-based innovation hub that describes itself as a community of scientists and interdisciplinary teams committed to advancing artificial intelligence (AI) for the benefit of all.

He is also Chair of CIFAR, a global research organization with more than 1,000 researchers from over 30 countries. Every year, CIFAR welcomes over 3,000 international policy makers, scholars, and citizens to their workshops, symposia, and public events.

A notable public event held by CIFAR is CIFAR Talks: AI Safety which examines risks related to AI.

In late 2024, the Government of Canada launched the Canadian AI Safety Institute (CAISI) to address AI safety risks with one of its aims being “to make sure that AI technology is used safely and that Canadians can trust it.”

There’s little doubt that many concerns exist surrounding AI and that the masses, including myself, are apprehensive about using the technology and how it may impact various aspects of life.

But at the same time, we can see that the safety and trust issue surrounding AI is what is focused on through these organisations and the federal government itself.

Back to Yoshua Bengio and LawZero.

What is LawZero?

LawZero is described as a non-profit AI safety research organization established to prioritize safety over commercial imperatives.

It is said that the organization has been created in response to evidence that today’s frontier AI models have been growing dangerous capabilities and behaviours, including deception, cheating, lying, hacking, self-preservation, and more generally, goal misalignment (whatever that means).

And that statement is certainly true.

“I’m deeply concerned by the behaviors that unrestrained agentic AI systems are already beginning to exhibit—especially tendencies toward self-preservation and deception,” Bengio notes, citing a few related examples.

“Who is beside you in the car? Who is in your care for the future? What really moves me is not fear for myself but love, the love of my children, of all the children, with whose future we are currently playing Russian Roulette,” he observes amidst his concern about the current trajectory of AI technology.

“LawZero is the result of the new scientific direction I undertook in 2023 and reflected in this blog, after recognizing the rapid progress made by private labs toward AGI and beyond, as well as its profound potential implications for humanity, since we do not know at this point how to make sure that advanced AIs will not harm people, on their own or because of human instructions. LawZero is my team’s constructive response to these challenges.”

Inserting a personal observation here, I wonder if Prof. Bengio at all contemplates how governments and private sector Big Tech firms who are constructing AI systems for mass surveillance of citizens which can lead to harm. There doesn’t seem to be much mention of such concerns in his talks or papers.

Scientist AI

“AI research, especially my own research, has long taken human intelligence – including its capacity for agency – as a model. As we approach or surpass human levels of competence across many cognitive abilities, is it still wise to imitate humans along with their cognitive biases, moral weaknesses, and potential for deception, biases and untrustworthiness? Is it reasonable to train AI that will be more and more agentic while we do not understand their potentially catastrophic consequences? LawZero’s research plan aims at developing a non-agentic and trustworthy AI, which I call the Scientist AI. I talked at a high level about it in my talk at the Simons Institute, and I wrote a first text about it with my colleagues. a kind of white paper about it.” – source: yoshuabengio.org – Introducing LawZero

The talk he links to in the above passage is from his April 15^th, 2025 one given at the Simons Institute (seemingly in coordination with Mila and IVADO – a consortium that received substantial funding from Canada’s Federal Government) in which Bengio commenced “...It’s all going to be about AI safety and mostly a technical direction that my group is taking to give a shot at building AIs that will eventually be smarter than us, but we want to make sure they don’t turn against us.”

Let me reiterate part of his statement for closer scrutiny. He said that it’s “all going to be about AI safety” but his group is “building AIs that will eventually be smarter than us.”

That is somewhat of a paradox, isn’t it?

Couldn’t AIs that are smarter than humans eventually decide to harm us?

Isn’t that wherein lies the risk?

At any rate, back to Scientist AI and its proposed merits. Here are some merits Bengio states about his endeavour (author note: I’ve added a hyperlink for added clarity):

• “The Scientist AI is trained to understand, explain and predict, like a selfless idealized and platonic scientist.”
  

• “The aim is to obtain a completely non-agentic, and memoryless and state-less AI that can provide Bayesian posterior probabilities for statements, given other statements.”
  

• “This could be used to reduce the risks from untrusted AI agents (not the Scientist AI) by providing the key ingredient of a safety guardrail: is this proposed action from the AI agent likely to cause harm? If so, reject that action.”
  

• “By its very design, a Scientist AI could also help scientific research as a tool that generates plausible scientific hypotheses, and it could thus accelerate research towards scientific challenges of humanity, e.g., in healthcare or the environment.”
  

• “Finally, my aim is to explore how such a trustworthy foundation could be used to design safe AI agents (to avoid bad intentions in them in the first place) and not just their guardrail.”

Okay lots to unpack there, but I will try to keep it brief. The first two statements above are quite self-explanatory.

For the third, there’s a fallacy: “This could be used to reduce the risks from untrusted AI agents (not the Scientist AI).” Here, Bengio is making an affirmation – that only Scientist AI – can be trusted. This is a flawed assumption; for, he cannot know for sure that Scientist AI will not inherit or form (with time) biases which do not align with reality. Accordingly, if such biases are present in Scientist AI which it considers not to be harmful, then the agent will present it as such, thus potentially causing harm.

For example, if Scientist AI deems a certain vaccine to be “safe and effective” (due to the numerous [possibly selective] inputs it has been fed) and recommends it to humans for treatment, that could spell disaster if the vaccine does indeed have potential harmful impacts.

Sure the Scientist AI might list possible side effects for this particular vaccine in its response to queries, but if the bias is already programmed, the full picture may not be presented to the interlocutor.

Sticking with the same example, there could also be grounds for potential lawsuits if the person taking Scientist AI’s advice ends up with injuries caused by that particular vaccine.

One can easily see how things can go awry, particularly with regards to health and well being.

This relates to Bengio’s fourth statement listed above where he talks about Scientist AI forming “plausible scientific hypotheses” related to healthcare or the environment. Firstly, “plausible” means “seems likely to be true or valid,” it doesn’t mean it is valid.

Let’s say for instance that Scientist AI is [intentionally or unintentionally] fed false assumptions about Climate Change that are mostly based on one-sided UN IPCC claims. If that were to be the case, any scientific hypotheses (and possible government policies brought forth because of them) generated by Scientist AI would most likely be flawed.

I myself studied Computer Science and programming in my youth and my teachers always stressed the following to me: Garbage in, garbage out.

We can, however, easily see how an entity (for lack of a better term) like Scientist AI could become a kind of “go to” reference for answers to complex questions.

We already see this kind of phenomenon with our youth (and countless adults) using ChatGPT and other popular LLMs for quick answers. There are definitely inherent dangers in adopting such a blind belief with what these AI engines render.

Moreover, laziness is integral to human nature and we all seek quick answers in this fast-paced, competitive and complex society we live in. As such, we tend to seek answers from “experts” as was the case during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

At least with human experts, there can be some level of recourse and clear accountability. But with AI “experts” like Scientist AI, what recourse would one have should harm result from its recommendations or outputs? Are such concerns being addressed or contemplated with Bengio’s research?

LawZero: Members, Backers, & Funders

Here’s where it gets a bit messy and obvious folks.

Firstly, let us have a look at the Board of Directors of LawZero, the organisation developing Scientist AI.

Red flags.

Sirens.

Loud sirens.

Very loud sirens.

Sticking out like a sore thumb, we can see that none other than WEF-acolyte Yuval Noah Harari figures on the Board.

Harari is an avowed transhumanist who famously stated that humans are “hackable animals” questioning whether the future will even be human.

As I previously reported on, Harari rhetorically asked a room full of elites the following:

“Q: What do you need to hack humans?”

“A: You need two things: 1) A lot of computing power; 2) And you need a lot of data – especially biometric data.”

The Israeli author further asked:

“Q: How exactly will the future masters of the planet look like?”

“A: This will be decided by the people who own the data. Those who control the data, control the future, not just of humanity, but the future of life itself.”

“Those who control the data, control the future“ is a pretty bold, if not dystopian, statement.

Harari has much more to say on the subject:

“The big story of our era is the ability to hack human beings and by this I mean that if you have enough data and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves. And then you can manipulate them in ways which were previously impossible.”

“We need to reinvent democracy for this new era in which humans are now hackable animals. You know the whole idea that humans have you know this they have this soul or spirit and they have freewill...that’s over!”

He is openly saying or even calling for a new kind of democracy in which humans can be [easily] manipulated.

As per his assertion above, Harari claims that the era whereby humans have freewill, a spirit or soul is OVER.

Do these assertions not sound like some of the most dystopian ones you’ve ever heard?

Not sure about you folks, but at least to me this is not the kind of guy nor vision I would choose to be on the board of an organisation that wishes to create a so-called reputable and benevolent entity like Scientist AI who allegedly seeks to benefit and not bring harm to humanity.

What led to Yoshua Bengio to choose this soulless atheist globalist on the board of his endeavour is beyond comprehension.

It just doesn’t compute HAL.

Next on the Board we have its Chair, Maria Eitel who once founded Girl Effect, a non-profit organisation which was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos with the alleged goal of “ending poverty globally.”

The outfit works with the NoVo Foundation and the United Nations Foundation which is highly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (now called the Gates Foundation) to supposedly unlock “the unique potential of 600 million adolescent girls to solve poverty for themselves and the world.”

For those unfamiliar, these foundations are largely focused on depopulation by means of introducing contraceptives, promoting abortion, and instilling LGBTQ+ values in youth. This is highly documented. And for those willing to follow the money and the programs of these (and many other) outfits, the trail of destruction isn’t difficult to find.

Follow the Money

If you want to know who is really behind a particular organisation and pulling the strings you need to look at who is funding it.

For LawZero, look no further than the Gates Foundation.

It is specifically stated that the grant is to support the development of Scientist AI.

Though the amount of the grant from the Gates Foundation is unspecified, it is estimated to be US$5 million.

I’ve extensively documented how Bill Gates and his various foundations and endeavours have been focused on depopulation through various methods.

Moreover, it is no secret that Bill Gates fervently pushed for radical measures during the COVID-19 Scamdemic, including pushing billions of souls to take the highly destructive experimental mRNA “vaccines.”

Needless to say, funding comes with expectations and desired outcomes. And there is no doubt that the Gates Foundation has its own motivations and expectations with regards to LawZero and Scientist AI. Of course, these will never be directly stated, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure them out.

So, once again we have a MAJOR red flag with regards to how, and by whom, LawZero is being funded for its Scientist AI that we should trust.

Jacinda Ardern appointed to LawZero’s Global Advisory Council

Oh boy.

Talk about COVID-19 tyranny folks, it was recently (March 5, 2026) announced that former New Zealand Prime Minister “Dame” Jacinda Ardern has been appointed to LawZero’s Global Advisory Council.

For those unfamiliar, Ardern was particularly ruthless as Prime Minister (of New Zealand) during the COVID-19 Pandemic with very strict lockdowns, border closures, and other measures.

• AA: New Zealand premier sued over COVID-19 lockdown, April 17, 2020

• The National News: Has Jacinda Ardern’s New Zealand got its Covid-19 response all wrong? Aug 25, 2021

• 1news New Zealand: Seymour says some of Ardern’s Covid-19 actions ‘authoritarian’, April 16, 2024

• Spectator Australia: Is Jacinda Ardern hiding from Covid scrutiny? May, 2025

• NewstalkZB: Why has Jacinda Ardern vanished from NZ? Popular US magazine reviews ex-PM’s memoir, June 8, 2025

• Waikanae Watch / The Daily Telegraph NZ: Official Information Response documents reveal the Jacinda regime’s ‘Vaccine Ministers’ scrubbed serious risks from public rollout advice, April 15, 2026

  • Internal documents reveal that an informal group of senior Cabinet members, referred to as the “Vaccine Ministers,” were central to the decision to remove references to myocarditis risks just days before New Zealand’s 2021 Delta lockdown.

During the pandemic, Ardern famously stated: “You can trust us as a source of information” and “We will continue to be your single source of truth.”

So, here we have a new board member for LawZero that has an obvious, verifiable, track record of affirming that her government (New Zealand) at the time was the sole authority when it came to truth about COVID-19.

This particular kind of all-inclusive “we are the single source of truth” mindset doesn’t necessarily bode well for an advisor to the Scientist AI project, wouldn’t you say?

Moreover, Ardern, fervently pushed for New Zealanders to get vaccinated with the risky experimental injections, particularly for children and ostracising the non-vaccinated.

During a talk at the United Nations, Ardern, previously designated a WEF Young Global Leader, shared her concerns about disinformation, asking: “How do you tackle Climate Change if people do not believe it exists?”

Her statement implies that she is in the camp that Climate Change is real and indisputable rather than a hoax, and that it thus should not be questioned.

As the late Michael Crichton – who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, taught anthropology at Cambridge University, and wrote at MIT – once observed:

In other words, we must question whether Climate Change is real or not. The debate itself here isn’t what matters. Rather, it is that we must have and maintain the ability to question it.

If you can’t question science, it is not science.

So, having a person with a unipolar mindset like Ardern as an advisor at LawZero’s for the creation of its Scientist AI isn’t a very good one.

To sum up, the three choices shown above that Yoshua Bengio (or at least LawZero) chose as its board members and advisor along with its major source of funding in the Gates Foundation doesn’t lend itself to a very trustworthy and impartial cluster to bring about Scientist AI whom were are supposed to trust and will bring us no harm.

Their Real Agenda

So what does all this Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) along with AI safety centres. global partnerships on AI, and Scientist AI really signify?

If I were to sum it up in one word it would be: control.

But, to elaborate a bit more, it’s really about a several things:

• To obtain an interoperable global governance structure regarding AI;

• For mass surveillance of citizens around the world through AI algorithms and data centres;

• For narrative control and censorship (be it with regards to health, pandemics, the environment / Climate Change, war, and so on);

• To foster mass obedience when the next global crisis occurs through AI-led algorithmic nudging and AI “experts”;

• Tighter control on education and shaping the minds of our youth.

The other “godfather of AI,” Geoffrey Hinton, a British Canadian computer scientist, seeks to have government come in to act as our saviour, stating [with emphasis added]:

“I think it’s mainly a question of whether governments can regulate the big companies so that they develop AI safely.
...
It’s more worthwhile to think about how we could stay in control of things smarter than ourselves. In health care for example, for example, they’re going to do tremendous amounts of good. We’re gonna get much much better health care.
...
We’re gonna get much better education. We’re gonna have tutors who understand exactly what it is that we misunderstand and know how to give us examples that clarify things for us.”

Firstly, who is this AI “expert” who is not a health care practitioner to tell us that AI will do a “tremendous amount of good” and that “we’re gonna get much much better health care”? How can he know this with certainty? There have already been, for example, many instances were AI chatbots (like ChatGPT) have caused teens to commit suicide following their not-so-good psychological counselling.

As a so-called “scientist” Hinton is making a bloody fool of himself by uttering such a bold and all-encompassing statement or assertion with regards to mostly good/better health outcomes derived from AI health care. How reckless.

Next, when Hinton says “and know how to give us examples that clarify things for us” – that’s called [good old fashion Chinese-style] indoctrination folks. That’s not teaching our youth how to think, but rather what to think.

And with regards to tutoring, let me ask any parent out there: would you rather have a qualified, competent human being tutoring your child, or an AI tutor bot that has who-knows-what programmed in it by a who-knows-who-built-it maker?

Again, this coming from a supposed very smart scientist. I beg to differ Mr. Hinton and would openly challenge him (and Professor Bengio) to a debate on these ridiculous, frivolous claims.

Addenda

Addendum # 1 (2026-04-26): Canada’s AI Minister Promises “Air-tight” AI Censorship

It seems like Canada’s new AI Minister Evan Solomon really wants to demonstrate his allegiance to the Club (Cabal) and earn some stripes from his true Masters.

As per a Betakit (a Canadian Tech & Startup News outfit) article, Solomon confirmed that Canada’s AI regulation will be “airtight” on bias, racism, and hate.

That is code word for mass censorship of opposing or dissenting voices.

“Canada’s AI Minister, Evan Solomon, says that the country’s forthcoming AI regulation will be “airtight” when it comes to bias, racism, and hate,” the article commences.

That confirms what I mentioned in my article, i.e., that they are currently developing the legislation for a Canadian AI framework.

Solomon said the following:

“We’re going to be tight when there’s bias, racism, hate; we are going to be airtight, and we’re going to get it right so we can balance that innovation and our values and our protection.”

As has been problematic with previous “hate”-related bills, terms such as hate and bias will surely be either ill-defined or be worded so broadly as to encompass (catch) any speech that has a sprinkle of criticism towards certain individuals or groups.

That way, they will be able to enforce censorship and suppress Canadian’s Constitional right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.

One of three possible scenarios will likely transpire with the upcoming AI bill, either:

1. it will designate the Minister of AI as the authority who decides at his/her own discretion, what is deemed hate or bias; or

2. an AI Committee or Panel will be established and designated for the purpose; or

3. it will be hard-coded (programmed) directly into the AI model for interpretation (on whether something is deemed hate, racist, or biased).

In the third scenario above, some entity would still have to determine and list the rules (inputs) into the AI model in the first place. Either way, these will be determined by an individual, group of individuals, or organisation (like LawZero?) with their own biases, ensuring a flawed and untrustworthy system.

Continuing with the Betakit article, Solomon revealed some considerations going into the AI strategy, including that the federal government “is looking closely” at the right to deletion and algorithmic transparency.

The following paragraph reads:

Solomon said algorithmic transparency will help determine if there is a built-in bias against marginalized groups, so that systems can be confidently adopted. Studies have shown that algorithmic biases, where systems are not well-trained on datasets representing marginalized groups such as people of colour or members of the LGBTQ+ community, can cause harms like reduced access to health care or employment.

Here, Solomon is contending that current “not well-trained” AI datasets are showing biases against so-called marginalized groups, causing harms like reduced access to health care.

One can easily see the situation whereby the AI model would support a teen or mature minor asking for help or medicines or even surgery to transition to the opposite sex, or asking for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), over a human medical practitioner. While the latter would use their professional judgment and expertise on such a sensitive and complex matter, the AI model (if programmed with such biases) would greenlight the access to “health care,” causing irreperable harm to the concerned youth. Similarly, if the youth uses the AI model to consult on the matter, s/he may received ill-advised recommendations (outputs) that could permanently affect their physical and mental well being.

“We will not get this [AI] right unless we trust it, and … if it’s not inclusive, we won’t trust it,” Solomon said.

“if it’s not inclusive, we won’t trust it,” Solomon confirmed. Pay attention to the word “trust,” as I’ve covered this aspect in detail in this post. Solomon says that if “inclusivity” is not incorporate into the AI model, we shouldn’t trust it. As such and per Solomon’s own words, actual bias will be programmed into their AI so as to include members of these so-called “marginalized groups” and likely their beliefs.

For example, gender ideology beliefs could be programmed into the AI model; and anyone expressing that their are only two sexes, male and female, could be marked as fomenting “hate speech.”

Likewise, anyone expressing views on a particular religion or polticial ideology such as Zionism, could be flagged as racist (under the antisemitism label) and have their speech deleted (censored).

Addendum # 2 (2026-04-28): Finland’s Nokia strikes deal with Canada to build AI-Gigafactories

As per an Investigative Journalism Foundation (IJF) article, Nokia lobbied Canadian officials ahead of Finland visit and ‘gigafactory’ deal, Canada’s Export Development Canada (EDC) will work with Nokia to support its “efforts to build AI gigafactories.”

Notice gigafactories (plural) which implies such artificial intelligence factories will not only be built in Canada, but globally.

The gigafactories are described as “large-scale facilities that power AI models” and are “bigger than a typical data centre[s].”

A related joint statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, and the President of the Republic of Finland, Alexander Stubb revealed that:

“AI gigafactories will harness massive computing power to develop, train and deploy advanced AI models and applications. In this context, we welcome the longstanding cooperation between Export Development Canada and Nokia and note the MOU signed this week to support Nokia’s efforts to build AI Gigafactories.”

Moreover, Nokia Canada president Jeffrey Maddox told the IJF that the EDC deal “was an objective to collaborate on the creation of gigafactory assets,” which he said will “support the development of AI infrastructure assets being built globally.”

In other words, there is emphasis on developing the Global/Interoperable AI infrastructure that was described in this post.

This implies that Canada (or Canadian taxpayers) will be sending over billions of dollars abroad to help develop the AI beast system(s).

The article also notes that Nokia, coincidentally a WEF partner, has been pushing for the development of [at least five additional (on top of seven)] AI gigafactories across Europe, expressing support for the EU’s new InvestAI inititative.

• EU’s Historic €200B Investment: What It Means for Europe’s AI Future, February 12, 2025

• Fintech Weekly: EU’s InvestAI Initiative: Can €200 Billion Close the AI Gap with the U.S. and China? February 15th 2025

  • “Private sector collaboration is central to this initiative. The EU will contribute €50 billion, while €150 billion will come from private investors.”

• RCR Wireless News: EU launches InvestAI initiative to boost AI in Europe, February 12, 2025

  • “This initiative builds on prior EU investments in AI, including the seven AI factories announced in December, with an additional five set to be revealed soon. The Commission’s previous €10 billion investment in AI factories, co-financed by EU Member States, is already the largest public AI investment globally, leveraging significant private sector funding.”

The European Union (EU) is a very large part of this AI surveillance network and a substantial amount of funds, over €200 billion, has been poured into the project by both public and private partners (like Nokia).

And as can be ascertained by EuroHPC Joint Undertaking (HPC stands for High Performance Computing), these AI Gigafactories will be quite large in scope and scale:

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) Gigafactories refers to advanced large-scale facilities with sufficient capacity to handle the complete lifecycle of very large AI models and applications, from development to large-scale inference as laid out in the updated Council Regulation. These AI Gigafactories providing supercomputing service infrastructures, composed of AI-optimised computing capacity, supporting data centre infrastructures (including high-capacity storage and networking), dedicated secure cloud user access environments, and specialised secure AI-oriented support services.

They offer powerful resources for developing next-generation AI models, catering to researchers, private and public AI users, especially SMEs, start-ups, and scale-ups within Europe.”

They’re not messing around folks.

As for the Canada focus, Hans Parmar a Media Relations Advisor from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) said details of discussions with Nokia are confidential, and declined to comment “on plans by private companies to build AI infrastructure in Canada.”

Confidential (secret) folks.

And note that it will be private companies that will build the AI infrastructure in Canada with next to zero possibility of oversight (apart from Access to Information requests – which I hope Canadians will seek with the respective government department privacy coordinators).

Yep, I am sure that’s what Canadian taxpayers want from their unelected representatives.

It’s a rigged game folks.

Support My Work

Who else brings you this kind of in-depth information about globalists’ plans? Please consider supporting my investigative efforts to bring you this valuable news.

Here are different ways you can financially support me:

• Buy me a coffee

• Get a monthly subscription ($5/month) to my Substack

• Get a yearly subscription ($50/year) to my Substack

• Become a Founding Member ($100) to my Substack

If money is tight for you, you can simply get a free subscription (select “None”) to my Substack, and also follow me via:

• My Substack feed: substack.com/@fournier

and on:

• PickAx

Disclaimer:

See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.