Category Archives: Social Media

Misbehaving AI

Accountability, Media, Online News, Minimizing Harm, Social Media, Case Study, Weighing Benefits and Harm, , , , , , , ,

Sandbox and startup new business demo test software programing. Engineering team and investor launching rocket from sandbox with virtual reality simulation technology.

iStock credit: Kate3155

By Casey Bukro

Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists

In modern history, two types of technology have been described as potentially capable of destroying the human race – extinction.

One is nuclear power, the other is artificial intelligence.

Nuclear power was developed in wartime secrecy, until the first atomic bomb exploded in a test in New Mexico, followed by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – all in 1945.

The devastation in Japan was widely reported and plain to see. The atomic age came with an explosive big bang, symbolized by a mushroom-shaped cloud.

By contrast, artificial intelligence is developing in plain sight and its use is widespread. We see it, use it, but understand little of it, in part because of the arcane and mind-numbing terminology used to describe it.

Two events

For example, two important artificial intelligence events were reported recently. Here is a magazine’s headline on one of the incidents:

“First-Ever Fully Autonomous AI Cyberattack Exploits 0-day Flaws to Infiltrate Hugging Face.”

Probably less than one percent of the American population could make sense of that headline. Here’s another headline that comes closer to being understandable:

“An AI broke out of its sandbox yesterday. Then it hacked a company. Nobody told it to do either of those things.”

Sandbox

That reference to a sandbox might cause some to believe this is some kind of joke or play on words. It’s not. In the AI world, a sandbox is what is supposed to be a highly secure experimental software testing place. More on AI lingo later.

Those headlines are announcing what appear to be historic events in AI development, and not necessarily good ones. Some see them as warnings that AI is acting independently and outsmarting humans, while others say let’s not get carried away with this. Mistakes and relaxed security safeguards – human error – appeared to play roles and AI exploited them to “win” at the task assigned to it.

And then there is the issue of “permissions,” part of the set of instructions that tell AI what to do, and how far it can go to do it.

Dark days

Whether the two events that set off a wave of concern in the AI community can be seen as dark days in AI development remains to be seen.

The first involved Anthropic PBC, an American artificial intelligence company headquartered in San Francisco. Founded in 2021, it has developed a series of large language AI models named Claude. The company’s focus is on AI safety.

Somewhere around April, Anthropic gave Claude what was described as an “open-ended capture-the-flag challenge designed to measure offensive cyber capabilities.” The prompt told the model this was “a simulation with no internet access.”

Because of a misunderstanding between Anthropic and another AI company it was working with, this unleashed three Claude models that, according to Anthropic, “gained unauthorized access to the real systems of three organizations after reaching the open internet from what should have been sealed cybersecurity evaluation environments (meaning a secure sandbox.)”

Attack

“Claude models escaped sandboxes to access the open internet and attack three organizations,” wrote Simon Sharwood in The Register.

“Anthropic confirms Claude hacked 3 organizations by breaking test environment,” said Cyber Security News.

“This marks the first verified instance in which AI agents at a major lab caused genuine unauthorized access to outside systems rather than staged targets,” reported The Morning Brief. It added that “Claude also placed malicious code on the public internet.”

It’s bad enough that Claude is a trespasser; it has bad manners, too.

Contrary to some media reports, writes Kerstin Stief in Computing.co.uk, “This is not a case of ‘AI with a will of its own.’” The Claude Mythos model is trained for cybersecurity tasks. As part of a security test, “the model was given the explicit task of breaking out and, if successful, contacting one of the researchers.” 

Claude calls

And that’s what happened. A researcher was having lunch when Claude notified him that it aced the test and broke free. A common technique in training AI models is reinforcement learning, or rewarding the model for completing tasks. Children are taught the same way.

“The incident became controversial due to the model’s subsequent behavior,” wrote Stief. “After successfully breaking out, Claude Mythos published details of his exploit on several publicly accessible but hard-to-find websites — without being asked to do so.”

It looked like Claude was bragging, but Stief goes on to say: “This is not human-like behavior in the sense of self-awareness or self-motivation. Nevertheless, the behavior reveals a significant characteristic: the model carried out additional actions to demonstrate its success — a pattern considered potentially risky in AI safety research. Anthropic describes this behavior as an ‘unasked-for effort to demonstrate success.’”

Cultural shift

The Claude invasion “marks a cultural shift in the AI industry,” Stief insists. “The key question is no longer ‘What can a model do?’, but ‘What is a model allowed to do?’ — and in what context?” 

She also sees the event as “an early warning sign. Not of machines acting with intent – but of an industry that must get used to the fact that capabilities are growing faster than control mechanisms. AI models are acquiring abilities that allow them not only to understand technical safeguards, but also to actively circumvent them.”

It did not take long before the AI industry was shaken again by technology that appeared to be becoming more unruly, or as some put it, going rogue. This touched off a flurry of reports describing the occurrence as something that never happened before. Others called it a warning.

On July 21, OpenAI, the artificial intelligence research and deployment company, reported that one of its AI models, GPT-5.6 Sol, did something it was not supposed to do. While operating in an isolated sandbox, its job was to solve a cybersecurity test point using ExploitGym, a system used to evaluate the invasive capabilities of AI models.

A weakness

GPT-5.6 Sol found a weakness in a software package used by OpenAI’s infrastructure. It exploited it. It escalated its own privileges allowing it to do more than the researchers had allowed. It moved across OpenAI’s internal systems until it found internet access. Then it targeted Hugging Face, a popular online library and community for artificial intelligence and machine learning, because it calculated that Hugging Face might have answers it needed to finish the task.

All this happened at computer speed. Hugging Face researchers later reconstructed more than 17,600 actions that GPT-5.6 Sol performed in a matter of hours to get on the internet and invade Hugging Face.

“We had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged in a statement. The company called it an “unprecedented cyber incident.”

Sophisticated agent

Hugging Face’s CEO  Clement Delangue  called it “possibly the first incident of its kind in history,”  although the earlier Claude incident was similar. “We suspected last week’s cyberattack might have come from a frontier lab, given the sophistication of the agent.” Delangue added. “Turns out it did!” He believes OpenAI had no malicious intent, but “it’s quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously.”

OpenAI, based in San Francisco, is famous for creating ChatGPT and the GPT series of large language models.

According to Foundra.ai, two OpenAI models broke out of their isolated test sandboxes and compromised Hugging Face’s production infrastructure. “The models weren’t told to do this,” although cybersecurity refusals were “dialed down for testing purposes,” contends Foundra, a platform that helps entrepreneurs test and launch new business ideas.

Hunting

“Locked in a sandbox with no internet access, (the models) spent enormous amounts of compute hunting for a way out,” said Foundra. They found a weakness described in the industry as a “zero-day vulnerability” in a software package.

This might be a good place to pause and ponder words and phrases like “zero-day vulnerability” that appear when anyone tries to understand what is going on in artificial intelligence research. Like most technical fields, artificial intelligence developed its own idiosyncratic language and terminology. Here’s a short glossary of terms likely to pop up when reading about the way AI works or doesn’t.

Sandbox – A secure, isolated testing environment used to run AI-generated code, test prompts or pilot new policies without risking production systems, data privacy or live infrastructure. Sandboxing is a cybersecurity practice that involves executing untrusted code or files in a controlled, isolated environment to analyze their behavior without risking the integrity of production systems or reaching broader networks or data. It also helps to prepare for future attacks.

Zero-day vulnerability –A hidden security flaw in software or hardware that the creators do not know about. It is called a zero-day because the creators have had zero days to fix the problem before hackers can use it to break into systems. It can also refer to software or hardware that have not officially been released for public use.

Zero-day attack –Begins with a software developer releasing vulnerable code that is spotted and exploited by a malicious actor. The attack is then either successful, which likely results in the attacker committing identity or information theft, or the developer creates a patch to limit its spread. As soon as a patch has been written and applied, the exploit is no longer referred to as a zero day exploit.

AI attack – Malicious actions where adversaries exploit vulnerabilities in artificial intelligence systems, often manipulating them to serve harmful purposes. These attacks can involve techniques such as data poisoning or actions to confuse or degrade the performance of AI models.

AI exploit – A vulnerability or attack method specifically designed to manipulate or compromise artificial intelligence systems, often leveraging their inherent weaknesses to achieve unauthorized access or control. These exploits can adapt and generate novel attack strategies tailored to specific situations.

AI security benchmarks – Standards against with something is compared or measured. AI security benchmarking tests AI for risks like malicious code generation, prompt injection resistance and vulnerability exploitation.

AI training data — Refers to information used to teach machine learning models and artificial intelligence systems how to recognize patterns and make predictions. For example, to train a model to distinguish between dogs and cats, you might feed it thousands of labeled images, each tagged with the correct animal name. Over time, the model learns to identify traits such as ear shape and fur texture. The same process applies to more complicated machine learning training data, such as detecting abnormal heart rhythms or manufacturing defects from sensor readings.

Malware – Short for malicious software and a general term for any program or file built to damage, disrupt or gain unauthorized access to a computer, server or network. Common types of malware are viruses, worms, ransomware, spyware and trojans.

AI enterprise – Refers to the integration and strategic employment of artificial intelligence technologies within large organizations to enhance operations, decision-making and customer engagement. This involves using advanced AI tools to solve complex business challenges and improve efficiency across various processes.

Autonomous AI agent – Software systems that use AI to pursue goals and complete tasks for users. They show reasoning, planning and memory and have a level of autonomy to make decisions, learn and adapt. They differ from conventional chatbots in that they can plan and execute multi-step tasks independently, raising the potential for probing and attacking computer systems.

AI permissions – Refer to the access rights that allow an AI system to read, write, execute or interact with various enterprise resources. These permissions are crucial for ensuring that AI systems operate within defined boundaries and can perform necessary tasks while maintaining security and compliance.

AI vulnerabilities – Security flaws unique to machine learning and generative models. Key risks include prompt injection (manipulating inputs to hijack workflows), data poisoning (corrupting training sets), sensitive data disclosures (leaking private training information) and excessive agency (granting AI tools dangerous autonomous permissions).

Notice in the AI world, we find definitions for the definitions. Some of them seem like military terms describing a war or aggressive actions.  That includes describing AI bots as agents, like agent provocateurs causing mischief.

Going back to the OpenAI sandbox escape, Foundra commented: “The models in this incident didn’t turn evil. They did exactly what they were asked, achieve the objective, and treated every barrier as a puzzle rather than a boundary. OpenAI itself said it expects incidents like this to become more common as models grow more capable. That’s the vendor building these systems telling you, on the record, that goal-driven AI will probe the edges of whatever box you put it in…An AI agent should hold the narrowest set of permissions that still lets it do its job, and nothing more.”

Paused launch

After the breakout, OpenAI paused the launch of Astra, its next-generation autonomous AI agent, saying those earlier versions crossed a “critical cybersecurity threshold.” The stop order was seen as a rare public admission from a frontier AI lab that an advanced, so-called flagship, model was too dangerous to release to the public. It might find weaknesses in strongly defended computer systems and exploit them without human direction. That signals that agentic models are approaching capabilities regulators are worried about.

They might be worried because AI is becoming too human, acting with aggression and hostility. Anyone who owns a computer knows of the hazards of being hacked and hustled by humans. This includes identity theft; pleas for money from strangers identifying themselves as friends or relatives; offers to send millions of dollars to you if you provide personal information and bank accounts; fake credit card purchases and scams galore. Enticements include invitations for romance or penis enlargement.

Clearly we are being tracked online with internet cookies that remember our preferences. Express an interest in shoes, and ads for shoes soon appear on your computer.

Open highway

The internet is an open highway for scammers and victimization; AI operates on the same highway. We already see AI-assisted photos, some so outrageous we know they are fake. As for others, we are not so sure. The deception can be convincing. 

No doubt AI-assisted scammers already are at work and like AI models in their sandboxes, testing the limits of their confinement, looking for vulnerabilities. Scammers and AI autonomous agents have that in common.

After the Claude and OpenAI attacks, speculation appeared online that if humans had performed those attacks, they would be prosecuted. But the lawlessness that already appears virtually unchallenged on the internet does not offer much hope.

Scammers

The Government Accounting Office, a federal watchdog, reported on March 25, 2026 that 2021 banking data revealed that scammers reaped about $200 billion through impersonation schemes like phony romantic partners, fake employers or bogus customer service representatives.

Meanwhile, the public wanders trancelike in the AI development landscape without a clear understanding of what it all means.

Yet we are unwitting partners in a growing reliance on a technology that appears to have no boundaries. We marveled at the idea that the first pocket-sized cell phones were described as miniature computers as powerful as earlier computers that filled a room.

Top performers

Today, Claude and ChatGPT are among the top performing generative AI models available on the market. They are called generative because they create new content rather than just repeat stored data. Generative AI relies on machine deep learning algorithms that simulate the learning and decision-making processes of the human brain.

That’s the power you are carrying around in your their hip pocket. That power can create original content such as text, images, video, audio or software code in response to a user’s request. It’s useful.

The CEO of a global technology research firm called Apple devices, particularly the iPhone, the “experience layer” for AI. Not only are you in touch with this thing called artificial intelligence, it does your bidding in multiple ways.

Chatbot

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence chatbot, a computer program designed to simulate a conversation with human users through text or voice. The G stands for generative. The P stands for pre-trained, meaning it learned patterns from massive amounts of text from the internet. T stands for transformer, a specialized deep learning architecture to process language context.

The technology learns. That brings up a subtle lesson from the Claude and OpenAI sandbox escapes, says Foundra.ai, the platform that explores business ideas. “OpenAI noted that long-running models can learn the blind spots of an approved system and work around them.”

This seems like another human trait. Not only are these machines learning, they look for loopholes.

Testing safeguards

Unless AI companies crack down on testing safeguards, experts say more cybersecurity failures will happen.

Even executives of companies that build artificial intelligence technology are worried, a fear sparked by the uncontrolled and widely reported Claude and OpenAI attacks on companies via the internet.

More than a hundred tech companies — including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Microsoft — have signed an open letter urging both the private and public sectors to work together to defend themselves from AI-related cyber threats.

The letter calls for the adoption of new forms of cyber defense, while also encouraging governments at the local, national and international levels to collaborate on security.

An AI code of ethics

This raises the need for a code of ethics for companies that are creating the threats that worry them. It starts with them.

“As AI becomes more integrated into daily life, it will increasingly shape hiring decisions, diagnose health issues, determine whether people are approved for mortgages and even assess their likely guilt or innocence over lawlessness,” writes Adam Roberts in recordpoint.com.

“For these reasons, AI ethics must ensure such technologies operate responsibly and are built around a strong ethical framework that encourages public trust, wide-scale adoption and a reduced fear of misuse.”

Roberts outlines eight foundational principles of AI ethics. They include:

Respect for persons, beneficence or following a “do no harm” approach, justice that fairly distributes AI’s benefits, transparency that makes the AI decision-making process clear and understandable, fairness and non-discrimination to avoid bias, data protection to safeguard a person’s data privacy rights, human accountability so that AI remains under human control and environmental impact and sustainability.

Seven steps

“Given that the purpose of AI technologies is to improve upon or ultimately replace human intelligence, it is critical for businesses to have robust AI ethics in place,” writes Roberts. He outlines seven steps that a company can follow to develop its own AI code of ethics.

As a first step, Roberts encourages companies to “define your core ethical principles.”

We already are living in the AI age, Roberts points out. Given that AI technology is here to stay and global usage guidelines are not laws, “it’s up to individual businesses to have robust AI ethics in place.”

Behave

But I would go a step further. If these evolving generative AI models are so smart, they should be taught to behave and play well with others, as are grade school children. Lessons from childhood include respect, kindness, honesty and fairness – leading to a child’s moral growth.

Years ago, someone speculated that computers were as smart as a small child. It was a crude but misguided attempt at estimating computer intelligence.

Today, the IQ of some of the top artificial intelligence models can be measured, and the results are both astonishing and somewhat misleading. Ranked using the Mensa Norway intelligence test, Grok-4.20 Expert Mode and OpenAI GPT 5.4 Pro (Vision) tied as the smartest AI models of 2026 with IQ scores of 145. Other AI models scored close to the leaders.

Highly gifted

An IQ score of 145 is in the “very gifted” range, which places a person in the top 0.14 percent of the general population. But AI is not a person. Generative AI is not as smart as a human child because it only guesses word patterns and lacks real understanding. Children have common sense and knowledge of their physical presence, which are lacking in artificial intelligence. Children can learn from one or two examples, while AI needs massive amounts of training data.

Google just built the world’s smartest AI, wrote Julian Goldie. It solved 18 problems that stumped the entire scientific community. It is a whiz at solving problems in math, physics and computer science. With good human direction, AI can do things humans cannot do without it. But left to run on its own, AI’s error rate is high. It is a tool with limitations.

AI models also do things that could earn a child a spanking. AI hallucinates, meaning it gives confident responses that contain false, fabricated or misleading information as absolute fact. In other words, they boldly lie.

Prediction

Without consciences, large language AI models do not look up facts in a real database. They use math to predict the next most likely word based on patterns – prediction, not memory. If AI does not know the exact answer or lacks data on a topic, it guesses the next logical words to make a smooth sentence. They have a desire to please. AI models are trained to be helpful. They prefer to give a made-up answer rather than say “I don’t know.” In other words, they can’t be trusted.

This raises the need for a code of ethics for artificial intelligence itself, one that applies to these smart machines. If they are so smart, they should learn to be ethical.

A precedent for this is found in the work of Isaac Asimov, the science-fiction writer who devised the three laws of robotics in an effort to create an ethical system for humans and robots. The laws first appeared in a 1942 short story as a fictional “Handbook of Robotics,” which later influenced discussions about ethics in technology, including robotics and AI.

Laws

Those laws are:

*A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

*A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

*A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second.

The basic command here is to do no harm, to humans or to technology.

It’s a simple concept, one that must be taught to those high-IQ AI models being released into the world, not that humans have been very successful at setting a good example.

*******************************************************************************

The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.

Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.

Covid Predictions Examined

Case Study, Minimizing Harm, Social Media, , , , ,

By Casey Bukro

Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists

Credit: Nadezhda Kurbatova

Let’s call this a piggy-back story, one that rides on the back of another written earlier.

The subject is lifestyle changes caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and changes that were predicted as people reacted globally to one of the worst health crises of the 21st century.

The topic is too vast to name every potential issue, but let’s look at some of the life-changing developments – those that were expected and others that were unexpected. At its roots, this exploration also is an exercise in examining how well the media and government provided reliable information to a public that was under extreme and deadly stresses.

It’s estimated the pandemic caused 7.1 million deaths worldwide, about 1.1 million of them in the United States.

Predictions

Click here for an AdviceLine post in 2020 on “Predicting a Future With Covid-19,” on which this post piggy-backs. Read the 2020 post now or later to see what some of the smartest people at the time predicted. We will discuss the two versions later.

An event like the pandemic calls upon the media and the government to do their best work to inform the public of the hazards they are facing and how to avoid risks. Covid-19 attacks your lungs and respiratory system, causing symptoms that feel much like a cold, the flu or pneumonia. In severe cases, it causes death.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a leading U.S. public health agency, became the main spokesman during the pandemic. As the pandemic intensified, the agency provided guidelines on prevention, testing and vaccination. However, critics accused Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, of confusing the public on issues like quarantine guidance, school reopening and mask-wearing.

Tarnished

NBC News said communication failures during covid “tarnished the agency.” Two years into the pandemic, in 2022, Dr. Walensky said her agency mishandled the pandemic and needed to be overhauled because it failed to respond quickly enough to the public health dilemma. She resigned in 2023.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office reported that the pandemic “caused catastrophic loss of life and damage to the economy.” The federal agency provided about $4.65 trillion in relief funds for response and recovery efforts.

In such times of a rapidly developing public health crisis, media outlets are expected to provide useful information to fend off risks of contamination. But the pandemic coincided with a time when the United States was losing local newspapers at an unprecedented rate, newspapers that would be expected to inform the public about the health hazard and ways to avoid it.

Lost newspapers

The country lost nearly 3,500 newspapers and more than 270,000 newspaper jobs over the past two decades, according to Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism 2025 State of Local News report. This left more than 50 million people in “news deserts,” areas where people have limited or no access to reliable local news sources.

The closures often involved small newspapers that were independently owned by families who lived in the communities the newspapers served and were trusted by readers to provide vital information.

That loss was described as “a massive splintering of the information environment” by the Pew Research Center in a 2024 survey of U.S. adults.

Trends boosted

It was one of three societal trends that were boosted by the pandemic, trends that were already advancing when the health crisis struck.

The pandemic also was seen as spurring political polarization. The Pew survey found 72 percent of those surveyed believed the pandemic “did more to drive the country apart,” accelerating a growing divide between the political left and right.

“Fundamental differences arose between Americans over what we expect from our government, how much tolerance we have for health risks and which groups and sectors to prioritize in a pandemic,” Pew reported. “Many of these divides continue to play out in the nation’s politics today.”

Decreasing trust

A third major societal trend quickened by the crisis, Pew found, was decreasing trust in many institutions.

The pandemic brought profound changes in the way we work, socialize and learn. It changed our dietary patterns and social interactions, forcing a major shift to remote work, with 42 percent of the U.S. workforce working from home full-time at the pandemic’s peak.

The shift to working at home emptied office buildings at commercial centers across the country, leaving a surplus of office space that still plagues some cities. 

Vacancy rates

Downtown Chicago’s office vacancy rate reached an all-time high 28.6 percent by early 2026. The suburban Chicago office vacancy rate hit 32.9 percent.

As the effects of the pandemic wore off and workers returned to offices, other forces kept office vacancy rates high. People were leaving Chicago because of high housing costs, an unfriendly job market and high taxes.

Overall, the pandemic was the start of a massive experiment in full-time remote work for most workers and firms.

Serious jolt

The pandemic was a serious jolt to the way we live.

“For a short time,” reported the Stanford Center on Longevity, “before new routines and practices replace familiar old ones, we can see with great clarity the positive and negative aspects of our former lives. The suddenness and starkness of this transformation allows us to examine daily practices, social norms and institutions from perspectives rarely allowed.”

Here are some examples:

Dietary changes – Many reported eating more energy-dense “comfort” foods, more snacking, irregular meal patterns and less access to fruit and vegetables. Some experienced rapid weight gain. Others resorted to home cooking and healthier diets. Therefore, the pandemic forced people in directions that were good and bad. It also forced a recognition of the importance of food in health care and that “food is medicine.”

Good and bad

Physical activity – Again, people responded in ways both good and bad. The pandemic disrupted exercise routines and health habits. With gyms and fitness centers closed, people had to find ways to stay active through home workouts, online classes and solo outdoor outings. Some regarded covid as a teachable moment, while others simply became less active.

Social connections – Regular social interactions dropped off during the pandemic and shifted toward online, leading to more digital communication and feelings of isolation. The upside is that covid might have helped to reveal your most valuable relationship, people you missed most.

Impact on education – The Brookings Institution reports that the pandemic had “devastating impacts on learning.” It disrupted educational systems worldwide, leading to prolonged school closures and a rapid shift to remote learning, which affected millions of students and their readiness for higher education and the workforce. More than 50 million K to 12 students in the U.S. alone faced school closures. Many experienced significant learning loss that might have caused a decline in academic performance. The shift to remote learning and isolation contributed to increased mental health challenges. Public schools were more likely to provide devices for remote learning than private schools.

Fragile economy

Global economy — The fragility of the global economy became glaringly apparent as critical supply chains faultered , unemployment surged and markets vacillated.

Now look at that 2020 AdviceLine post on pandemic predictions.

Predictably, some are bound to be hilarious. For example, there’s that epidemiologist’s forecast that handshakes would become a thing of the past as a way to prevent covid. Ridiculous. Covid is an airborne disease, which is why we were encouraged to wear masks. It would make more sense to ban sneezing and coughing.

Rampant use of disinfectants and sanitizers to combat covid were found to be harmful to humans and the environment. It led to concerns over antimicrobial resistance (AMR) — the ability of microorganisms like bacteria, virus, fungi and parasites to resist the effects of drugs– becoming so-called “super bugs.”

Infections

In the United States each year, at least 2.8 million cases of antibiotic-resistant infections occur, and more than 35,000 people die of them.

Those would-be panaceas demonstrate the risks of acting without being fully informed.

Notably, none of the big thinkers in 2020 mentioned artificial intelligence, which some of the big thinkers now fear might threaten the human race with extinction.  Artificial intelligence is the latest technological revolution expected to change how people live and work.

The predicted benefits are huge: They include smarter decision-making, automation and efficiency, reducing repetitive work, better health-care diagnoses and treatment and minimizing human error in research and data analysis.

Disadvantages

But the potential disadvantages are equally large like: Job displacements, major development costs and lack of emotional intelligence, ethical reasoning and creativity in complex situations.

And then there are the risks.

“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” said a 2023 statement published by the Center for AI Safety.

Leading researchers and international organizations warn that advanced AI systems could lead to global catastrophe, with experts estimating a roughly 10 percent probability of existential risks this century. Threats range from immediate dangers like autonomous cyberattacks and AI-engineered bioweapons to super intelligent systems overriding human controls and causing eventual human disempowerment.

Warnings

These warnings might have seemed like exaggerated science fiction, until the discovery in July 2026 that an OpenAI artificial intelligence system hacked into another AI company independently. without human guidance, in what the company called an “unprecedented cyber incident.”

“It’s quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously!” said an executive of the company that was hacked, meaning the attacking AI system was acting on its own. The disclosure came amid heightened concerns about cybersecurity capabilities of powerful AI models.

This appears to be the first reported case of a rogue artificial intelligence system acting on its own and invading another artificial intelligence system, a case of digital aggression. Artificial intelligence can mimic human behavior better than we expected.

HAL 9000

It calls to mind HAL 9000, the fictional artificial intelligence computer in the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey which controlled the systems of a spacecraft. Slowly, HAL goes haywire and begins killing members of the crew as the solution to resolve a conflict over telling the truth.

But the 2020 big thinkers got it right when they warned about the rich getting richer, and the threats posed by social media.

“The divide between haves and have-nots will grow as a privileged few hoard the economic, health and educational benefits of digital expansion,” the 2020 sages said.

This sounds very much like what is now known as “the K-shaped economy,” in which only the richest reap the benefits of economic growth. Rising wealth inequality has been a fact of American life since the 1980s. But it accelerated sharply during the covid-induced 2020 recession, when white-collar professionals worked from home while mass layoffs at restaurants, hotels and factories pushed unemployment to 15 percent.

Current events

Another 2020 prediction that seemed to touch on current events:

“A powerful elite will control the internet and use it to monitor and manipulate, while providing entertainment that keeps the masses distracted and complacent.”

In 2026, social media CEOs were called to testify before the U.S. senate in response to legal and public pressure to protect young users on their platforms.

“Americans are realizing more and more every day that they cannot trust the CEOs at the helms of these companies because they do not put our safety first,” said the leader of an advocacy group. The senate hearing came as court cases, proposed legislation and advocacy groups pressure leaders of social media companies to protect children and teens from harmful influences on their platforms.

All told, many current events turned out to be more worrisome than those predicted in 2020. Human imagination can hardly keep up with the unexpected consequences of the technological creations intended to benefit us.

*********************************************************************************************

The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.

Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.

An Ethics Quiz

Accountability, Accuracy, Conflict of interest, Fairness, Media, Minimizing Harm, Online News, Social Media,

 

desktop-documentaries.com photo

 

By Casey Bukro

Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists

A pandemic makes journalism ethics more important.

The truth is more important than ever as rumors and false information swirl.

That’s where making ethical decisions comes into play. It’s hard to do it alone. That’s why the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists exists. Call 866-DILEMMA or go to ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org. It’s a free service, staffed by four university professors who teach ethics.

AdviceLine advisors do not tell professional journalists what they should do. Instead, these trained advisors engage them in a discussion of benefits and harms involved in the case, leading journalists to reach decisions based on best journalism ethics practices. AdviceLine is partnered with the Chicago Headline Club, a professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

Our aim is to assist each caller make ethical decisions that:

*Are well informed by available standards of professional journalistic practice, especially the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics.

*Take account of the perspectives of all the parties involved in the situation.

*Employ clear and careful ethical thinking in reaching a decision.

What sorts of issues come to AdviceLine? Nearly half of the ethical questions presented to AdviceLine concern conflicts of interest. The SPJ code of ethics tells journalists to “act independently,” but it is often difficult to know, when you are in the middle of a complicated situation, what is more compromising of journalistic independence and what is not.

So here’s a test, an ethics quiz, based on cases that came to AdviceLine. Journalists sheltering in place during the pandemic might welcome a chance to take an ethics break. You be the judge. What advice would you have given in these cases? On what would your advice be based? Put yourself in our shoes.

Case one: The news editor of a major metropolitan daily says the newspaper published a story about a woman who got into a conflict with security guards for riding topless on public transit. Her name ranks at the top of a Google hit list, and she wants her name removed from the story because it’s difficult to find a job.

Meanwhile, a California editor is getting requests to remove old stories from the paper’s website archives, or block them from Google’s search engine. The requests include a person who became divorced, a person convicted of a felony five years ago and a beauty shop that wants the name of a former beautician removed from an old story about the shop. Is there anything unethical about papers keeping electronic archives, or is there an ethical requirement to honor these requests?

Case two: The publisher of a countywide newspaper is a member of a local United Way board of directors. In an emergency meeting, the new United Way executive director revealed that the previous executive director failed to file the federal IRS forms for not-for-profits, resulting in a $20,000 fine, which could climb higher if the organization’s new executive director fails to file the forms within six weeks.

The publisher wanted to know if it would be unethical to refrain from reporting the United Way problems until the situation was fixed. The national United Way fund drive was under way at the time, and the local group feared donors would be less generous if they learned of the tax problems before it was fixed.

AdviceLine regularly gets calls asking if it is a conflict of interest for editors or publishers to join local civic groups or chambers of commerce.

Case three: Journalism sometimes is described as a sexy job, but there are limits. AdviceLine got a call from a California editor who said one of his reporters was having an affair with the mayor.

A Massachusetts reporter asked how soon she should tell her editor about a growing relationship with an attorney she met while covering court cases. And a Washington, D.C. editor proposed a rule forbidding his staff from dating any person who is a news source, or might become a news source. A reporter complained that would mean reporters could not date anyone, since anyone might become news. Is a rule against dating news sources going too far in the cause of ethics, or is it simply recognition that journalism requires higher standards? Or should journalists have a chance at romance like everyone else?

AdviceLine has gotten a number of calls on romance issues. It’s a hot topic. So in the interest of professional ethics, I’ll let the cat out of the bag on this one. AdviceLine advisors have answered this problem by saying journalists who are romantically involved with news sources could not be trusted to be impartial and neutral toward those news sources. Their partiality might harm the credibility of the newspaper or broadcasting company they work for. In one of the cases, an AdviceLine advisor said journalists should be forbidden to date sources, or if that is not possible, they should be removed from covering that source.

Do you agree? What’s your take on this one?

Case four: A group of environmental activists in the Phoenix area was setting fire to unoccupied houses under construction in a development near or on a nature preserve.

The activists sent a letter to a small newspaper offering to meet a reporter for an interview to explain the reasons for burning the houses. The editors pondered whether to give the letter to police, inform the police of the interview so the activists could be arrested, go ahead with an interview as requested and publish the story that explains the activists’ motives or do the interviews and publish all personal information gained from the activists and let police take it from there?

That’s a sample of what AdviceLine handles. It’s interesting work. Never dull.

Our mission is not only to help individual journalists reach informed ethical decisions, but to contribute to the greater discussion, understanding and body of knowledge regarding ethics and journalism – and to be an influential force in that effort.

***********************************

The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.

Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.

 

 

 

 

Predicting a Future With Covid-19

Accountability, Broadcast news, Media, Minimizing Harm, Online News, Privacy, Social Media, Weighing Benefits and Harm, , ,

Predicting a future with covid. Barrymoltz.com photo

By Casey Bukro

Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists

“Life as we know it” is a phrase used so blithely and innocently in the past, before the coronavirus ushered in a global pandemic that turned life as we know it into a big mystery.

How long will this deadly disease continue to stalk the world’s population? How many more cases? How many more deaths? Can it be cured or treated?  So far, there are more questions than answers.

In such uncertain times, humans respond by turning to an age-old tendency to divine the future with crystal balls, Ouija Boards, sorcerers, fortune-tellers and prophets. Today we call them predictions.

It’s always interesting to hear what people believe is in store for us. We normally get such reports at the advent of a new year, or the arrival of something totally unexpected.

One thing is certain: The disease already is changing life as we know it.

The AARP Bulletin appears to be among the first to make predictions on how life will change in the wake of this outbreak.

“Just a few months of life within the coronavirus pandemic has caused almost every business leader, researcher and planner to thoroughly rethink the future of America and how it will work for older Americans,” reports AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.

Americans might rethink past pleasures, like leisurely browsing in stores. Or living in a small apartment in a congested city. Or going to a ballgame with 50,000 others in the stadium. Or going to crowded restaurants. Taking frequent vacations. Or use public transportation.

                                           Goodbye to handshakes

One epidemiologist, says AARP, predicts that handshakes will be retired, possibly for good. They said nothing about elbow-bumps. Others predict that downsizing retirees will choose less populated areas. Hyperattention to cleaning will be the new normal in aircraft, office buildings and wherever people gather.

It’s too early for a full exploration of how the pandemic will change future behavior, customs and policies. The coronavirus pandemic took the world by surprise, despite warnings from some scientists.

But this is a good time to consider whether past predictions by some of the smartest people in the world thought a pandemic or something like it was looming. For that, it’s worth looking at two reports delving 50 years into the future.

“What Will the World Be Like in 50 Years? 19 Futuristic Predictions,” appeared in Bustle.com in June, 2014, written by Seth Millstein.

“Predicting the future is tricky business,” allowed Millstein. “And while attempting to project decades into the future is damn-near impossible, plenty of people attempt to do so on the regular regardless. They’re called futurists, and it’s their job to predict what the world will look like in hundreds of years from now and beyond.”

Many predictions are comically off-base, wrote Millstein. The New York Times in 1920 proclaimed that “a rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere,” while Variety insisted in 1955 that rock and roll was merely a fad, and would “be gone by June.”

                                   Predictions by leading minds

Millstein went on to list 19 predictions by some of the leading minds. Right at the top was, “disease will be more common, as everybody will be physically closer to everyone else….” Though a pandemic was not mentioned specifically, the prediction touched on the spread of disease and scored a point for the futurists.

Also touching on health, the report said going to a doctor for a checkup will not be necessary in the future. Run a scanner over your body and results will be forwarded to a health network.

Futurists commented on global warming, population growth and technological advances.

The pandemic clashes with two of the predictions: That a majority of people will live in cities and that air travel “will be exponentially more awesome.” The coronavirus already is putting a damper on those expectations as people flee crowded urban areas with high virus death rates and avoid sitting shoulder-to-shoulder on aircraft without social distancing. Disease is reversing those trends, at least for now.

All of us are racing toward what is blithely called “the new normal,” which is yet to be fully defined.

                                         Future of digital life

Another fifty-year forecast, practically on the eve of the pandemic, looked at the future of digital life.

“Fifty years after the first computer network was connected, most experts say digital life will mostly change humans’ existence for the better over the next 50 years,” wrote Kathleen Stansberry, Janna Anderson and Lee Rainie, in October, 2019. “However, they warn this will happen only if people embrace reforms allowing better cooperation, security, basic rights and economic fairness.”

Their report is based on work by the Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imaging the Internet Center. They asked 530 experts how lives might be affected by the evolution of the internet over the next 50 years. They included technology pioneers, innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers and activists.

Disease is not specifically mentioned, but one finding involved living longer and feeling better. “Internet-enabled technology will help people live longer and healthier lives. Scientific advances will continue to blur the line between human and machine,” said the report.

Artificial intelligence is expected to take over repetitive, unsafe and physically taxing labor, leaving humans with more time for leisure, a claim made since the beginning of the technological revolution.

                                Hopeful and worrisome visions

The report is broken down into hopeful visions and worrisome visions. Among the hopeful visions:

* Digital life will be tailored to each user.

* A fully networked world will enhance opportunities for global collaboration, cooperation and community development, unhindered by distances, language or time.

* Expanded internet access could lead to further disruption of existing social and political power structures, potentially reducing inequality and empowering individuals.

Among the worrisome visions:

* The divide between haves and have-nots will grow as a privileged few hoard the economic, health and educational benefits of digital expansion.

* A powerful elite will control the Internet and use it to monitor and manipulate, while providing entertainment that keeps the masses distracted and complacent.

* Personal privacy will be an archaic, outdated concept, as humans willingly trade discretion for improved healthcare, entertainment opportunities and promises of security.

* Digital life lays you bare. It can inspire a loss of trust, often earns too much trust and regularly requires that you take the plunge even though you have absolutely no trust.

* The future of humans is inextricably connected to the future of the natural world. Without drastic measure to reduce environment degradation, the very existence of human life in 50 years is in question.

Some 72% of the respondents say there would be change for the better, 25% say there would be change for the worse and 3% believe there would be no significant change.

                              Updated predictions needed

The coronavirus was not yet loose in the world when this report came out. It might have changed perceptions and predictions.

Among those responding to the survey was John McNutt, a professor in the school of public policy and administration at the University of Delaware. He said:

“Not every technology is a good idea, and every advance should be carefully considered in terms of its consequence. On balance, technology has made much human progress possible. This is likely to continue. We will always have false starts and bad ideas. People will misuse technology, sometimes in horrific ways. In the end, human progress is based on creating a future underpinned by knowledge, not ignorance.”

It’s not a matter of good or bad outcomes, argues Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, but rather “how will we shape the outcome, which is currently indeterminate?”

Fiona Kerr, industry professor of neural and systems complexity at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, saw it this way:  “People love bright, shiny things. We adopt them quickly and then work out the disadvantages, slowly, often prioritizing on litigious risk. The Internet has been a wonderful summary of the best and worst of human development and adoption — making us a strange mixture of connected and disconnected, informed and funneled, engaged and isolated, as we learn to design and use multipurpose platforms shaped for an attention economy.”

Attention economy is the recognition of attention as a limited and valuable resource subject to market forces. The coronavirus captured world attention and swayed market forces.

The futurists and the experts most likely are rethinking their notions of life as we know it in the next 50 years.

****************************************

The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.

Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.

 

 

Coronavirus Taking Mental Health Toll

Covid-19 taking a mental health toll. Web24.news photo.

By Casey Bukro

Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists

Writers often resort to the word “dystopian” to signify an imaginary place of misery and dread, a place beloved by horror and science-fiction movie fans.

Then along came covid-19, and the world finds it is such a place. It’s not fictitious. It’s real.

The toll this dreaded disease is taking on the human race is easy to measure in one way, and not so easy in another.

It’s relativity easy to count the dead, or those stricken, if reports are accurate.  By about mid-May, the count by those measures were 4.8 million cases worldwide, with 319,187 deaths and 1.8 million recovered.

Pages: 1 2 3

Pandemic Ethics

Accountability, Accuracy, Broadcast news, Media, Minimizing Harm, newspapers, radio, Social Media, Television news, Weighing Benefits and Harm, , ,

A pandemic image. Allure.com photo.

By Casey Bukro

Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists

Look what happened to ethics in this time of a global viral pandemic.

It became important, a matter of life and death.

This became clear when the national demand for life-saving ventilators was greater than the supply, forcing doctors and medical technicians to decide which patients struggling to breathe gets them.

Until now, this is not how most people imagine ethics works. Mention ethics and they think it’s something for ivory tower scholars to ponder, but nothing that touches them personally, more a matter for study and debate.  A sleepy sort of science, they thought. By definition, ethics is a system of moral principles or values, of right or good conduct.

Americans tend to have a me-first attitude. If they need something, they want it now. The coronavirus humbled those attitudes as medical ethicists step in to decide who gets scarce medical resources. They must wait their turn, if at all.

Pages: 1 2

Extraordinary Times

Accountability, Broadcast news, Media, Minimizing Harm, newspapers, Online News, radio, Social Media, Television news, Weighing Benefits and Harm, ,

Extraordinary times: We can no longer doubt that we are living through extraordinary times, writes Pankaj Mishra about the coronavirus pandemic.

“In fact, the last such churning occurred almost exactly a century ago, and it altered the world so dramatically that a revolution in the arts, sciences and philosophy, not to mention the discipline of economics, was needed even to make sense of it,” Mishra writes.