Corporate Corruption News Articles

Excerpts of key news articles on

Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on corporate corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.

Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news articles on dozens of engaging topics. And read excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.

Matt Litrell, a 22-year-old Amazon employee, was distributing union fliers outside the warehouse where he works this month when the cops showed up. An Amazon manager had called the sheriff's office in Campbellsville, Ky., that afternoon to report that protesters trying to start a union were trespassing on company property. While the officers eventually determined that Litrell wasn't on Amazon's property and left, Litrell plans to add the incident to the illegal-intimidation charge he filed with the National Labor Relations Board in May. Employees at Amazon facilities around the country whose union hopes were buoyed by the labor victory at a warehouse in Staten Island in April say in labor board filings and interviews that the company has been calling police, firing workers and generally cracking down on labor organizing since that historic win. Amazon has been accused of illegally firing workers in Chicago, New York and Ohio, calling the police on workers in Kentucky and New York, and retaliating against workers in New York and Pennsylvania, in what workers say is an escalation of long-running union-busting activities by the company. It's a sign that, even as lawmakers demand Amazon drop its objections to the union win in Staten Island ... the nation's second-largest private employer will continue to put up fierce opposition to any wave of union momentum. Eric Milner, a lawyer representing the Amazon Labor Union, called the company's objections to the election "a frivolous sideshow."

Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on corporate corruption from reliable major media sources.

Dozens of former students of the Interlochen Center for the Arts in Michigan, where Jeffrey Epstein is said to have encountered some of his earliest victims, told a law firm hired by the school that they had been sexually abused by teachers, staff members, trustees and others affiliated with the institution in episodes ranging from the 1950s to the 2010s. In a report released on Tuesday, after almost two years of interviews, the law firm presented firsthand accounts of Interlochen alumni, who said they had been subjected to misconduct ranging from grooming and flirting to intercourse. The report said that some 70 of the former students described physical abuse and identified the perpetrators as 47 adults affiliated with the center. The report, which is 97 pages long, said that some of the adults figured in multiple accounts that stretched over decades, but that a majority of the episodes had occurred several decades ago and claims of abuse had dropped sharply since 2000. In recent years, Interlochen also became known as the place where Mr. Epstein, a celebrated donor to the school, returned to mingle with students, several of whom later said they had been subjected to his grooming and abuse. Between 1990 and 2003, he [directed] more than $400,000 to Interlochen, including $200,000 to build the Jeffrey E. Epstein Scholarship Lodge, created to house visitors and parents. In 2009, Interlochen renamed the Epstein lodge.

Note: Don't miss part one and part two of our investigations into the Epstein files so far. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Jeffrey Epstein.

Hundreds of contractors working on a project for Meta were instructed to pose as minors online and probe how competitor chatbots responded to prompts involving suicide, sex, eating disorders, and other high-risk subjects, according to internal documents and five people familiar with the project. The prompts were often designed to push the chatbots toward responses their safety systems were supposed to refuse. A single round of testing completed in August 2025 saw more than 45,000 prompts run through the rival chatbots. The companies behind the chatbots weren't aware of the testing. Testing competitors' products is not, by itself, unusual in the artificial intelligence industry. Former contractors who worked on the project described several aspects as alarming. According to one former worker, employees feared the possibility they could be generating or preserving child sexual abuse material if a chatbot responded to certain sexual prompts involving minors. Another says they worried the project amounted to secretly taking material from competitors' systems to potentially feed back into Meta's system. While a dataset of thousands of youth-safety prompts could be useful for comparing how often chatbots refuse harmful requests, the scale and opacity of [this project, known internally as] Cannes, along with the lack of disclosure to the companies being tested, made it very different from other public safety benchmarks.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mental health.

Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is facing a scathing new class-action lawsuit accusing it of using surveillance pricing to gouge loyal readers – in a case that attorneys believe could rack up millions in damages. Since the mid-2010s, WaPo has "covertly harvested" subscriber data, using "deeply personal information" to determine how much they could squeeze out of each loyal reader, according to the suit, which was filed Thursday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Readers largely expected their personal data would be used for "mutually beneficial purposes" like "relevant advertisements" – and did not consent to their personal information being used to hike prices on their subscriptions, the suit alleged. After billionaire Bezos bought WaPo in 2013 for $250 million, the paper started heavily investing in technology and digital subscriptions, the suit noted. "The more loyal a reader became, the more data The Post could gather to estimate how much more that person might tolerate paying at renewal," the complaint said. "Rather than rewarding loyalty, The Post's system converted subscribers' engagement into leverage against them." The suit also alleged WaPo might be collecting extra information from subscribers' use of "affiliates" – including Amazon, Bezos' e-commerce giant. Last year, the publication was forced to reveal it was engaging in surveillance pricing techniques because of a 2025 New York disclosure law.

Note: Read more about the rise of AI surveillance pricing. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mass media.

AI is projected to generate nearly unfathomable amounts of revenue. Any mention of AI tends to be accompanied by warnings that deeper jobs cuts across many more industries are coming for us all. Jensen Huang, CEO of chip giant Nvidia, said in 2025: "Every job will be affected, and immediately. It is unquestionable. You're not going to lose your job to an AI, but you're going to lose your job to someone who uses AI." Increasingly, people young and old flock to a new gold rush in Silicon Valley to toil away on AI-fueled startups. If AI's worst-case scenario for tech jobs plays out ... that's still nowhere near the apocalyptic future of labor that many fear. "Is it, in fact, going to destroy all of the jobs?" Naidu asked. "I'm not convinced. Even take software. Software is only about 4 to 6% of GDP. So it's a lot, but it's not like the whole economy can be replaced by Claude Code." Convincing people that AI will replace human workers in droves is a clever marketing tactic. Not only does it stoke rabid investor speculation, but it distracts from a more realistic application of AI: to surveil and micromanage employees to squeeze yet more productivity out of them, all the while pressuring them to feel grateful that they have any kind of work. Gig workers, the people who pick you up in Ubers and deliver your food on platforms like DoorDash, have already been the guinea pigs for this kind of algorithmic management, and labor experts predict it will spread.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI and media manipulation.

For decades, Congress has tried and failed to give Americans control over their own personal data: the right to see it, correct it, and delete it at will. This inaction has left Americans with no recourse against misuse of their own data, while the data broker industry quietly continues to collect and sell the personal information of millions, operating in a largely unchecked gray market. Now, two new bills, the SECURE Data Act and the GUARD Financial Data Act, offer the latest test of whether Washington can step up and finally pull data brokers out of the shadows and into the reach of the law. Efforts to prevent the SECURE Data Act – or any federal protections – from being enacted are currently on full display. Exacerbating the situation and further endangering consumers, there is an entire category of companies that have deliberately avoided being classified as data brokers in an effort to skirt even the patchwork of state-level regulations. Unlike traditional data brokers, massive data aggregators don't sell your name and address to the highest bidder. Instead, they operate quietly, harvesting your data from across the internet, then assembling it into risk scores, behavioral profiles, and assessments of your creditworthiness. These opaque calculations increasingly govern your real-world outcomes, including whether you're approved for a mortgage, the interest rates on your auto loan, and what services or products are marketed to you.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and the disappearance of privacy.

Former Meta employee Sarah Wynn-Williams [was] silenced by Meta's legal threats to bankrupt her if she spoke. Wynn-Williams has written a book, Careless People, about her time at Meta (then Facebook), where she was an early director of global public policy. But Meta does not like the book. It has done everything in its power to stop it, including seeking an emergency arbitration order that prevents Wynn-Williams from promoting the book, and threatening punitive damages. These serve both to punish Wynn-Williams for writing it, and to send a warning to any future critic. A certain kind of libertarian responds by saying that Meta is not "censoring" Wynn-Williams, because only governments can censor. A certain kind of lawyer may say she brought this on herself by signing a contract agreeing not to criticise Meta. Private censorship is real and, in the time we live in, often more impactful than the public kind. Not all contractual provisions are, or should be, enforceable. You cannot write an enforceable contract to sell a child, to bind someone never to marry or to give up other fundamental rights. Why should the right to speak critically be any different? A contract in which someone agrees never to criticise their employer should be void and unenforceable. That is why we need legislation that makes clear a simple principle: that the free-speech right to criticise your employer is important, fundamental and cannot be sold.

Note: Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams once told US senators that the company targeted teenage girls with beauty and weight-loss advertisements during moments of heightened vulnerability such as after deleting a selfie. According to her testimony, Meta could detect when users were feeling "worthless," "helpless," or like a "failure," and then make that information available to advertisers. For more along these lines, read about a new nonprofit called Psst, which is designed to make it safer for Big Tech whistleblowers to report wrongdoing without immediately exposing themselves to retaliation.

The former chief investigations counsel for the House Oversight Committee has been helping to prepare Bill Gates, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, to testify privately in the panel's Jeffrey Epstein investigation on Wednesday. Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the committee, formally requested in March that Mr. Gates appear before the committee for a transcribed interview. His request came after files released by the Justice Department showed that Mr. Gates met with Mr. Epstein, the convicted sex offender, multiple times and that his closest advisers were in frequent contact with the disgraced financier until 2019, the year of his death in prison. In preparing for the deposition, Mr. Gates has turned to Jake Greenberg, who until December was spearheading the oversight panel's Epstein inquiry in his role as the committee's top investigative official. Mr. Gates's close relationship with Mr. Epstein has roiled his foundation, which has authorized an outside review of its ties to Mr. Epstein. Representative Suhas Subramanyam, Democrat of Virginia, said in an interview that he wanted to know what Mr. Gates "knew of Epstein's crimes, and the nature and extent of their relationship." He added, "Epstein was known for befriending and even blackmailing rich and powerful men, and I want to know if Gates was one of them." Mr. Gates has sought out powerful inside players to help him weather the scrutiny. He hired John Moran, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, who helped him secure an agreement with the committee for him to appear off camera, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Note: Don't miss part one and part two of our investigations into the Epstein files so far. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and Jeffrey Epstein.

Because defense contracts often prevent the military from repairing its own equipment, critics say weapons companies are price-gouging the Pentagon at every turn. The military's lack of a "right to repair" doesn't just allow defense contractors to charge thousands of dollars, for fixes that could be done for free or very cheaply. Rather, the Pentagon's dependence on weapons makers for maintenance undermines military readiness. Namely, contractors' extensive repair delays and sweeping decisions about whether to service gear routinely leave warfighters without critical equipment and weapons systems – even while deployed. Many DoD contracts now leave repair and maintenance, which can make up as much as 70% of a military program's lifetime cost, to the vendors. "It's a cash-cow for them," Ben Freeman, director of the Quincy Institute's Democratizing Foreign Policy Program, tells RS. "They can charge literally thousands of dollars to replace things that service members could replace for pennies." Take the RQ-11 Raven drone, for example. After hard landings, it often has trouble starting back up again. But due to contractual restrictions, the military is barred from making repairs and must ship the drone to the contractor at a cost of $26,000, regardless of the issue. When an extensive repair backlog meant service members were temporarily allowed to fix the drone themselves, however, they found they could solve the problem – a broken connector – for free with hot glue.

Note: Read more on how congress has prevented the military from repairing its own equipment. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on military corruption.

Some of the largest data-collecting companies in the United States–including major AI vendors, data brokers, defense contractors, and dating apps–rely on deceptive methods to keep consumers from opting out of the sale and sharing of their personal information. Researchers at [the Electronic Privacy Information Center] audited the opt-out processes of 38 major data companies and documented at least eight distinct categories of manipulative design: Opt-out forms that don't actually let users opt out of the sale of their data. Links that are buried in fine print and missing from homepages. Consumers routed through multiple separate forms to complete a single request. And requirements that users create accounts or pay for subscriptions before opting out at all, among others. Major companies offering large language models, such as Google, Meta, and OpenAI, fail to clearly link their opt-out forms from their homepages or privacy policies, according to the report, and several require consumers to submit multiple separate forms to complete a single request. OpenAI's form, when a consumer finds it, does not offer a way to opt out of the sale or transfer of personal data. What it offers instead is an option to "remove personal information from ChatGPT responses," which EPIC says is a filter on the chatbot's output, not the removal of any underlying data. Researchers found that the people-search brokers they audited–Spokeo, Whitepages, and National Public Data–do not offer consumers a way to opt out of the sale or transfer of their data at all. Instead, the companies offer a process for removing individual listings by URL, one at a time, with no commitment to stop selling that same person's information in the future.

Note: The owner of a data broker company once bragged about having highly detailed personal information on nearly all internet users. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and the disappearance of privacy.

A small group of experts [were] enlisted by A.I. companies to vet their products for catastrophic risks. Some have shared with The Times more than a dozen chatbot conversations revealing that even publicly available models can do more than disseminate dangerous information. The virtual assistants have described in lucid, bullet-pointed detail how to buy raw genetic material, turn it into deadly weapons and deploy them in public spaces, the transcripts show. The U.S. government has long planned for powerful adversaries unleashing deadly bacteria, viruses or toxins in the American population. Since 1970, there have been a few dozen, fairly small biological attacks around the world, such as the anthrax-laced letters that killed five Americans in 2001. Despite perennial warnings, a major catastrophe has not happened and remains unlikely, most experts say. But even if the probability is low, an effective biological weapon could have an enormous impact. Dozens of experts told The Times that A.I. is one of several recent technological advances that have meaningfully increased that risk by expanding the pool of people who could cause harm. Still, A.I. users would need some real-world expertise to follow a bot's instructions. Some research, including a study backed by A.I. companies, has found that while chatbots can help novices learn certain lab skills, the technology isn't particularly helpful for carrying out the range of complex tasks needed to make a virus from scratch.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI, biotech dangers, and science corruption.

Palantir (PLTR)'s Maven artificial intelligence system will become an official program of record, Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg said in a letter to Pentagon leaders, a move that locks in long-term use of Palantir's weapons-targeting technology across the U.S. military. Maven is a command-and-control software platform that analyzes battlefield data and identifies targets. It is already the primary AI operating system for the U.S. military, which has carried out thousands of targeted strikes against Iran over the last three weeks. Designating Maven as a program of record will streamline its adoption across all arms of the military. The memo ordered oversight of Maven be moved from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to the Pentagon's Chief Digital Artificial Intelligence Office within 30 days. Future contracting with Palantir will be handled by the Army, the letter said. Feinberg's order is a significant win for Palantir, which has landed a growing stream of contracts with the U.S. government, including a deal announced last summer with the U.S. Army worth up to $10 billion. Those awards have helped double the company's stock price in the past year, lifting its market value to nearly $360 billion. Maven can rapidly analyze huge amounts of data from satellites, drones, radars, sensors and intelligence reports, and use AI to automatically identify potential threats or targets.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI and military corruption.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla says he used extreme team-motivating tactics to meet seemingly impossible deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bourla admitted to using what he called "emotional blackmail" in order to create and deliver vaccines faster. Specifically, his team was tasked with creating a vaccine to combat the new illness from scratch. Once it was created, Pfizer needed to far exceed prior shipping and supply-chain constraints; at one point, it even had to produce its own dry ice because not enough was available externally. Prior to COVID, Pfizer had been producing only 200 million vaccine doses per year. That needed to scale quickly to 3 billion doses. All around the office, Bourla put up signs that read, "Time is life." On several occasions, employees came to him to say there would need to be a delay of several weeks in meeting deadlines. In response, Bourla asked them to calculate how many people would die during the additional weeks they requested. In April 2020, that would have meant about 1,800 Americans dying per day; any longer delay could mean tens of thousands of lives. He said he feels "a little bit" guilty about putting that much pressure on his workers. But he argues it was necessary, not only to save the "world, the economy, and society, but make them feel like the most important people on earth, those that were able to deliver." "They will never forget," Bourla added.

Note: Whistleblowers say that the speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. During Pfizer's pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trials, regional director Brook Jackson reported a long list of concerns: falsified data, unblinded participants, and unresolved safety issues to the FDA and was fired the same day. A short time later, the FDA gave Pfizer's emergency authorization for its vaccine to be used publicly. Despite Jackson's claims, the FDA only visited 9 of the 153 Pfizer trial sites, before giving Pfizer full approval for its vaccine.

To understand how risky drugs could end up in your medicine cabinet, ProPublica spent more than a year and a half investigating the Food and Drug Administration's oversight of the foreign factories that make generic medications and have been cited for violating critical quality standards. It quickly became clear through our reporting that patients and doctors don't reliably have the information they need to make informed decisions about the medicines they take or prescribe. ProPublica has created Rx Inspector, a tool that aims to help. You can look up your generic prescription drugs, and we'll guide you to the specific facility that made them. We were able to link more than 80% of generic prescription drug products in our database to a factory that made them using databases of label information, manufacturing facilities and location data that we sued the FDA for. Additionally, we included the history of FDA actions at those facilities based on a trove of inspection records we assembled. The FDA publishes warning letters that detail "significant violation(s) of federal requirement(s)." We obtained these from the FDA's website going back to 2020. We used the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to find hundreds of import alert lists published by the FDA over more than 15 years. The lists identified factories banned from shipping drugs to the United States because the FDA found manufacturing violations.

Note: Try this tool for yourself here. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Pharma corruption.

Imet my best friend, Ursula Guidry, in college. Ursula died from cancer when her children were in preschool. We'll never know if her death was pure "bad luck," or whether it had something to do with growing up amidst plastics-manufacturing facilities. What we know for certain is that the toxic chemicals emitted by those facilities can ravage the human body. It's against that backdrop that I watch Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin work feverishly to dismantle the safeguards protecting people from toxic chemical exposures. The U.S. averages one chemical spill, fire, or explosion every three days, but Zeldin's attacks almost guarantee an increase. Every part of the petrochemical supply chain puts communities at risk, including the nation's millions of miles of pipelines. In Satartia, Miss., a pipeline carrying carbon dioxide used in oil drilling ruptured from heavy rains and floods, spewing carbon dioxide for hours. The carbon dioxide displaced oxygen in the air, so car engines stopped running and people could not escape. Dozens were hospitalized. Acute CO2 emissions cause heart malfunction and death by asphyxiation. Extreme flooding can also submerge Superfund toxic waste dumps. Nearly 1 in 4 Americans live within three miles of a Superfund site. Zeldin's plans are a gift to the fossil fuel and petrochemical corporations. For the rest of us, they are an explosive and hostile attack on our children, our families, and our best friends.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

Trump loyalist and CIA contractor Larry Ellison's purchase of CNN appears imminent, and marks the latest venture into media for the world's second-richest individual. The world's seven richest individuals are all now powerful media barons, controlling what the world sees, reads, and hears, marking a new chapter in oligarchical control over society and striking another blow at a free, independent press and diversity of opinion. In September, President Trump signed an executive order approving a proposal to force through the sale of social media platform TikTok to an American consortium led by Ellison-owned tech company, Oracle. Under the planned arrangement, Oracle will oversee the platform's security and operations, giving the world's second-richest man effective control over the platform that more than 60% of Americans under thirty years of age use for news and entertainment. No other period in history has seen such a rapid and overwhelming buy up of our means of communications by the billionaire class – a fact that raises tough questions about freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. Today, the world's seven richest individuals are all major media barons, giving them extraordinary control over our media and public square, allowing them to set agendas, and suppress forms of speech they do not approve of. This includes criticisms of them and their holdings, the economic system we live under, and the actions of ... governments.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on financial inequality and media manipulation.

The truth-seeking function of universities does not work properly without the presence of diverse viewpoints. This is especially true when it comes to contested social and political questions. Taboos, blind spots, groupthink and the politicization of scientific standards haven't just made academic research narrower and worse, these trends have alienated the general public and reduced public confidence in higher education ... across the ideological spectrum. Unsurprisingly, the increasing ideological conformity of the professoriate is reflected in the decreasing range of ideas that students encounter in the classroom. A recent national study shows a narrow range of perspectives included on undergraduate syllabi on such controversial topics as the conflict between Israel and Palestine, racial bias in the criminal justice system, and abortion. Professional training does not make professors immune to ordinary human biases. Today's cohort of scholarly experts remains vulnerable to the same "tyranny of public opinion" and "uncritical and intemperate partisanship" that the founders of the American Association of University Professors in 1915 warned academia to resist. This means that today's arguments about viewpoint diversity must be considered and judged in their historical and political contexts. [Academic disciplines] have lost a healthy amount of internal contestation, or have turned self-selection and self-governance into ideological capture.

Note: From gender medicine research, the psychology field, social justice movements, to Middle East politics, a recent study tracking 1 million people revealed that two-thirds of us are afraid to say what we believe in public, while other studies reveal a significant decline in people's motivation to share views that are unique or controversial. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

Those who have kept track of the rise of the Thielverse, which includes figures such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and JD Vance, have understood that an agenda to usher in a unique form of authoritarianism has been slowly introduced into the mainstream political atmosphere. "I think now it's quite clear that this is the PayPal Mafia's moment. These particular figures have had an extremely significant influence on US government policy since January, including the extreme distribution of AI throughout the US government," [investigative journalist Whitney] Webb explains. It's clear that the architects of mass surveillance and the military industrial complex are beginning to coalesce in unprecedented ways within the Trump administration and Webb emphasizes that now is the time to pay attention and push back against these new forces. If they have their way, all commercial technology will be completely folded into the national security state – acting blatantly as the new infrastructure for techno-authoritarian rule. The underlying idea behind this new system is "pre-crime," or the use of mass surveillance to designate people criminals before they've committed any crime. Webb warns that the Trump administration and its benefactors will demonize segments of the population to turn civilians against each other, all in pursuit of building out this elaborate system of control right under our noses.

Note: Read about Peter Thiel's involvement in the military origins of Facebook. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and the disappearance of privacy.

In July, US group Delta Air Lines revealed that approximately 3 percent of its domestic fare pricing is determined using artificial intelligence (AI) – although it has not elaborated on how this happens. The company said it aims to increase this figure to 20 percent by the end of this year. According to former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan ... some companies are able to use your personal data to predict what they know as your "pain point" – the maximum amount you're willing to spend. In January, the US's Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates fair competition, reported on a surveillance pricing study it carried out in July 2024. It found that companies can collect data directly through account registrations, email sign-ups and online purchases in order to do this. Additionally, web pixels installed by intermediaries track digital signals including your IP address, device type, browser information, language preferences and "granular" website interactions such as mouse movements, scrolling patterns and video viewing behaviour. This is known as "surveillance pricing". The FTC Surveillance Pricing report lists several ways in which consumers can protect their data. These include using private browsers to do your online shopping, opting out of consumer tracking where possible, clearing the cookies in your history or using virtual private networks (VPNs) to shield your data from being collected.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and the disappearance of privacy.

Mark Zuckerberg is said to have started work on Koolau Ranch, his sprawling 1,400-acre compound on the Hawaiian island of Kauai, as far back as 2014. It is set to include a shelter, complete with its own energy and food supplies, though the carpenters and electricians working on the site were banned from talking about it. Asked last year if he was creating a doomsday bunker, the Facebook founder gave a flat "no". The underground space spanning some 5,000 square feet is, he explained, "just like a little shelter, it's like a basement". Other tech leaders ... appear to have been busy buying up chunks of land with underground spaces, ripe for conversion into multi-million pound luxury bunkers. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, has talked about "apocalypse insurance". So, could they really be preparing for war, the effects of climate change, or some other catastrophic event the rest of us have yet to know about? The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has only added to that list of potential existential woes. Ilya Sutskever, chief scientist and a co-founder of Open AI, is reported to be one of them. Mr Sutskever was becoming increasingly convinced that computer scientists were on the brink of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI). In a meeting, Mr Sutskever suggested to colleagues that they should dig an underground shelter for the company's top scientists before such a powerful technology was released on the world.

Note: Read how some doomsday preppers are rejecting isolating bunkers in favor of community building and mutual aid. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on financial inequality.

Important Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news articles on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.