Connect with us

Published

on

Isaac Asimoc, a writer well-known for his works of science fiction, penned the “Three Laws of Robotics” in 1972.

Asimov wrote these “laws” while thinking about androids, and he imagined a world where human-like robots would have human masters and need a set of programming rules to prevent them from causing harm.

But51 years after the laws were first published, technology has advanced significantly and humans now have a different understanding of what robots and artificial intelligence (AI) can look like and how people interact with them.(h/t to Survivopedia.com) The three laws of robotics

While a robot takeover is still more fiction than fact, as a prepper it’s worth reviewing Asimov’s laws to prepare for when SHTF. First law “A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.” Second law “A robot must obey orders given by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.” Third law “A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first and the second law.”

While the laws are fiction, Asimov’s thought process is something preppers should mimic.

Asimov wasn’t a prepper, but he realized that AI-powered computers, or androids and robots, as he put it, could be dangerous despite their many benefits because they couldthink for themselves. He also realized the difficulty in programming them to ensure that they would not betray their human masters.

The dichotomy here lies in allowing computers to become sentient, or feeling and thinking for themselves, while still keeping some level of control over them as their masters. This two-pronged goalmaybe impossible, especially since humans are still in the infant stages of AI and there have already been problems in creating the necessary fail-safes to ensure the safety of users.

Astechnology continues to advance, AI computer systems are now teaching themselves much faster than any thought being put into creating the necessary controls to keep them safe.

In one of the earliest AI experiments where two computers with AI systems installed communicated with each other, it only took minutes for the two programs to develop their own language and communicate. This meant their human operatorswere unable to understand the two AI systems.

Chatbots are computer programs that mimic human conversations through text.

But back in 2017, when the experiment was conducted, chatbots weren’t yet capable of more sophisticated functions beyond simple tasks like answering customer questions or ordering food. To address this, Facebook’s Artificial Intelligence Research Group (FAIR) tried to find out if these programs could be taught to negotiate.

The researchers developed two chatbots named Alice and Bob.Using a game where the two chatbots and human players bartered virtual items like balls and hats, Alice and Bob showed that they could make deals with varying degrees of success.

Facebook researchers observed the language when the chatbots were negotiating among themselves. They noticed that becausethey didn’t instruct the bots to stick to the rules of English, Alice and Bob started using their own language: a “derived shorthand” they invented to communicate faster.

While the researchers stopped the experiment because of the potential danger, further research into AI continued through the years. There is no policingof potential tasks for advanced AI systems

The AI systems available to modern consumers surpass those used in the Facebook experiment.There is a wider array of AI systems available to use, some of which can be hired through websites, to accomplish different tasks.

However, there is no way to monitorwhat those tasks might be to guarantee that they are not abused by those who want to use these tools for crimes or to harm others. (Related: Digital prepping: How to protect yourself against cyberattacks.)

The first question for preppers is, can these systems turn against their human masters?

According to an Air Force colonel, that has already happened during an experimental drone test. The colonel eventually tried to deny what he said, but there have been reports about the incident.

During the test, a drone was assigned to find and eliminate targets, but it needed the permission of a human controller before firing.

After some time, the drone realized that the controller was responsible for the “points” it lost when it denied the permission it needed to take out certain targets. To solve the problem, the drone “killed” the controller.

No real person was harmed during the test, but it’s easy to see how the scenario could have turned ugly if the drone was assigned to protect an area with real people.

The drone test also illustrates the potential challenges of programming AI. The tests show that it can be impossible to program a sentient AI to prevent it from doing what it wants to do because it’s clever enough to find a way to disobey direct orders.

Rogue drones controlled by AI may harm humans, but how can you prevent this from happening?

Many ethical questions are being raised about AI, but experts still haven’t been able to present real-world answers. Unfortunately, they might not start working on this problem unless atragedy occurs.

By then, it might be too late to discuss the ethics associated with AI.And the U.S. isn’t the only country working onAI technology.

Other countries, along with some that aren’t on friendly terms with the U.S., are also developing their AI systems, both for military and civilian applications.

AI is already being used for one dangerous application: The creation of deep fake videos.

Stealing an actors “copyright” to their likeness isn’t harmful, but it is still consideredcriminal activity. When that same level of artificial intelligence is applied to identity theft, even preppers and non-preppers alike won’t be safe. How can you prepare yourself before the rise of AI?

Even nowAI exists on the internet and is already being used to create various content.This means you can’t always trust that the content you see or read was created by humans.

As of writing, at least19.2 percent of articles on the internet have some AI-generated content. At least 7.7percent of these articles have 75 percent or more of their content generated by AI.

Experts warn that by 2026, at least 90percent of internet content will be AI-generated.

How is this relevant to you as a prepper?

AI-generated content can be problematic because this meansmore content will be politicized.

Data suggests that Russia and other countries are alreadytrolling U.S. websites, potentially making posts and uploading articles thatare inflammatory to add to the political division in the country.These countries can continue to use AI to increase their effectiveness by targeting their articles more specifically.

With the potential dangers of AI steadily increasing as time goes by, you must be more careful about what you see and read online. Do not believe everything your see or hear,especially content with political overtones.

Learn how to be anindependent fact-checker and do your research to find out if what you are reading and hearing is true.

Be wary ofmainstream media that may be spinning news stories to support their own political agenda. Check reliable news sources for updates on what the Russian, Chinese and other countries’ intelligence services are doing.

This also means being careful about what you post online. Never post personal information online or anything that hackers could use to try and figure out anything about you.

Do not use systems like Alexa and Google Assistant, which often allow computers to eavesdrop on user conversations. Even though the companies that make these products claim they arent spying on users, various reports about them prove otherwise.

Don’t “computerize” your life bystorin your data online. This service may seem convenient because you can access your data anywhere, but there’s alsoa chance that others could access all your data in the cloud.

Are you willing to risk a data breach just for convenience? Most of the time, companies offering these services havethings buried in the fine print of their contracts, which allows them to listen in on your computer microphones and look at images from your phone or laptop cameras.

To trulyprotect yourself from the potential dangers of AI, you must reevaluate your usage of the internet and computers.Technology is convenient, but you must be responsible and make sure your information can’t be used against you by those who might do you harm.

Don’t store yourdata online and unplug things like microphones and cameras when not in use.

Sacrifice convenience to protect yourself and your family from the potential dangers of AI technology.

Visit Computing.newsto learn more about the growing dangers of AI systems.

Watch the video below to find out how AI technology threatens to take over thousands of jobs.

This video is from theNewsClips channel on Brighteon.com. More related stories:

Google is using AI to dig through Gmail accounts to find exactly what youre looking for and perhaps MORE.

Peeping through the windows: Microsoft to incorporate MANDATORY AI systems in Windows 11 to SPY on all your computing activities.

Dallas school district installs AI spying, surveillance systems to keep an eye on students.

Sources include:

Survivopedia.com

USAToday.com

TheConversation.com

TheGuardian.com

Brighteon.com
Submit a correction >>

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

on

By

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

WBD's announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock
Image:
WBD’s announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance.  Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Pic: Reuters

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Continue Reading

Business

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

Published

on

By

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

The UK’s biggest water supplier has been dealt another blow as the regulator decided to reduce its income.

Thames Water, which supplies 16 million people in England, has been told by the watchdog Ofwat its revenues will be cut by more than £187m.

It comes as the utility struggles under a £17.6bn debt pile and the government has lined up insolvency practitioners for its potential collapse.

Money blog: Nine-year-old set up Christmas tree business to pay for university

Overall, water firms face a sector-wide revenue reduction of nearly £309m as a result of Ofwat’s determination. Thames Water’s £187.1m cut is the largest revenue reduction.

This will take effect from next year and up to 2030 as part of water companies’ regulator-approved five-year spending and investment plans.

The downward revenue revision has been made as Ofwat believes the companies will perform better than first thought and therefore require less money.

More on Thames Water

Better financial performance is ultimately good news for customers.

The change published on Wednesday is a technical update; the initial revenue projections published in December 2024 were based on projected financial performance but after financial results were published in the summer and Ofwat was able to apply these figures.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Thames Water a step closer to nationalisation?

Thames Water and industry body Water UK have been contacted for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

on

By

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

WBD's announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock
Image:
WBD’s announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October. Pic: iStock

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ted Sarandos, CEO of Netflix. Pic: Reuters

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Zaslav, CEO and president of Warner Bros Discovery. Pic: Reuters

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Larry Ellison (centre left) in the White House with Trump. Pic: Reuters

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance.  Pic: Reuters
Image:
David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Pic: Reuters

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Continue Reading

Trending