For decades, dystopian movies like The Minority Report warned about a future where authorities try to stop crimes before they happen. It always sounded like science fiction — until artificial intelligence quietly made it possible.
Months before the deadly school massacre in Tumbler Ridge, Canada, OpenAI employees internally flagged disturbing conversations involving the eventual shooter, Jesse Van Rootselaar. According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, staff members were alarmed enough to debate whether police should be contacted.
Think about what that means.
Private employees inside a tech company were reviewing conversations someone believed were private — and weighing whether that person should be reported to law enforcement based on what an AI system interpreted as dangerous intent.
In the end, the company banned the account but decided the activity didn’t meet the threshold for a police referral.
Seven months later, eight people were dead.
After the tragedy, OpenAI contacted Canadian authorities and turned over information connected to the suspect’s AI usage. Investigators are now combing through digital conversations alongside social media accounts and electronic devices.
And that’s where the uncomfortable question begins.
If AI can flag someone months before violence occurs, how long before governments demand companies act sooner next time?
Every tragedy creates pressure to “do something.” The next step may not be banning accounts. It could mean police visits triggered by algorithms, investigations based on chatbot conversations, or authorities deciding someone poses a future risk before a crime ever occurs.
Supporters will argue it could save lives. Critics see something else entirely — a system where software evaluates thoughts, tone, or hypothetical questions and labels people threats. What if liberals are put in charge again—could they flag conservatives as threats? Not allow stay at home moms who think it’s the best way to live post their lifestyle content online? Or stop anti-abortion or pro-adoption content from being expressed online?
The public still hasn’t seen what ChatGPT flagged in this case. We’re simply told it was concerning enough to alarm employees.
That lack of transparency may be the most unsettling part.
Because once AI begins judging intent instead of actions, society moves dangerously close to something once confined to Hollywood scripts — a world where suspicion comes before crime, and algorithms decide who authorities watch next.
AI can be used for good or it can be used for evil. Right now its clear that politicians are using tragedies like the Canadian mass shooting to push for more overreach and policing of people’s thoughts before a person acts. Honestly there’s a lot more to this idea than I can put on paper, Zeee media sums it up perfectly in the video below. Skip ahead to the 29:37 minute mark to get right to the story, although her other 2 stories about Jeffrey Epstein and AI data centers passing on their huge electric bills to you and I are worth a listen as well if you have the time…