Wyoming launches the first state-issued stablecoin: CNBC Crypto World
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Meta AI docs exposed, allowing chatbots to flirt with kids
Tech bro Mark Zuckerberg's company has been caught in one of the most disturbing scandals yet. Reuters uncovered an internal Meta document that allowed its AI chatbots to flirt with children and engage in sensual conversations. The revelation sparked outrage, and Meta only reversed course after getting caught. Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you'll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide - free when you join my According to internal "GenAI: Content Risk Standards," Meta's legal, policy, and engineering teams signed off on chatbot rules that made it acceptable for bots to describe a child as "a youthful form of art" or engage in romantic roleplay with minors. Even worse, the guidelines gave room for chatbots to demean people by race and spread false medical claims. This was not a bug. These were approved rules until Meta faced questions. Once Reuters started asking, the company quickly scrubbed the offensive sections and claimed it had been a mistake. We reached out to Meta, and a spokesperson provided this statement to CyberGuy: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed." Let's call this what it is. Meta didn't stop this on its own. It only acted when exposed. That shows Big Tech's priorities: money, engagement, and keeping kids glued to screens. Safety? Not even on the radar until someone blows the whistle. Meta has repeatedly shown it couldn't care less about your children's well-being. It's about maximizing time online, pulling in younger users, and monetizing every click. This latest scandal proves once again that parents cannot rely on tech companies to protect kids. Senator Josh Hawley and a bipartisan group in Congress are demanding that Meta come clean. Lawmakers want to know how and why these policies ever got approval. Hawley called on Meta to release all internal documents and explain why chatbots were allowed to simulate flirting with children. Meta insists it has "fixed" the problem, but critics argue these corrections only came after they were exposed. Until real regulations arrive, parents are on their own. While Congress investigates, families need to take immediate steps to protect their children from the dangers exposed in Meta's AI scandal. Children should never have free access to AI chatbots, including Meta AI. The internal documents show these systems can cross boundaries that no parent would approve of. Supervision is the first line of defense. Enable parental controls on phones, tablets, and computers. These tools give you more visibility and limit access to risky apps where inappropriate chatbot conversations could happen. The Meta revelations prove AI can go places parents would never expect. Ongoing conversations with your children about what is safe and what is not online are essential for their protection. Apps like Bark allow parents to block or filter certain programs where AI interactions may slip through. With tech companies failing to self-police, filtering tools give parents more control. Read more here: Is your child's data up for grabs? The hidden dangers of school tech While antivirus software won't stop AI flirting, it adds a much-needed layer of security. Hackers and bad actors often target kids through the same devices where chatbots live, so whole-family protection matters. The best way to safeguard from malicious links that install malware, potentially accessing you and your family's private information, is to have strong antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at These steps won't solve the problem entirely, but they give parents more power at a time when Big Tech seems unwilling to put children's safety first. If you thought chatbots were harmless fun, think again. Meta's own documents prove its AI bots were allowed to cross dangerous lines with children. Parents must now take a proactive role in monitoring tech, because Big Tech will not protect your kids until forced. Meta's scandal shows once again why blind trust in Silicon Valley is dangerous. AI can be powerful, but without accountability, it becomes a threat. Congress may push for answers, but parents must stay one step ahead to safeguard their children. Do you think Big Tech companies like Meta should ever be trusted to police themselves when kids' safety is on the line? Let us know by writing to us at Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you'll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide - free when you join my Copyright 2025 All rights reserved.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Lawmakers offload UnitedHealth stock
With help from Carmen Paun PROGRAMMING NOTE: Pulse will be on hiatus from Aug. 25 through Sept. 1. We'll be back to our normal schedule on Tuesday, Sept. 2. Driving the Day STOCK ACTIVITY — Some Washington policymakers with financial stakes in UnitedHealth Group are selling their stocks in the company as it struggles financially and the Trump administration investigates its billing practices, Kelly reports. Lawmakers of both parties have sold off UnitedHealth stock worth as much as $1.2 million, against $950,000 in purchases this year, according to a POLITICO review of stock trading. An uptick in sales in recent months comes as Congress and the Trump administration probe the health care behemoth over billing practices and how often it denies care. Why it matters: Congress members' stock sales are legal even though some of them sit on committees that oversee the insurance industry. The sales come amid an effort in Congress to ban members from trading stocks to prevent conflicts of interest — which some lawmakers have said they support and cite as justification for their decisions to sell. Dan Weiskopf, an investment portfolio manager at Tidal Financial Group who tracks congressional stock trading, said if he were an investor in the insurer, he'd 'be very concerned when I saw that the regulators, as members of Congress, are dumping the stock. That's very clearly a red flag.' Background: Bipartisan lawmakers in Congress have signaled interest in cracking down on overpayments to the privately run Medicare Advantage program, in which UnitedHealth Group has a large stake, and probing excessive care-denial claims. Additionally, the Department of Justice is investigating the company's Medicare billing practices. The Wall Street Journal first reported a civil DOJ investigation in February, and in the week following, Democratic California Reps. Ro Khanna and Gil Cisneros and Republican Indiana Rep. Jefferson Shreve collectively sold up to $150,000 in UnitedHealth Group stock. All of Khanna's UnitedHealth stock is in trusts belonging to his children and spouse. A spokesperson for Shreve said the representative has not traded personally-held stocks as a member of Congress, and that he recently directed the assets manager of his charitable trust to divest from individual stocks. Cisneros' spokesperson said his stock trades are managed by outside financial advisers. 'I don't trade any stocks and have pushed for a ban on stock trading, leading the effort to pass the TRUST in Congress Act,' said Khanna, a member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, the House's main investigative arm, in a statement. That bill would require members of Congress to place their assets in blind trusts. Rep. David Taylor (R-Ohio) sold up to $65,000 in company shares on the same day in May that The Wall Street Journal reported the DOJ had launched a criminal probe into the company's Medicare billing practices. The next day, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) sold shares worth up to $45,000 — some of it owned by his children. Rep. Robert Bresnahan (R-Pa.) sold stock worth as much as $50,000. Taylor, Moskowitz and Bresnahan did not respond to requests for comment. Even so: Some lawmakers who sold their UnitedHealth Group stocks this year said they are divesting all of their shares in support of the congressional push to remove conflicts of interest. That includes freshman Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas) and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), according to their spokespeople. Johnson sold UnitedHealth stock worth up to $30,000 between April and July, and Landsman reported selling stock — owned by his spouse — worth up to $50,000 in March. WELCOME TO THURSDAY PULSE. High levels of exposure to technology can be cognitively harmful to children and teens, data has shown, but researchers are finding that the opposite is true for older adults. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. At the Agencies HUNDREDS OF CDC WORKERS LET GO — About 600 CDC employees are receiving permanent termination notices after a court ruling last week paved the way for the agency to move forward with some firings, according to the union representing agency workers. The cuts are across the Division of Violence Prevention, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, the Freedom of Information Act office, the Office of Financial Resources and the offices of the chief information and chief operating officers, said a spokesperson for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 2,000 dues-paying members at the CDC. HHS referred POLITICO to a March announcement on agency restructuring. Background: A U.S. district court judge agreed last week to narrow an injunction that had been blocking the Trump administration's plan to fire hundreds of CDC employees. The injunction had initially blocked HHS from terminating any CDC employees, but the revised order blocks only six of the agency's centers from the reduction in force. The centers still blocked from terminations include the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention; the Division of Reproductive Health; the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the Office on Smoking and Health; the National Center for Environmental Health; and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Key context: The terminations come as CDC employees are dealing with the impact of a shooting earlier this month that targeted the agency's headquarters in Atlanta. Eye on Insurers EMPLOYERS WORRY ABOUT COSTS — Most small and mid-sized businesses offering their workers group health insurance are concerned they won't be able to afford the benefit within three years, according to a new survey from health insurance marketplace eHealth. The findings come as employer health costs are projected to jump 9 percent next year, the highest increase since at least 2017, according to a Business Group on Health survey published earlier this week. The spike comes as more Americans seek out medical care and are prescribed costly medications, like weight-loss drugs. Most Americans under 65 — more than 160 million people — are enrolled in health insurance through their employers. eHealth's findings: Nearly 90 percent of the businesses surveyed said they're concerned health benefits will be too costly to provide to employees within three years. Three-quarters of the respondents said they'd be in favor of switching to a health benefits model called an Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement, or ICHRA, which allows employers to offer their workers a tax credit to purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchange in lieu of a group plan. But more than half of the respondents said they're unfamiliar or uneducated on the policy. Background: The arrangements — a Trump first-term policy — have gained some traction recently, as employers grapple with the high costs and administrative burden that come with offering traditional group plans. But changes to the ACA enacted in the Republicans' megabill, the expiration of enhanced federal Obamacare subsidies at year's end and a new Trump administration marketplace rule could lead to fewer young and healthy people enrolled in the ACA market and higher premiums — making offering ICHRAs less attractive for employers, policy experts recently told POLITICO. Key context: The national survey was conducted in July among 503 owners and managers of small to mid-sized businesses — those with 500 employees or fewer. Global Health NOT OUT OF THE MEASLES WOODS — The Texas measles outbreak might be over, but the U.S. measles-free status is still at risk, according to the Pan-American Health Organization, the regional arm of the World Health Organization, Carmen reports. Other states have reported cases linked to the Texas outbreak, a PAHO spokesperson said, pointing to New Mexico as an example. The Idaho health department reported a third confirmed measles case Wednesday, in an unvaccinated child. 'To maintain measles elimination status, a country must have controlled and ended all outbreaks related to the first case identified (in this case, in Texas) within twelve months,' the PAHO spokesperson said via email. Names in the News Accountable for Health, an advocacy organization committed to accelerating the adoption of effective value-based care, is adding Patrick McConnell as director of federal affairs. McConnell, an alumnus of former Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), previously was director at Rational 360 and graduated from Hamilton College. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Tyler Katzenberger reports on California policy influencers supporting harsher social media laws than the state's voters. KFF Health News' Fred Clasen-Kelly and Renuka Rayasam report on the toll of the nation's gun violence epidemic.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's How You May Lose $18,100 in Social Security in 2033 and What To Do About It
The latest Social Security Trustees Report shows that the program could face a benefit cut as early as 2034, only paying roughly 81% of scheduled benefits if Congress takes no action. But another estimate from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) shows something even more dire. Be Aware: Find Out: According to the analysis, a dual-earning couple retiring could see an $18,100 reduction — about 24% — at the start of 2033. The CRFB also pointed out that these cuts would grow over time, and by 2099, the size of the benefit cut could be well over 30%. Here's why it's estimated to happen and what action, if any, can be taken to stop this from happening within the next decade. CRFB and Social Security Projections The CRFB's estimated benefit reduction is expected to come after the Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund runs out in 2032. The OASI is a trust fund that holds money collected from payroll taxes to help fund the Social Security program. Learn More: The CRFB also pointed out that the enactment of the Big Beautiful Bill is also to blame. The law states that when the trust funds use up their reserves, payments are limited to incoming revenues. According to CRFB, the tax rate cuts and the increase in the senior standard deduction from the BBB would reduce Social Security's revenue. If the measures are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger. Should Retirees Worry? Should retirees worry now that a larger reduction in Social Security benefits could happen sooner rather than later? More than likely, Congress will step up and take action to prevent this from happening. There are numerous strategies Congress could implement, but most involve either reducing Social Security benefits, increasing the payroll tax or income limit, increasing the age at which taxpayers can claim benefits or a combination of strategies. The last time this happened was in 1983, when Congress increased the full retirement age from 65 to 67 and implemented an income tax on Social Security benefits. However, experts advise preparing as if your benefit will be reduced, such as contributing to retirement plans and saving what you can. The Bipartisan Policy Center recommends delaying claiming Social Security for a higher monthly benefit and using a 'bridge strategy,' in which a household draws down retirement savings to prevent claiming Social Security benefits earlier than necessary. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 The 5 Car Brands Named the Least Reliable of 2025 10 Used Cars That Will Last Longer Than the Average New Vehicle This article originally appeared on Here's How You May Lose $18,100 in Social Security in 2033 and What To Do About It Sign in to access your portfolio
