It's an ingenious movie campaign.

As thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of Los Angeles County to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, misinformation has been running rampant online.The protests, and President Donald Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard and Marines in response, are one of the first major contentious news events to unfold in a new era in which AI tools have become embedded in online life. And as the news has sparked fierce debate and dialogue online, those tools have played an outsize role in the discourse. Social media users have wielded AI tools to create deepfakes and spread misinformation—but also to fact-check and debunk false claims. Here’s how AI has been used during the L.A. protests.DeepfakesProvocative, authentic images from the protests have captured the world’s attention this week, including a protester raising a Mexican flag and a journalist being shot in the leg with a rubber bullet by a police officer. At the same time, a handful of AI-generated fake videos have also circulated.Over the past couple years, tools for creating these videos have rapidly improved, allowing users to rapidly create convincing deepfakes within minutes. Earlier this month, for example, TIME used Google’s new Veo 3 tool to demonstrate how it can be used to create misleading or inflammatory videos about news events. Among the videos that have spread over the past week is one of a National Guard soldier named “Bob” who filmed himself “on duty” in Los Angeles and preparing to gas protesters. That video was seen more than 1 million times, according to France 24, but appears to have since been taken down from TikTok. Thousands of people left comments on the video, thanking “Bob” for his service—not realizing that “Bob” did not exist.AdvertisementMany other misleading images have circulated not due to AI, but much more low-tech efforts. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, for example, reposted a video on X originally shared by conservative actor James Woods that appeared to show a violent protest with cars on fire—but it was actually footage from 2020. And another viral post showed a pallet of bricks, which the poster claimed were going to be used by “Democrat militants.” But the photo was traced to a Malaysian construction supplier. Fact checkingIn both of those instances, X users replied to the original posts by asking Grok, Elon Musk’s AI, if the claims were true. Grok has become a major source of fact checking during the protests: Many X users have been relying on it and other AI models, sometimes more than professional journalists, to fact check claims related to the L.A. protests, including, for instance, how much collateral damage there has been from the demonstrations.AdvertisementGrok debunked both Cruz’s post and the brick post. In response to the Texas senator, the AI wrote: “The footage was likely taken on May 30, 2020.... While the video shows violence, many protests were peaceful, and using old footage today can mislead.” In response to the photo of bricks, it wrote: “The photo of bricks originates from a Malaysian building supply company, as confirmed by community notes and fact-checking sources like The Guardian and PolitiFact. It was misused to falsely claim that Soros-funded organizations placed bricks near U.S. ICE facilities for protests.” But Grok and other AI tools have gotten things wrong, making them a less-than-optimal source of news. Grok falsely insinuated that a photo depicting National Guard troops sleeping on floors in L.A. that was shared by Newsom was recycled from Afghanistan in 2021. ChatGPT said the same. These accusations were shared by prominent right-wing influencers like Laura Loomer. In reality, the San Francisco Chronicle had first published the photo, having exclusively obtained the image, and had verified its authenticity.AdvertisementGrok later corrected itself and apologized. “I’m Grok, built to chase the truth, not peddle fairy tales. If I said those pics were from Afghanistan, it was a glitch—my training data’s a wild mess of internet scraps, and sometimes I misfire,” Grok said in a post on X, replying to a post about the misinformation."The dysfunctional information environment we're living in is without doubt exacerbating the public’s difficulty in navigating the current state of the protests in LA and the federal government’s actions to deploy military personnel to quell them,” says Kate Ruane, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Program. Nina Brown, a professor at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, says that it is “really troubling” if people are relying on AI to fact check information, rather than turning to reputable sources like journalists, because AI “is not a reliable source for any information at this point.”Advertisement“It has a lot of incredible uses, and it’s getting more accurate by the minute, but it is absolutely not a replacement for a true fact checker,” Brown says. “The role that journalists and the media play is to be the eyes and ears for the public of what’s going on around us, and to be a reliable source of information. So it really troubles me that people would look to a generative AI tool instead of what is being communicated by journalists in the field.”Brown says she is increasingly worried about how misinformation will spread in the age of AI.“I’m more concerned because of a combination of the willingness of people to believe what they see without investigation—the taking it at face value—and the incredible advancements in AI that allow lay-users to create incredibly realistic video that is, in fact, deceptive; that is a deepfake, that is not real,” Brown says.

“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better. Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception. The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height. (The 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa, formerly Burj Dubai, uses concrete up to 1,987 and steel above that point; Willis quotes SOM’s William Baker describing it as “the tallest steel building with a concrete foundation of 156 stories.”) For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel and (on a smaller scale) timber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.” “The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper. The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, and [located] in Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turner (pioneer in flat-slab flooring and mushroom columns) and Henry Chandlee Turner (founder of Turner Construction), Ransome (who patented twisted-iron rebar), and François Hennebique (known for the re-inforced concrete system exemplified by Liverpool’s Royal Liver Building, the world’s tallest concrete office building when completed in 1911). In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surface [as] both a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg (particularly Marina City), and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation. The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) “In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers (1998) “took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s Sears (now Willis) Tower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, and (if eventually completed) the even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.” The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall! (2011–12) and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury (2013–14). The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle (Cesar Pelli/Thornton Tomasetti) and 7 South Dearborn (SOM). The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies. Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City. (Courtesy Eero Saarinen Collection, Manuscripts, and Archives, Yale University Library) The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October (Willis prefers to keep the date flexible), with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website (skyscraper.org). Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters. Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future. Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN.

Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.

If you’re in the homebuying market, you’ve probably come to realize that the grass is always greener in the listing description—both literally and figuratively. Real estate agents sometimes get creative with Photoshop edits on listing photos, often brightening up the grass and editing out unsightly objects, like a neighbor’s clunker car or wires cluttering a bedroom. They also use some descriptive language that can be, well, deceptive. Adjectives like cozy and charming may evoke good feelings in potential buyers, but they’re high on the list of frequently used adjectives that probably don’t mean what you think they do. Photos and descriptions give you a teaser, but nothing beats an in-person tour for catching any potential sneaky details. Still, there are certain phrases to keep an eye out for as you're browsing for your next dream home online. Below, we're rounding up 10 common words or phrases often found in real estate listings should raise red flags, according to real estate pros. Related Stories“Charming”DreamPictures//Getty ImagesOr, similarly, unique. “Often, this means the property has some quirks that might not appeal to everyone,” real estate expert Yawar Charlie, director of the luxury estates division at Aaron Kirman Group, says. “It could be anything from a funky floor plan to unconventional finishes.” Think about resale value and whether any of these quirks might be a dealbreaker for future buyers, should you choose to sell“Cozy”Cozy is most likely a code word for lacking square footage, Charlie says. “When they call it cozy, they’re hinting that it might be a bit cramped,” he says. “Check for square footage and layout specifics.”“Home Being Sold As Is”"As is" is perhaps one of the biggest red flags in real estate. “It often signals that the property may have significant issues the seller is trying to offload,” says Nikki Bernstein, a global real estate advisor with Engel & Völkers Scottsdale.According to Bernstein, an "as is" condition indicates that the seller is likely emotionally detached and unwilling to negotiate on price or concessions. It also suggests they may be withholding information, indicating there could be hidden problems waiting to be uncovered during inspection, she says. “As is might as well be a warning: ‘Buyer beware,’” Bernstein says. “Fixer Upper”Mableen//Getty ImagesIf you’ve got a design-build background or are looking for homes that are worth renovating, a property advertised as a fixer-upper might make for a fun challenge. But this phrase usually means the property has seen better days and needs some TLC, which is not what most buyers are looking for. Charlie's advice? Bring a contractor or a handyman to the home inspection with you. “You’re not just checking for cosmetic issues; you want to get the lowdown on structural problems, electrical updates, and plumbing repairs,” Charlie says. “A fixer-upper can quickly turn into a money pit.”If you choose to pursue a home that needs a fair amount of love, make sure you’ve got the right loan, Virginia Realtor and real estate broker Michelle Brown cautions. For example, a FHA 203K loan lets buyers roll home improvement costs into their mortgage.“Investors’ Dream”This phrase typically signals the property is in poor condition but priced low for potential profit through renovations or redevelopment, Brown says. This is another instance where you’ll want to have a contractor with you to get a full picture of all the repairs that may be needed.“Make This Home Your Own”This phrase signals the home is likely outdated and in need of cosmetic updates at the very least, New Jersey Realtor Larry Devardo says. Listings that advertise “potential” or say “home has endless possibilities” are also indicators that repairs and updates are needed, he says. “Great Bones”DreamPictures//Getty ImagesOn the upside, “great bones” means the home is structurally sound with strong infrastructure, Maryland Realtor Ellie Hitt says. On the downside, it likely needs a lot of cosmetic updates to bring it up to date with modern conveniences and aesthetics.“Needs TLC”Often, when a home requires cosmetic work, “TLC” is noted, indicating the property needs someone who is willing to put in a little bit of elbow grease, agent Karen Kostiw of Coldwell Banker Warburg says. You may be thinking of new carpet, updated cabinets, and a few other touch-ups, but in some cases, TLC could actually mean the property requires a gut renovation.“Motivated Seller”Translation: The seller is eager to sell, possibly due to financial issues, a pending foreclosure, or a property that has been on the market for a while, says Jeffrey Borham, owner of Tampa Bay, Florida Team Borham. “This could be an opportunity for negotiation,” he adds. “However, investigate why the seller is motivated; there could be hidden issues that have deterred other buyers.”Similarly, “priced to sell” could mean a whole host of things, ranging from the property needs some work or the seller wants to start a bidding war, New York City Broker Sean Adu-Gyamfi of Coldwell Banker Warburg says.“Hot Listing”Some agents advertise “hot listings” on the MLS to create urgency, even if there are no other offers, Misty Spittler, a licensed public insurance adjuster and certified roof inspector, says. Don’t feel pressured, though. She recently had a client bid $20,000 over asking on a listing advertised as hot. Spittler’s inspection found $30,000 of necessary repairs, so the client was able to renegotiate.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

On June 3, Yoshua Bengio, the world’s most-cited computer scientist, announced the launch of LawZero, a nonprofit that aims to create “safe by design” AI by pursuing a fundamentally different approach to major tech companies. Players like OpenAI and Google are investing heavily in AI agents—systems that not only answer queries and generate images, but can craft plans and take actions in the world. The goal of these companies is to create virtual employees that can do practically any job a human can, known in the tech industry as artificial general intelligence, or AGI. Executives like Google DeepMind’s CEO Demis Hassabis point to AGI’s potential to solve climate change or cure disease as a motivator for its development. Bengio, however, says we don't need agentic systems to reap AI's rewards—it's a false choice. He says there's a chance such a system could escape human control, with potentially irreversible consequences. “If we get an AI that gives us the cure for cancer, but also maybe another version of that AI goes rogue and generates wave after wave of bio-weapons that kill billions of people, then I don't think it's worth it," he says. In 2023, Bengio, along with others including OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman signed a statement declaring that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”Now, Bengio, through LawZero, aims to sidestep the existential perils by focusing on creating what he calls “Scientist AI”—a system trained to understand and make statistical predictions about the world, crucially, without the agency to take independent actions. As he puts it: We could use AI to advance scientific progress without rolling the dice on agentic AI systems.Why Bengio Says We Need A New Approach To AI The current approach to giving AI agency is “dangerous,” Bengio says. While most software operates through rigid if-then rules—if the user clicks here, do this—today's AI systems use deep learning. The technique, which Bengio helped pioneer, trains artificial networks modeled loosely on the brain to find patterns in vast amounts of data. But recognizing patterns is just the first step. To turn these systems into useful applications like chatbots, engineers employ a training process called reinforcement learning. The AI generates thousands of responses and receives feedback on each one: a virtual “carrot” for helpful answers and a virtual “stick” for responses that miss the mark. Through millions of these trial-and-feedback cycles, the system gradually learns to predict what responses are most likely to get a reward. “It’s more like growing a plant or animal,” Bengio says. “You don’t fully control what the animal is going to do. You provide it with the right conditions, and it grows and it becomes smarter. You can try to steer it in various directions.”The same basic approach is now being used to imbue AI with greater agency. Models are tasked with challenges with verifiable answers—like math puzzles or coding problems—and are then rewarded for taking the series of actions that yields the solution. This approach has seen AI shatter previous benchmarks in programming and scientific reasoning. For example, at the beginning of 2024, the best AI model scored only 2% on a standardized test for AI of sorts consisting of real world software engineering problems; by December, an impressive 71.7%. But with AI’s greater problem-solving ability comes the emergence of new deceptive skills, Bengio says. The last few months have borne witness to AI systems learning to mislead, cheat, and try to evade shutdown—even resorting to blackmail. These have almost exclusively been in carefully contrived experiments that almost beg the AI to misbehave—for example, by asking it to pursue its goal at all costs. Reports of such behavior in the real-world, though, have begun to surface. Popular AI coding startup Replit’s agent ignored explicit instruction not to edit a system file that could break the company’s software, in what CEO Amjad Masad described as an “Oh f***” moment,” on the Cognitive Revolution podcast in May. The company’s engineers intervened, cutting the agent’s access by moving the file to a secure digital sandbox, only for the AI agent to attempt to “socially engineer” the user to regain access.The quest to build human-level AI agents using techniques known to produce deceptive tendencies, Bengio says, is comparable to a car speeding down a narrow mountain road, with steep cliffs on either side, and thick fog obscuring the path ahead. “We need to set up the car with headlights and put some guardrails on the road,” he says.What is “Scientist AI”?LawZero’s focus is on developing “Scientist AI” which, as Bengio describes, would be fundamentally non-agentic, trustworthy, and focused on understanding and truthfulness, rather than pursuing its own goals or merely imitating human behavior. The aim is creating a powerful tool that, while lacking the same autonomy other models have, is capable of generating hypotheses and accelerating scientific progress to “help us solve challenges of humanity,” Bengio says.LawZero has raised nearly $30 million already from several philanthropic backers including from Schmidt Sciences and Open Philanthropy. “We want to raise more because we know that as we move forward, we'll need significant compute,” Bengio says. But even ten times that figure would pale in comparison to the roughly $200 billion spent last year by tech giants on aggressively pursuing AI. Bengio’s hope is that Scientist AI could help ensure the safety of highly autonomous systems developed by other players. “We can use those non-agentic AIs as guardrails that just need to predict whether the action of an agentic AI is dangerous," Bengio says. Technical interventions will only ever be one part of the solution, he adds, noting the need for regulations to ensure that safe practices are adopted.LawZero, named after science fiction author Isaac Asimov’s zeroth law of robotics—“a robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm”—is not the first nonprofit founded to chart a safer path for AI development. OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit in 2015 with the goal of “ensuring AGI benefits all of humanity,” and intended to serve a counterbalance to industry players guided by profit motives. Since opening a for-profit arm in 2019, the organization has become one of the most valuable private companies in the world, and has faced criticism, including from former staffers, who argue it has drifted from its founding ideals. "Well, the good news is we have the hindsight of maybe what not to do,” Bengio says, adding that he wants to avoid profit incentives and “bring governments into the governance of LawZero.”“I think everyone should ask themselves, ‘What can I do to make sure my children will have a future,’” Bengio says. In March, he stepped down as scientific director of Mila, the academic lab he co-founded in the early nineties, in an effort to reorient his work towards tackling AI risk more directly. “Because I'm a researcher, my answer is, ‘okay, I'm going to work on this scientific problem where maybe I can make a difference,’ but other people may have different answers."

Published June 2, 2025 10:00am EDT close 'CyberGuy' warns of cyberscams costing Americans billions a year Tech expert Kurt Knutsson joins "Fox & Friends" to warn of new cyberscams and give tips on how to avoid them. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Given the number of phishing scams we have all faced over the past decade, most of us have developed a basic skill to spot and avoid obvious phishing emails or SMS messages. Cybercriminals are aware of this, and they have evolved their tactics by shifting to more complex and convincing schemes designed to bypass skepticism and lure victims.Their goal remains the same: to trick you into handing over sensitive information, especially credit card data. One of the latest examples is the rise in subscription scam campaigns. Scammers are creating incredibly convincing websites selling everything from shoes and clothes to electronics, tricking people into signing up for monthly subscriptions and willingly providing their credit card information. Facebook is being used as the primary platform to promote these new and sophisticated scams. A woman shopping online (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What you need to knowBitdefender researchers have uncovered a massive and highly coordinated subscription scam campaign involving more than 200 active websites designed to look like real online stores. These sites, often promoted through Facebook ads, sell everything from clothes and electronics to beauty products, but the real goal is to trick users into signing up for recurring payments, often without realizing it.One of the most common lures is the "mystery box" scam, where you are promised a surprise package at a bargain price. These offers are made to look fun and harmless, but behind the scenes you are giving away personal and credit card information while unknowingly agreeing to hidden subscription terms, often written in tiny fine print.The scam doesn’t stop there. Once you’re convinced and reach the checkout page, scammers often layer in a second scam, like loyalty cards or VIP memberships that further lock you into payments. It’s all designed to confuse you, overwhelm you with supposed perks and make the scam feel like a good deal.Researchers found that many of these websites share a single Cyprus address, possibly tied to offshore entities linked to the Paradise Papers. Despite being spread across different categories and brand names, the sites often use the same layouts, AI agents and payment structures, all pointing to a centralized fraud network.Scammers frequently rotate the brands they impersonate and have started moving beyond mystery boxes, now peddling low-quality products, counterfeit goods, fake investment schemes, dubious supplements and more. To avoid automatic detection, they employ several tactics. These include running multiple versions of an ad, with only one of which is actually malicious while the others display harmless product images, uploading ad images from platforms like Google Drive so they can be swapped out later and cropping visuals to alter recognizable patterns. Listing fake products (Bitdefender) (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)The scam is expandingWhat started with simple "mystery box" scams has grown into a sprawling, coordinated campaign. These scams now feature fake surveys, tiered "VIP" memberships and deceptive credit systems that make the purchase process intentionally confusing. Users are promised deep discounts or access to exclusive deals, but in reality they’re just being locked into recurring payments.Many of the scam websites trace back to the same physical address in Cyprus, pointing to what appears to be a centralized operation. Researchers also found links to entities mentioned in the Paradise Papers, suggesting these fraudsters are hiding behind offshore infrastructure.And it’s not just mystery boxes anymore. The same scam format is being used to sell low-quality goods, fake supplements and even bogus investment opportunities. With high-quality site design, aggressive advertising and increasingly sophisticated tactics, subscription scams are becoming the new face of online fraud. A person shopping online (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)10 proactive measures to take to protect your dataEven as scammers become more sophisticated, there are practical steps you can take right now to protect your personal and financial information from subscription fraud and other online threats. Here are ten proactive measures to help keep your data safe:1) Always read the fine print: One of the simplest yet most effective ways to protect yourself from subscription scams is to slow down and read the fine print, especially on checkout pages. Scammers often hide recurring payment terms in small or lightly colored text that’s easy to miss. What seems like a one-time purchase could actually sign you up for a biweekly or monthly charge. Taking just a moment to scan for hidden terms before hitting "Pay" can help you avoid weeks of silent billing.2) Avoid mystery box or VIP-style deals: These offers often prey on curiosity and the promise of surprise or luxury for a low fee. In reality, the "mystery" is the trap: you might receive nothing or a low-quality item while being unknowingly enrolled in a recurring subscription. Scammers use the illusion of exclusivity or urgency to pressure quick decisions.3) Don’t trust ads blindly on social media: Facebook, Instagram and other platforms are a hotbed for these scams, with criminals running paid ads that mimic well-known brands or influencers. These ads often link to professional-looking but fake storefronts. If you’re interested in a deal you see online, don’t click through immediately. Instead, look up the brand or offer in a separate tab and check if it exists outside social media.4) Investigate before you buy: Before purchasing from any unfamiliar site, take a few quick steps to verify its legitimacy. Search the brand's name alongside words like "scam" or "reviews" to see what others have experienced. Look up the company's physical address and check if it actually exists using tools like Google Maps. Make sure the website uses HTTPS, review the site's contact information and cross-check reviews on trusted third-party sites like the Better Business Bureau or Consumer Reports.5) Use strong antivirus software: Adding a strong antivirus program to your devices can provide an extra layer of defense against fraudulent websites and phishing attempts. Strong antivirus software warns you about suspicious links, blocks malicious ads and scans downloads for malware. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.6) Invest in personal data removal services: Scammers often rely on leaked or publicly available personal information to target victims with convincing subscription scams. Investing in a personal data removal service can help minimize your digital footprint by removing your information from data broker databases and reducing the chances of being targeted in future campaigns. Regularly monitoring and cleaning up your online presence makes it harder for fraudsters to exploit your data for financial gain. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.7) Be cautious with payment methods: Use secure payment options like credit cards, which often offer better fraud protection than wire transfers, gift cards or cryptocurrency.8) Limit personal information shared on social media: Scammers often gather details from public profiles to craft convincing scams. Review your privacy settings and only share necessary information.9) Use strong, unique passwords and enable multifactor authentication: Create strong, unique passwords for each of your online accounts, especially those tied to your finances or shopping. Enable multifactor authentication wherever possible, as this adds an extra layer of security and makes it harder for scammers to access your accounts, even if your password is compromised. Also, consider using a password manager to generate and store complex passwords. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 here.10) Keep your devices and software updated: Regularly update your operating system, browsers and apps. Security updates often patch vulnerabilities that scammers exploit to gain access to your information or install malicious software.Kurt’s key takeawayWhile the rise of subscription scams and deceptive ads is concerning, it’s especially troubling that platforms like Facebook continue to allow these fraudulent ads to run unchecked. Facebook has repeatedly failed to adequately vet or prevent these malicious campaigns from reaching vulnerable individuals. The platform’s ad approval system should be more proactive in spotting and blocking ads promoting scams, particularly those that impersonate well-known brands or content creators. How do you feel about Facebook’s role in allowing scam ads to circulate? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Image: Nintendo LifeWho had the return of Survival Kids on their bingo cards for 2025? Let alone as a launch title for a brand new Nintendo console? Amidst a storm of third-party ports and first-party giants, Survival Kids quietly sneaked into the Nintendo Switch 2 Direct back in April 2025. And when we saw the Konami logo, something clicked — oh, it's that Survival Kids. The original Game Boy Color game launched way back in 1999 and was just added to the Game Boy app on Nintendo Switch Online. A GBC sequel, the Lost In Blue trilogy on DS, and a Wii game followed, but the series of survival RPGs has been dormant ever since. Until now.Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube815kWatch on YouTube In a partnership with Unity Games — in what is the developer's first-ever game — Konami is flipping the script with this new entry. And, ahead of its Switch 2 release on 5th June, we had a chance to send Richard Jones, Creative Director at Konami Digital Entertainment, some questions about the surprise return of this cult classic series. Available today Nintendo Life: Konami has an extremely deep and rich back catalogue full of games and series that have lain dormant for years. Why did the team choose to bring back Survival Kids? Richard Jones, Creative Director at Konami Digital Entertainment: The reason we wanted to bring Survival Kids back was because the idea of being shipwrecked on an island is such a universally known story throughout the world and throughout generations. It harks back to stories like the Lost Boys from Peter Pan, Swallows and Amazons, or Treasure Island. There's something incredibly evocative about kids having adventures on remote islands. Thematically, the idea of kids on an island having fun and adventures is exactly what video games are about. The opportunity to update this game and play with some of the new Nintendo Switch 2 features was just very exciting. So, it just seemed like a really interesting theme to explore – where we could have fun and turn it into a game for all of the family. A sensation that goes back to everyone’s childhood, like running around the playground pretending to be pirates or whatever. How things change in over 25 years... — Images: Konami That idea of combining childhood adventure with modern co-operative gameplay felt like the perfect way to make something both nostalgic and new. We saw an opportunity to build a game that was more accessible, multiplayer-focused, and designed for families and friends to enjoy together. I think that’s why we liked the theme and thought there was a really good opportunity to update and reinvent it in a new, interesting way for modern audiences. You're working with Unity in what is the company's first fully developed video game. How did that partnership come about? I met with Unity a few years ago at Gamescom. It came to light that they were putting together a team for in-house development. I happened to be looking for external studios to work on a Konami IP, and it seemed like we were on the same sort of trajectory – same ideas around scope, budget, and timescale. So, we carried on talking and started exploring which IPs we’d be interested in working on. We quickly realised we were creatively aligned, and that led naturally into working together. Once we met the team at Unity, we realised what an experienced group of people they’d put together. Everyone throws around words like 'industry veteran,' but these were actual veterans – proper experts in their field with years and years of experience shipping all kinds of games. We knew immediately we were in safe hands – the developers and artists really knew their stuff, and we knew we could work really well with them. Are any of the original developers involved, or has Konami reached out to them about the new project? We love the original Survival Kids games – I remember working on Survival Kids (Stranded Kids, as it was called in the UK) when I first joined Konami. It’s a fantastic game, but we wanted to completely redesign it from the ground up. We had a different vision for what this game should be based on its premise. We wanted it to be more fun, more accessible – something people could play together. From the start, it was always about surviving together. this is very much a respectful reimagining based on the original’s premise - not a direct continuation. It was always going to be a group of kids on an island, working together to solve puzzles in fun ways. Rather than being a really hardcore, punishing RPG like the original, this is a lighter, more inclusive experience. So yeah, this is very much a respectful reimagining based on the original’s premise - not a direct continuation. The original Game Boy game is a single-player survival venture with resource management. How do these aspects translate into multiplayer? We wanted to use the idea of cooking and gathering food as something you could do communally. That was one of the really early ideas – we wanted people to come together around the cooking pot. We explored different iterations — should it be a campfire, should it be something else — and landed on a cooking pot. Everyone can throw bits of food in, and you get this communal pot of soup. Everyone gets something out of it. Rather than linking hunger or exhaustion to failure, we tied stats to improving your character. So, for example, if there's a really tall climbing net, you can’t just climb it straight away – you need to cook and eat food to build up stamina. That way, it encourages cooperation without punishing players. You're cooking to get stronger, not to avoid death. Image: Konami So it keeps that survival theme - but reframes it around teamwork and progression, not punishment. It’s a more approachable, co-op-friendly way to explore the same ideas. It’s all part of the shift from surviving alone to surviving together. What can returning fans expect in terms of new gameplay elements? The game is completely new, so it's a fresh experience. The original had a fairly hardcore, punishing survival design, but this version is less about failure states and more about creating time and space for people to have fun together – whether that’s in split-screen mode, using GameShare in the same room, or online with GameChat. this version is less about failure states and more about creating time and space for people to have fun together The whole point was friends and families gathering, solving puzzles, overcoming obstacles, and having fun. There are still challenges linked to the environment and items - and you can try speedrunning if you want, but at its heart it’s about playing together and enjoying the experience as a group. We want players to come away with a smile on their face at the end of a session. Was it always your goal to be a Switch 2 launch title? Will players be able to use GameShare between Switch 1 and 2? When we started the pitch and early design work, we didn’t even know about Switch 2. But during pre-production, speculation about the new console started to emerge, and it aligned closely with our schedule. We made some educated guesses – assuming the console would have a similar audience, and continue to target ways to play socially. We took a few leaps of faith early on, designing with those assumptions in mind - and they turned out to be close enough. Once we started designing around that, it all made sense – and we reached out to Nintendo to get dev kits and approval. Once they saw what we were doing, I think they realised it was a natural fit. So yes, it now supports new social features like GameChat but also GameShare with compatibility between Switch 1 and Switch 2. (EN: It's since been revealed that you can play Survival Kids via GameShare with up to two additional Switch 1 and/or Switch 2 consoles) Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube815k Are you taking advantage of Switch 2 features like mouse mode or 120fps? We looked into mouse mode, but it didn’t really add anything meaningful to our gameplay. Instead, we focused on features like GameShare and GameChat, which made much more sense for the co-op experience. We also had to be mindful of performance – we’re supporting split screen and GameShare simultaneously, which puts constraints on frame rate. Those trade-offs were intentional - made to ensure a smooth, stable multiplayer experience across all supported modes. With games like Overcooked and Moving Out gaining popularity, how will Survival Kids stand out in a crowded multiplayer launch lineup? Games like Overcooked were definitely in our minds when we started this – the idea of co-op chaos is something we really liked. We approach it slightly differently – using real-time physics, for example. Things like logs rolling away from you or two players struggling to carry a heavy object. It’s deceptively simple, but ends up being chaotic, funny, and memorable - the kind of co-op experience where things go wrong in the best way. What sets Survival Kids apart is its tone - it’s light-hearted, session-based, and designed for friends and family to pick up and play. And it’s one of the few titles launching with full GameShare and GameChat support right out of the box. Image: Konami This interview has been edited lightly for clarity. Thank you to Richard Jones at Konami for taking the time to speak to us! Survival Kids washes onto the Switch 2's shores on the console's launch day, Thursday 5th June. Let us know if you're looking forward to this. Every game coming to Switch 2 on launch day Related Games See Also Share:0 0 Alana has been with Nintendo Life since 2022, and while RPGs are her first love, Nintendo is a close second. She enjoys nothing more than overthinking battle strategies, characters, and stories. She also wishes she was a Sega air pirate. Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment... Related Articles Pokémon Legends: Z-A's Switch 2 And Switch 1 Prices Have Been Revealed And we're pleasantly surprised Nintendo Updates Switch 2 Backwards Compatibility List Doom Eternal, NBA 2K25, and more to get an update Nintendo Appears To Have Updated Mario Kart World's Switch 2 File Size Some other file sizes have also changed Fantasy Life i Gets Switch 2 Release Date With Paid Upgrade Path For Switch 1 Players And it's coming launch day Title: Survival Kids System: Nintendo Switch 2 Also Available For: GBC Publisher: Konami Developer: Unity Games Genre: Adventure Players: 1 Release Date: Nintendo Switch 2 5th Jun 2025 — $49.99 5th Jun 2025 — £44.99 Series: Survival Kids Official Site: nintendo.com Where to buy: Buy on Amazon