BBC journalist Nick Robinson's social media ‘hacked to promote cryptocurrency'
The BBC Radio 4 Today programme presenter, 61, said he became locked out of his X account on Monday night and has been prevented from accessing it.
His co-host Amol Rajan was on the Today programme speaking about the chief executive officer of OpenAI, Sam Altman, saying no to selling his artificial intelligence (AI) company to Tesla Motors chief executive and X owner Elon Musk.
Altman has also offered to buy X, formerly Twitter, for less than Musk paid for it.
Rajan said: ' Life comes at you fast and very digitally when you're a tech bro and meanwhile, also on Twitter/X, my very own tech bro, the mighty Nick Robinson, has finally succumbed to the temptations online, and I see overnight, is launching a cryptocurrency.
'This is the big news in Britain, and what listeners want to know Nick is, how do they invest?'
Robinson replied saying 'you're not the only one who discovered this last night', adding: 'I was woken up at about 11 o'clock to find that I had accidentally tweeted to a million people that I was indeed launching a new cryptocurrency called 'dollar today' on something called Solana, which you no doubt know about, but I thought was probably one of those drinks that you give to kids after they've been swimming.
'Yeah, I've been hacked on my Twitter account. So if you read that, it's complete nonsense, quite entertaining nonsense.
'Actually, it (the cryptocurrency) says that, it's more than a token, it's a way for our listeners to come together, celebrate innovation, and be part of something bigger. I'm still locked out of my account, so anything you read today, it won't be me, but there's a lesson learned.'
Rajan appeared to jokingly point out it might be due to Robinson 'having a bit of a go at Elon Musk'.
Robinson replied: 'It was absolutely clear that Mr Musk's American supporters had taken a personal animus because I had been swamped by critical messages after I pointed out that what Mr Musk said on air, that the BBC takes money from USAID (United States Agency for International Development), an organisation he's dismantling, is simply not true.
'The BBC charity called BBC Media Action, which helps tackle disinformation around the world, does indeed take some money from other charitable sources and USAID. The BBC news organisation and the BBC overall does not. Anyway, there we are, that didn't make me very popular.'
Robinson, a former BBC political editor, is also a presenter on BBC Radio 4 show Political Thinking, and presents The Today Podcast with Rajan.
Musk, who is leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), is trying to dismantle USAID, and compared it to a 'bowl of worms' during a recent interview.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The AI apocalypse is the least of our worries
What is your p(doom)? This is the pseudo-scientific manner in which some people express the strength of their belief that an artificial superintelligence running on computers will, in the coming decades, kill all humans. If your p(doom) is 0.1, you think it 10 per cent likely. If your p(doom) is 0.9, you're very confident it will happen. Well, maybe 'confident' isn't the word. Those who have a high p(doom) and seem otherwise intelligent argue that there's no point in having children or planning much for the future because we are all going to die. One of the most prominent doomers, a combative autodidact and the author of Harry Potter fan-fiction named Eliezer Yudkowsky, was recently asked what advice he would give to young people. He replied: 'Don't expect a long life.' Expressing such notions as probabilities between 0 and 1 makes them sound more rigorous, but assigning numerical likelihoods to one-off potential catastrophes is more like a game of blindfold darts: no one agrees on how such figures should be calculated. Just as no one actually knows how to build an artificial superintelligence or understands how one, if it were possible, would behave, despite reams of science-fictional argumentation by Yudkowsky and others. Everyone's just guessing, and going off the vibes they get from interacting with the latest chatbot. The AI doomers are the subject of too many chapters in Tom Ough's book, which traces the career of one of their godfathers, the philosopher Nick Bostrom and his Future of Humanity Institute, a research unit latterly shut down by the University of Oxford. It also excitedly relates Rishi Sunak's creation of the UK's AI Safety Institute, which earlier this year was renamed the AI Security Institute when it was announced that the American AI company Anthropic would be helping the UK to 'enhance public services'. Presumably the implication that AI might be unsafe was distasteful to the American corporation, currently valued at $100 billion. Probably AI doomerism as a whole is just another millennarian apocalypse cult. No one mentioned here, at least, seems bothered by the harms that existing AI is causing – from destroying students' ability to think to helping lawyers plead arguments with reference to made-up cases or decimating the creative class as a whole – inasmuch as what is called 'AI' is a set of giant plagiarism machines that are fed illegally acquired artwork and books and simply spit out probabilistically recombined copies of them. Much more dangerous in the real world are the other classes of 'existential risk' – catastrophes that could cause the extinction of the human race, or at least a very bad few decades for billions of people. What about an asteroid strike, for example? A space rock 10km across did for the dinosaurs, and over Earth's long history the planet has, as Ough amusingly puts it, resembled 'not so much an island paradise as a coconut shy'. So he talks to the scientists who successfully conducted the first asteroid-deflection experiment, when Nasa crashed a spacecraft into one named Dimorphos in 2022 and successfully altered its trajectory. Not as glamorous as sending Bruce Willis to nuke it but arguably more practical. Ough also talks to people worried about solar storms – a big enough coronal mass ejection could bring down power grids and electrical equipment over an entire hemisphere of Earth – and about supervolcanoes, which are like volcanoes but bigger and could cause something resembling a global nuclear winter lasting years. It turns out that there are even people working on 'defusing' volcanoes by drilling carefully into their magma chambers – though it is a bit worrying that only 30 per cent of the world's active volcanoes are monitored for signs they might be getting ready to blow. Other chapters consider nuclear war, and the potential for saving people in a real nuclear winter by converting the fungi that will flourish in such conditions into a mass food source; or the prospects for reversing some global warming by geoengineering – seeding the high atmosphere with sulphur particles that reflect sunlight. (This one might go wrong.) The dangers of biowarfare, meanwhile, have never really gone away. Indeed they are greater than ever, Ough argues, in a high-tech world of benchtop DNA synthesis of novel pathogens. The conceit of this book is that all the men and women studying such risks are part of a global society of superhero boffins that the author names the 'anti-catastrophe league'. And it would indeed be pleasing if they all worked together in a giant spaceship, like the Avengers. Ough's style is at times misfiringly jokey (I don't think anyone needs to be told that Hollywood is 'that ever-reliable purveyor of public collective-consciousness epiphenomena'). But he writes with vim and colour about a lot of interesting subjects. My favourite chapter follows the people who are really interested in drilling extremely deep holes into the Earth, trying to beat the impressive record of the Soviets, who made a borehole 12km down. Do more of this and you'd have lots of cheap geothermal energy to power, er, more AI data centres. So how worried should we be? Here the dubious applicability of probability arithmetic raises its head once again. Because huge natural catastrophes, such as supervolcano explosions or big asteroids hitting Earth, have been observed to happen only once every 10,000 or 100 million years, as it might be, Ough takes it that we're relatively safe from such things right now, and that they are really problems for our descendants to worry about. But that is an irrational assumption. There is no law to say that events will continue to follow a regular temporal pattern, and one of those extremely dangerous events could easily happen tomorrow. After reading this entertainingly dark book, your p(doom) might be very low for the AI apocalypse but much higher for other kinds.
The National
8 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Government panned for lack of Israel-linked arms firm checks
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that two major arms companies in receipt of Scottish Enterprise grants – Italian arms giant Leonardo and American multinational Raytheon Systems – haven't received a human right due diligence check since October 2019 This funding comes despite both firms continue to supply Israel with weapons amid its genocide in Gaza. In that timeframe, both firms have also been in receipt of Scottish public money – Leonardo received £786,125 in 2023 while Raytheon Systems, which has a factory in Glenrothes, was given £500k in the first half of 2024. Leonardo produces laser targeting systems for Lockheed Martin, which sells the F-35 jets Israel, and Raytheon makes Paveway II guided missiles which are also used by Israel. READ MORE: JD Vance panned for 'lies about Scotland' ahead of luxury Ayrshire holiday The last time a check was performed on French arms firm Thales was July 2021, while Babcock was last checked in March 2022 and Chemring Energetics in December 2021. Bae Systems received a check in February 2024. In response, human rights charity Amnesty International told The National that the 'more we learn' about the checks 'the more concerning it becomes' that Scottish Enterprise and Scottish ministers are defending the process. Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater, meanwhile, said it was 'shocking', adding: 'There is no point in having human rights checks at all if they are never carried out.' In total, Scottish Enterprise has given £8 million to 13 companies involved in weapons manufacturing since 2019. The Scottish Government has repeatedly insisted that no public funding goes towards the manufacturing of munitions specifically but other areas these companies operate in, including research, training and apprenticeships. Scottish Enterprise, meanwhile, has strongly denied its human rights checks are not adequate. However, that has been called into question given that, of the 199 human rights checks between 2021 and 2023, no firm has ever failed. When pressed on the issue in an exclusive interview with The National last weekend, First Minister John Swinney defended the grants. 'We won't support the production of munitions. That's our hard line. And we get criticised for taking that hard line, and I'm very confident that hard line is applied,' he said. The First Minister was then pressed on the argument that any funding – even if ring-fenced by the Scottish Government – will directly help a company's cash flow and could, hypothetically, free up money to be used elsewhere, including in the building of munitions. 'I understand that point. But there are also defence requirements of Scotland. Scotland is part of an island nation. We require, for example, shipbuilding resources to support the maritime defense of the United Kingdom because nobody wants to see us vulnerable to an attack from Russia. I certainly don't want to,' he responded. An Amnesty International spokesperson said: "Amnesty is aware from our own research that payments were made to companies known to supply Israel without a new check being triggered by the unfolding genocide in Gaza. 'Alarmingly, that is the process Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government attempted to characterise as robust and well aligned to international standards. The recent in-house review of the human rights checks recommended some improvements, but unsurprisingly they don't go far enough. We will be meeting with Scottish Enterprise in the coming weeks to take these concerns forward." Slater, meanwhile, said it 'flies in the face of any kind of due diligence'. "These are some of the biggest arms companies in the world. They have armed human rights abusers and dictatorships and some have directly enabled and profited from the genocide in Gaza,' she said. "They should not be receiving public money in the first place, and the Scottish Government absolutely should not be setting up tests to win favourable headlines while refusing to actually implement them. "How can we trust a word they say on ensuring they are applying human rights standards when they are refusing to even ask the right questions of those they are giving public money to?" Scottish Enterprise has been approached for comment.
Wales Online
11 hours ago
- Wales Online
BBC Homes Under the Hammer expert leaves duo fuming at 'very low' valuation
BBC Homes Under the Hammer expert leaves duo fuming at 'very low' valuation Homes Under the Hammer was back on our screens on Wednesday afternoon, with a father and son duo aiming to make a huge profit after buying a four-bed home in Somerset A Homes Under the Hammer duo were left absolutely livid after an estate agent reckoned they'd essentially just "broken even" following all their efforts renovating a four-bedroom property in Somerset. Father and son team Marcus and George featured on Wednesday's (August 13) repeat instalment of the BBC property show. Presenter Martin Roberts travelled to Somerset to inspect the house they'd bought before auction. From the exterior, the property looked perfectly maintained and sat in a desirable area, close to local facilities. Upon entering the house, Martin found it remarkably difficult to spot any faults whatsoever and remarked how "unusual" it was to discover a property in such excellent condition on the programme, reports Somerset Live. A Homes Under the Hammer pair were not pleased with the show's estate agent who told them they'd made zero profit after all of their hard work (Image: bbc) Martin Roberts delivers devastating blow to Homes Under The Hammer buyers after grim discovery READ MORE: Martin suspected a "twist," and his instincts proved correct—after examining the legal paperwork, it emerged that there "might" have been a potential mining concern, raising the prospect of subsidence. Subsidence can prove an extremely expensive problem and may sometimes discourage lenders from providing mortgages on a property. Despite the legal complications, George and Marcus remained determined to bid for the four-bedroom house at auction but struck lucky at the last moment when fresh survey results were submitted to the auctioneer. George and Marcus explained they'd received way higher estimations from other estate agents in the area (Image: BBC) The property survey confirmed there were no mining or structural problems, but because this crucial information arrived so late, numerous prospective purchasers had already been discouraged. This enabled George and Marcus to pounce and secure the property for a remarkable £350,000 without any substantial expenses devouring their budget. Discussing their auction success with Martin, George revealed: "We were lucky, a full structural survey gave it a completely clean bill of health in the eleventh hour." The presenter then issued a caution to prospective buyers on screen, advising viewers: "We always talk about the importance of reading the legal pack here on Homes Under the Hammer, but an important lesson there, that that can actually change right up to the auction itself." Martin Roberts struggled to find anything wrong with the property He continued: "Turns out Marcus and George spotted that and probably bagged themselves a bit of a bargain." The Somerset duo initially intended to sell the property following a comprehensive renovation. They had a substantial budget of £80,000 to invest in the refurbishment and predicted the project would be finished within four months. When Martin revisited the home following the four-month timeframe, he was astonished to find that everything had been completed to an exceptionally high standard. The kitchen featured an open-plan design, and costly elements had been incorporated throughout. They disclosed to the host that all the renovation work had stayed within budget, and they had invested merely £59,000, bringing their total expenditure to £409,000. As with every series, Homes Under the Hammer subsequently brings in a local estate agent to assess the property's value following completion of the work. To their astonishment, the programme's expert assessed the property at around £400,000-£425,000, suggesting they would barely break even or potentially face a small loss. Marcus and George were visibly frustrated with the assessment and challenged the figure, telling Martin, "That's very, very low. We've had three valuations from three local estate agents now, and they've valued it just below £500k." Keen to remain impartial, Martin commented: "Whichever way you look at it, its either pre-tax profit of £90,000k or breaking even." Following all the assessments, George and Marcus decided not to proceed with the sale and instead retained the property as a rental investment. Article continues below Homes Under the Hammer airs on BBC One weekdays, from 11:15am.
