Generative A.I. chatbots are going down conspiratorial rabbit holes and endorsing wild, mystical belief systems. For some people, conversations with the technology can deeply distort reality.

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy JrTasos Katopodis/Getty One of the top vaccine experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, resigned on 4 June – a week after Robert F Kennedy Jr announced that covid-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for most children and pregnancies. The announcement set off several days of confusion around who will have access to covid-19 vaccines in the US going forward. In practice, there hasn’t been a drastic change to access, though there will probably be new obstacles for parents hoping to vaccinate their children. Still, Kennedy’s announcement signals a troubling circumvention of public health norms. “My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,” said Panagiotakopoulos in an email to colleagues obtained by Reuters. Panagiotakopoulos supported the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has advised the CDC on vaccine recommendations since 1964. But last week, Kennedy – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – upended this decades-long precedent. “I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the covid vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant woman has been removed from the CDC recommended immunisation schedule,” he said in a video posted to the social media platform X on 27 May. Despite his directive, the CDC has, so far, only made minor changes to its guidance on covid-19 vaccines. Instead of recommending them for children outright, it now recommends vaccination “based on shared clinical decision-making”. In other words, parents should talk with a doctor before deciding. It isn’t clear how this will affect access to these vaccines in every scenario, but it could make it more difficult for children to get a shot at pharmacies. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter The CDC’s guidance on vaccination in pregnancy is also ambiguous. While its website still recommends a covid-19 shot during pregnancy, a note at the top says, “this page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule.” Kennedy’s announcement contradicts the stances of major public health organisations, too. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) have come out opposing it. “The CDC and HHS encourage individuals to talk with their healthcare provider about any personal medical decision,” an HHS spokesperson told New Scientist. “Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship.” However, Linda Eckert at the University of Washington in Seattle says the conflicting messages are confusing for people. “It opens up disinformation opportunities. It undermines confidence in vaccination in general,” she says. “I can’t imagine it won’t decrease immunisation rates overall.” Research has repeatedly shown covid-19 vaccination in adolescence and pregnancy is safe and effective. In fact, Martin Makary, the head of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), listed pregnancy as a risk factor for severe covid-19 a week before Kennedy’s announcement, further convoluting the government’s public health messaging. Kennedy’s announcement is in line with some other countries’ covid policies. For example, Australia and the UK don’t recommend covid-19 vaccines for children unless they are at risk of severe illness. They also don’t recommend covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy if someone is already vaccinated. Asma Khalil, a member of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says the UK’s decision was based on the reduced risk of the omicron variant, the cost-effectiveness of vaccination and high population immunity. However, these factors can vary across countries. The UK population also tends to have better access to healthcare than the US, says Eckert. “These decisions need to carefully consider the risks and benefits relative to the national population,” says Khalil. The HHS didn’t answer New Scientist’s questions about whether a similar analysis guided Kennedy’s decision-making. What is maybe most troubling, however, is the precedent Kennedy’s announcement sets. The ACIP – an independent group of public health experts – was expected to vote on proposed changes to covid-19 vaccine recommendations later this month. But Kennedy’s decision has bypassed this process. “This style of decision-making – by individuals versus going through experts who are carefully vetted for conflicts of interest, who carefully look at the data – this has never happened in our country,” says Eckert. “We’re in uncharted territory.” She worries the move could pave the way for Kennedy to chip away at other vaccine recommendations. “I know there are a lot of vaccines he has been actively against in his career,” she says. Kennedy has previously blamed vaccines for autism and falsely claimed that the polio vaccine caused more deaths than it averted. “What it speaks to is the fact that [Kennedy] does not see value in these vaccines and is going to do everything he can to try and devalue them in the minds of the public and make them harder to receive,” says Amesh Adalja at Johns Hopkins University. Topics:

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Editor’s note, May 21, 2025, at 9:50 am ET: The Senate has unanimously passed the “no tax on tips” bill. The bill will now head to the House. This article was originally published on August 13, 2024.First, some good news: In an otherwise polarizing and divisive election, there’s at least one policy proposal that’s emerging as a unifying issue. The bad news is that most experts think it’s a terrible idea. The proposal in question is to abolish federal taxes on tips. Donald Trump originally floated the idea at a campaign rally in June, and it gained enough traction that “No tax on tips” signs started making regular appearances at Trump campaign events and the Republican National Convention. Now, even his opponent Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed the idea. “It is my promise to everyone here: When I am president, we will continue our fight for working families of America, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers,” she told a crowd over the weekend.In a series of social media posts, Trump accused Harris of stealing his idea, saying that “she sounds more like Trump than Trump, copying almost everything.”On the surface, exempting tips from being taxed might sound like a pro-worker proposal with populist appeal, potentially boosting take-home pay for service sector workers who rely on tips to make a living. But the policy doesn’t really hold up under any scrutiny. And that’s because at best, “no tax on tips” looks a lot less like a tax cut for low- and middle-income families, and a lot more like a subsidy for big businesses. “I’m not at all saying that workers won’t get anything,” said Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute. “But I think that a meaningful share of the [federal] expenditures on a tax exemption like this will go to the employers of tipped workers.” That might be why industry lobbyists have backed the proposal. “It’s not a surprise that the National Restaurant Association loves this,” Shierholz said, referring to the lobbying group that represents many of the country’s major restaurant chains.At worst, the tax policy might even put a downward pressure on service sector wages by allowing employers to keep their workers’ baseline pay low because the tax cut could instead raise the workers’ take-home pay.“I think there is no question that it would” weigh wages down, Shierholz said. The only question, she says, is just how much.So while “no tax on tips” might make for a good sound bite or campaign slogan, it doesn’t necessarily translate to wise policymaking.Tipped workers don’t need a tax cut. They need a raise.The problem with tipped wages is not that they are taxed too heavily; it’s how little they tend to pay, and how much tipped workers have to rely on the kindness of strangers to make ends meet. In 2023, for example, the median annual wage for waiters was just below $32,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.In fact, as the Tax Policy Center put it, eliminating income taxes on tips would do little, if anything, for many tipped workers whose earnings are so low that they are already exempt from paying federal income taxes.“It’s very hard to dispute that the vast majority of moderate and low-wage workers are left out,” said Brendan Duke, senior director of economic policy at the Center for American Progress. “We know that 95 percent of low- and moderate-wage workers don’t get tips, and only about a third of those tipped workers pay income taxes and would benefit from this.” (Duke was specifically talking about Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s proposed legislation on this issue.)Part of the reason that tipped workers are paid so poorly is that the federal government only guarantees them a subminimum wage of $2.13 per hour. If along with tips, a worker’s earnings are still below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, then employers have to make up the difference. (Many states and municipalities have wage requirements above the federal minimum, but those also often include carve-outs with lower hourly minimums for tipped workers.)That’s why a handful of states have abolished the subminimum wage for tipped workers altogether. Because by allowing employers to pay tipped workers less, businesses essentially pass their payroll burden directly onto their customers. And while most Americans are used to paying tips, those who don’t — or those who at least threaten to not tip — create a hostile environment for workers and make it harder for employees to make a fair wage. Some studies have also shown that tipped wages encourage workers to discriminate against people of color, providing them with worse service because of racist stereotypes about who is more likely to leave a generous tip.Eliminating taxes on tips is a handout for businesses, not workersOne of the biggest concerns about doing away with federal taxes on tips is that it would discourage businesses from offering more competitive wages. That’s because if workers’ take-home pay increases because of a tax cut, employers wouldn’t need to provide tipped workers a higher base-line wage. In effect, it’s a tax cut that might mostly subsidize businesses’ payroll costs, not workers’ cost of living. “It will reduce employers’ needs to raise wages,” Shierholz, of the Economic Policy Institute, said. There’s also the fact that creating a tax carveout for tipped employees could create a major loophole for employers looking to pay people less. Some sectors, for example, can simply become part of the tipped economy, making more of their workers rely on tips rather than a minimum wage.The policy would “incentivize employers to have more workers be in tipped occupations,” Shierholz said. “[Employers] could reduce the base wages they pay their workers under the guise of doing something for the workers. They could say, ‘We’re making you tipped because you won’t have to pay taxes’ and then in the fine print, it’s like, ‘Oh also, you’re going to be making $2.13 an hour in base wages.’”That’s why pursuing other policies, like abolishing the subminimum wage, would do much more to increase workers’ pay than eliminating taxes on tips would. The poverty rate for tipped workers in states without a subminimum wage, for example, is lower than that in states with a subminimum wage. “If you really want to help tipped workers, there are other ways that are far, far better,” Shierholz said, adding that federal dollars would be better directed toward programs like the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would be much better at targeting workers who need it. So if politicians are looking to tout a pro-worker agenda, they should point to policies that can actually raise people’s wages, as Harris did by also endorsing raising the minimum wage. Otherwise, they might just be pushing for yet another tax cut for the rich. After all, that might be why major business lobbying groups have endorsed “no tax on tips” — to avoid actually raising workers’ wages.See More:

The headlines scream it daily: Markets are fluctuating wildly, AI is transforming entire industries overnight, supply chains are fracturing, and the workforce is reshuffling at unprecedented rates. According to the World Economic Forum, 78 million new job opportunities will emerge by 2030, but this comes amid massive workforce transformation, with 77% of employers planning upskilling initiatives while 41% anticipate reductions due to AI automation. All these moving parts are playing out against a global background of financial insecurity, war, climate change, and political disruption. The age of anxiety Welcome to the age of VUCA—volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity—a concept adopted by the military to describe post-Cold War conditions but now perfectly capturing our business landscape. And here’s the brutal truth. We’re facing this unprecedented VUCA while collectively and perfectly depleted from the trauma of the past five years. A recent American Psychiatric Association survey reveals that 43% of U.S. adults feel more anxious than they did the previous year, with 70% particularly anxious about current events. Research from meQ also finds that depression and anxiety rates are more than four times higher for people who feel least prepared for change. This isn’t another challenging period to weather. Chaotic change isn’t a bug in the code we can just rewrite. It’s a fundamental feature of our era, requiring a complete reinvention of our relationship with change itself. Why the U in VUCA Hurts So Much Right Now In a word, trauma. The pandemic threw us into societal trauma at a level few of us had ever known. Unlike normal adversity, where mental health improves once the challenge passes, the pandemic created persistent mental health issues that have worsened even after the acute phases passed. When it comes to mental health, trauma has a long tail. The pandemic delivered a perfect storm of traumatic conditions: Chronic and unrelenting. Rather than a sharp, short crisis, it dragged on with no clear endpoint. Pervasive impact. It transformed every aspect of life simultaneously—work, relationships, health, finances. Global with no escape. You couldn’t get on a plane to avoid it. Beyond our control. Individual actions had minimal impact on the overall trajectory. Shifting goalposts. Vaccines were promised, then delayed; variants emerged; reopenings were followed by new lockdowns. Aversion to Uncertainty This roller coaster of false hope and disappointment forced us to experience unrelenting uncertainty, and even in good times, our brains hate uncertainty. In a 2016 University College London study, people experienced more stress and anxiety when facing a 50/50 chance of receiving an electric shock than when facing a 98% certainty of receiving that same shock. Uncertainty was more unbearable than guaranteed pain. This preference made evolutionary sense when stability increased the chance of survival. In today’s business environment, it’s a dangerous liability. The fight-flight-freeze responses that helped our ancestors survive short periods of uncertainty now paralyze us in boardrooms, strategy sessions, and daily decision-making. We are not yet equipped to handle the ongoing uncertainty of today’s nonstop change. The New Approach to Change I often describe our current relationship to change as abusive. Another disruption shakes us off course, and we think “this time will be different,” but it never is. The resulting uncertainty plagues us as much as before, because we haven’t changed our approach. Transforming our ingrained fear of uncertainty requires a process that rewrites our own relationship with change. We are then empowered to lead our teams and organizations through this era of VUCA without end. Step 1: Reject our old-fashioned beliefs about uncertainty and change We all have deep-seated beliefs about how the world should work. I call these Iceberg Beliefs because they’re enormous and largely lie beneath the surface of our awareness. They often define how we react to change. Classic beliefs about change and uncertainty might sound like: ●  “If I keep my head down and work hard, certainty should be my reward.” ●  “Uncertainty is unbearable and unfair.” ●  “The more control I get, the better my life will be.” ●  “Steady as she goes wins the race.” ●  “Change is frightening. It should be resisted or ignored.” We have to discard these beliefs. For one, they’re not accurate. While hard work helps achieve our goals, it brings no guarantee of certainty or constancy. Second, they frame VUCA in a way that’s not useful. VUCA is happening to us all, and “fair”  has nothing to do with it.  These beliefs push us to waste our time and energy fighting for an illusion of certainty that will never come. We must reject these naive Icebergs and replace them with beliefs that reflect reality and point to a path ahead. Step 2: Reinvent and reimagine our beliefs about uncertainty and change Reinventing our relationship with change means rejecting old and tired thinking and constructing new belief systems. We can ease into this by first endorsing beliefs that get us more comfortable with change. ●  “Not all uncertainty ends badly. There have been college applications, new jobs, and reorgs that turned out well.” ●  “I’ve been through change before, and most of the terrible stuff I worried about at 3 a.m. every night didn’t actually happen.” ●  “I am powerless to change change, but I alone have the power to change my relationship with it.” Next, we can finally turn the tables on this abusive relationship by edging toward embracing change. We’ll get there with beliefs like “there is no growth without change” and “every change brings opportunity.” We can also recognize that some of life’s most exhilarating moments—falling in love, becoming a parent, getting a promotion, starting a new venture—involve profound uncertainty and change. Part of this work must include recalibrating our sense of what is under our control and mapping our sphere of control daily. Trauma distorts our sense of what we can and cannot influence. For example, during the pandemic, I found myself obsessively worrying about my elderly parents’ health in Australia—something I had limited control over—while neglecting my children’s online education happening right in front of me. I was systematically failing to control what I could because I was exhausted trying to control what I couldn’t. Step 3: Lead your people through change With the threat of uncertainty neutralized and our beliefs about change and control starting to shift, we turn attention outward. How can we react to disruption more productively? And how can we successfully lead the people who count on us through VUCA? Practice a growth mindset These habits of mind help us see opportunities and stay focused through chaotic disruption. As leaders, we shift our teams’ response to change when we approach challenges with principles such as: ●  Abandoning perfectionism. ●  Accepting inevitable mistakes. ●  Reframing mistakes as progress to value. ●  Encouraging creativity without judgment. We can also educate our managers in this new approach to change, and help them learn to coach their teams to do the same. When this training happens at scale, our entire workforce is much more equipped to navigate and accelerate through organizational changes. Adjust work to the demands of VUCA We can’t lead like “business as usual” when VUCA rules. However, with our greater resilience in the face of change, we can skillfully shift workplace expectations and norms to reduce VUCA’s impact, thereby protecting growth and well-being as changes unfold. ●  Reduce Volatile Processes. Slow processes down when possible. External forces put a ceiling on how much volatility you can control, but even small reductions help. The greatest athletes visualize the game in slow motion, while they respond in real time. Deal with one thing at a time rather than everything simultaneously. ●  Reduce Uncertain Outcomes. While you can’t eliminate uncertainty, take actions today that narrow the field of possible outcomes. That’s why we try to exercise and eat healthfully. While never a guarantee that we’ll dodge illness, it renders that uncertainty small enough to set aside for now. ●   Reduce Complex Problems. Break problems into smaller pieces. Think of untangling yarn—start with one strand, simplify it, then move to the next. Organizations like NASA excel at this approach, breaking seemingly impossible challenges into manageable components. ●   Reduce Ambiguous Information with Clarity. The U in VUCA is future-directed, while the A—ambiguity—is happening now. During change, people will fill information gaps with their Icebergs and fears. In my research, organizations that fare better during VUCA have transparency of process and open information. It’s widely held in military circles that in a battle, communication is often the first thing to fail. By the time an organization is in VUCA, it’s too late to develop lines of communication. Work now, preemptively, to build strategies to keep your people informed. The payoff is clear. Research at meQ shows that most change-ready, resilient, and supported employees are significantly VUCA-proofed, with rates of depression, anxiety, and burnout slashed by around 75% when compared with their less change-ready peers. Taking the Power Back from Change The ultimate reality? Periods of stability will become increasingly rare. The concept that we just need to get through this “liminal time” before returning to normal is outdated. It’s the brief periods of stability that are now liminal—unusual spaces between the predominant times of change, turmoil, and flux. Those who can adapt internally rather than demanding external stability will be best positioned to thrive. The pursuit of stability is a fool’s errand, and what we’re chasing is fool’s gold. The only thing at stake is this: Our entire mental health, wellness, happiness, productivity, and performance. It’s time to take back the power in our relationship with change.

Published May 18, 2025 10:00am EDT close Google's AI unleashes new powerful scam-busting features for Android The CyberGuy explains steps you can take to protect yourself from scams. Once considered an old-fashioned crime, check washing has roared back to life with alarming sophistication. Criminals are not just targeting personal checks anymore. They  are exploiting every vulnerability in the mailing and banking system to cash in on stolen funds. As check fraud incidents continue to rise sharply across the country, it is more important than ever to understand how check washing works and what you can do to protect yourself. Here is what you need to know to stay ahead of the scammers.JOIN THE FREE CYBERGUY REPORT: GET MY EXPERT TECH TIPS, CRITICAL SECURITY ALERTS, AND EXCLUSIVE DEALS — PLUS INSTANT ACCESS TO MY FREE ULTIMATE SCAM SURVIVAL GUIDE WHEN YOU SIGN UP! A pen placed on top of a blank check  (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What is check washing fraud?Check washing fraud happens when a scammer steals a check you have written, erases the ink using chemicals like acetone or nail polish remover, and rewrites it to a new recipient. Often, they will change the amount to something much higher. The altered check is then deposited or cashed, and the funds are drained from your account before you even realize something is wrong.Why it's dangerous:Check washing does not require much technical skill.It can happen with checks you leave in your outgoing mail.Even mailed bill payments are vulnerable if not handled securely.FBI WARNS OF SCAM TARGETING VICTIMS WITH FAKE HOSPITALS AND POLICEUnlike digital fraud, check washing often goes unnoticed until long after the damage is done. Because checks can take days or even weeks to clear through the banking system, criminals have plenty of time to deposit altered checks and move funds before victims realize anything is wrong. By the time the missing money is discovered, tracing it back to the scammer can be extremely difficult. This delay makes it critical to monitor your accounts closely and act quickly if you spot any suspicious activity. Illustration of check fraud in progress  (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)How check washing has gotten worseSince 2023, check fraud has exploded in the United States.Financial institutions filed 665,000 suspicious activity reports (SARs) related to check fraud in 2023, which is a 134% increase compared to 2020.A 2024 Federal Reserve survey showed that check fraud now accounts for 30% of all fraud losses, second only to debit card fraud.Between February 2023 and August 2023 alone, Americans lost over $688 million to mail theft-related check fraud.The surge in fraud reports reflects more than just isolated criminal acts. Organized crime rings are increasingly turning to check washing as a hybrid crime, blending old-school mail theft with new digital tools like AI. Fraudsters now use advanced technologies to forge identities, alter check images and exploit gaps in banking security, making check washing more sophisticated than ever. As financial institutions strengthen cybersecurity defenses, scammers are targeting physical mail systems as a weaker link to bypass digital barriers.Real examples:Six people were charged with attempting to steal $80 million through fraudulent checks tied to COVID-19 relief funds.In Florida, a former mail carrier pleaded guilty to attempting to sell USPS arrow keys and stolen checks totaling nearly $550,000 to an undercover agent, leading to his arrest and confession.sNew tricks criminals are usingFraudsters have adapted their methods to stay ahead of law enforcement and banks.Mobile deposit fraud: Criminals alter check images or deposit the same check into multiple accounts.Synthetic identity fraud: Scammers create fake identities using AI-generated documents to open accounts and cash stolen checks.Business Email Compromise (BEC): Attackers impersonate executives or vendors to convince companies to send checks to fraudulent accounts.Criminals are combining old techniques like mail theft with new digital strategies, making check washing harder to recognize and prevent without proactive security measures. Recent advancements in AI technology have made it easier for scammers to forge realistic-looking documents, generate convincing fake identities and create sophisticated phishing emails. AI-generated fake IDs and altered check images can pass basic verification checks that would have caught manual forgeries in the past. This shift means check fraud is no longer just a matter of stealing a physical check, but exploiting digital vulnerabilities at every stage of the banking process. A person going over a bank statement (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)How to protect yourself from check washing fraudHere are 14 essential protective measures to shield yourself from check washing scams.1. Use a black gel pen: When writing checks, always use a black gel pen. The ink is much harder to remove compared to regular ballpoint pen ink.2. Bring checks directly to the post office when mailing them: If using a mailbox, make sure to drop off your mail before the final scheduled pickup so it is not left sitting overnight.3. Sign up for USPS Informed Delivery: Stay ahead by signing up for USPS Informed Delivery. You will receive digital previews of incoming mail so you can monitor for any missing items early. Learn more about why it's important here.4. Monitor your bank accounts: Set up real-time alerts for check clearing and review your statements weekly to catch any suspicious activity. Also, ask your bank about any other fraud-prevention tools they offer to protect your accounts.5. Switch to digital payments when possible: Use your bank’s mobile app to deposit checks without mailing or physically delivering them, reducing the risk of theft or tampering.6. Use checks with built-in security features: Choose checks printed on paper with watermarks, chemical-sensitive coatings or other security features that make check washing much harder.7. Limit the information on checks: Avoid unnecessary personal details. Do not print your Social Security number, driver’s license number or phone number on your checks. The less information available, the less a fraudster can use.HOW CYBERSCAMS ARE DRAINING AMERICANS WALLETS BY THE BILLIONS8. Store checks securely: Keep blank checks in a safe place. Store your checkbook in a locked drawer or safe, not in your purse, car or an easily accessible location at home.9. Check your mailbox security: Install a locking mailbox. If possible, use a mailbox with a lock to prevent thieves from stealing outgoing or incoming mail.10. Be cautious with endorsements: When endorsing checks, write "For Deposit Only" along with your account number to prevent others from cashing the check.11. Enroll in identity theft protection with check fraud specialization: Choose services that specifically monitor for compromised check details on dark web marketplaces and alert you to suspicious check-cashing patterns. Identity theft protection services monitor your personal data across the dark web and public databases, alert you to suspicious activity and assist you in locking down your accounts if needed. See my tips and best picks on how to protect yourself from identity theft.12. Invest in personal data removal services: Minimize exposure of sensitive details (like addresses or banking affiliations) that fraudsters could exploit for check-washing scams. Removing your personal information from these sites can help reduce your risk of becoming a victim. While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap and neither is your privacy.  These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. 13. Shred sensitive documents: Shred old checks and bank statements. Don’t just throw them away. Shred any documents with sensitive banking information.14. Report suspicious activity immediately: If you suspect check fraud or missing mail, report it to your bank and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service right away.15. Use Positive Pay if you are a business: Positive Pay is a fraud prevention service offered by most banks to business customers. It works by matching the checks you issue with the ones presented for payment. If something doesn’t add up, like a changed amount or payee, the bank flags it for your review before it’s processed. You usually need to sign up through your bank, and there might be a fee, but it’s a smart way to protect your business from check fraud, especially if you write a lot of checks.What to do if you are a victimIf you think you have been targeted by check fraud:Report it to your bank immediately and freeze your account if necessary.Contact the USPS Postal Inspection Service to report stolen mail.File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) or at IdentityTheft.gov.Time matters. The faster you act, the better your chances of recovering lost funds.Kurt’s key takeawaysCheck washing fraud is growing rapidly, and criminals are becoming more organized and sophisticated. Simple habits like using gel pens, securing your mail and monitoring your financial accounts closely can make a big difference. Services like USPS Informed Delivery, Positive Pay for businesses and personal data removal tools provide added layers of protection. Identity theft protection services can also offer critical support if you ever become a victim of check fraud.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHave you or someone you know experienced check fraud? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to coverFollow Kurt on his social channelsAnswers 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.

By Thursday morning, Grok's answer had changed, and the chatbot said it "wasn't programmed to give any answers promoting or endorsing harmful ideologies."