Sixteen Australians lost $2.7 million in two weeks. It started with a stock tip. According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the losses were part a wave of "pump and dump" scams that have been increasingly prevalent in recent months. These schemes involve scammers creating fake accounts and using artificial intelligence to mimic the appearance and voices of respected financial experts and celebrities. Victims are lured into exclusive messaging groups via platforms like WhatsApp, where they are given false investment advice and encouraged to buy shares in thinly traded stocks. Once the price is inflated, the scammers sell their shares, leaving investors with worthless assets. The scam unfolded over a period of just two weeks, during which 16 individuals suffered total losses exceeding $2.7 million. The fraudulent activity appears to have targeted older Australians, who are often perceived as having greater savings and less familiarity with modern financial technologies. ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland noted that the rise of AI has significantly amplified the scale and sophistication of these scams. With AI, scammers can create convincing videos and messages that appear to be endorsements from credible professionals, making it harder for victims to distinguish between genuine advice and deception. One of the notable cases involved Tom Piotrowski, the head of market insights at National Australia Bank (NAB). His likeness was used in a series of fake posts and messages, leading to widespread confusion and distress among his followers. Piotrowski expressed deep disappointment, stating that it was "heartbreaking" to see his name and image misused in this manner. He emphasized the importance of public awareness and education regarding the risks associated with unsolicited investment advice. Unlike traditional investment scams, which often involve fabricated products or non-existent ventures, pump and dump schemes target real stocks that exist on legitimate financial exchanges. Scammers exploit the low liquidity of certain stocks to manipulate prices, inflating them through coordinated efforts before selling off their holdings. In one documented instance, a stock's price surged from approximately $1.40 to $15.70 within days, only to drop back down to around $1.40 shortly afterward. This dramatic fluctuation left numerous investors with substantial financial losses. ASIC has reported that Australians lost a total of $837.7 million to investment scams in 2025 alone. While the majority of these losses stem from various forms of fraud, the increasing use of AI in pump and dump operations represents a growing threat. The commission has issued warnings urging citizens to remain vigilant, particularly when encountering investment opportunities presented by unknown individuals or entities. Consumers are advised to verify the authenticity of recommendations and to avoid joining private forums or groups that promise exclusive access to insider information. To combat these scams, ASIC recommends several precautionary measures. Individuals should be skeptical of any investment opportunity involving celebrities or financial experts they have not personally interacted with. They should also be wary of offers to join restricted discussion groups or private chats, which are often used to bypass standard security protocols. Additionally, consumers are encouraged to take their time before making investment decisions and to thoroughly research both the person offering advice and the specific investment product. The government's Moneysmart initiative provides further guidance, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and critical thinking when evaluating potential investments. By fostering a culture of skepticism and informed decision-making, authorities hope to reduce the incidence of such scams. As technology continues to evolve, so too must the strategies employed to protect vulnerable populations from financial exploitation.
7 reports
SBS NewsState / PublicCenterFactual 95Objective 856 days agoASIC has warned Australians about a rise in 'pump and dump' scams, in which fraudsters use AI-generated fake videos of financial experts and celebrities to lure victims into investing in real but thinly traded stocks. In the past two weeks, 16 Australians have lost over $2.7 million to these scams. The tactics involve artificially inflating the price of a stock through misleading hype before selling off the shares, leaving victims with devalued assets. These scams exploit social media and messaging platforms like WhatsApp, targeting individuals who are more likely to have savings, including older Australians. Unlike other investment scams, these schemes involve real stocks, though they are often traded internationally and have low liquidity.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a factual account of a financial crime trend without taking a stance on the issue. It quotes regulatory authorities and affected parties, presenting both the problem and its impact without ideological framing or biased language.
Why factuality (95): This article provides concrete statistics and quotes from ASIC officials, offering verifiable information about recent scams involving AI. It references specific numbers (16 Australians losing $2.7 million) and explains the mechanics of 'pump and dump' schemes, aligning closely with official stateme
Why objectivity (85): The tone is informative and balanced, focusing on factual reporting without overtly expressing personal opinions. While it highlights concerns about AI misuse, it does so in a neutral manner, citing regulatory warnings and expert commentary without injecting emotional language.
ABC News (Australia)State / PublicCenterFactual 85Objective 753 days agoA new AI-powered alert system called the Protective Animal Warning System (PAWS) is being tested on a 300-meter stretch of the Monaro Highway in New South Wales, Australia. The system uses thermal and optical cameras to detect animals like kangaroos, deer, and wombats near the road and triggers smart signs displaying 'Animal on road slow down' to warn drivers in real-time. This initiative aims to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions, particularly in areas identified as high-risk zones for animal deaths. Local wildlife rescue groups report significant numbers of dead kangaroos in the area, with estimates suggesting around 10 million animals are killed annually on Australian roads. The project is part of efforts to mitigate the environmental and financial impacts of these collisions.
Bias read (Center): The article focuses on the implementation of a technological innovation aimed at reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions. It presents factual information about the system, its purpose, and the problem it seeks to address, without showing clear ideological bias or favoring any political stance. The tone
Why factuality (85): The article provides detailed information about the PAWS system, including its technology, purpose, and location. It cites quotes from officials and local experts, aligning with the cross-source consensus that this is a trial aimed at reducing wildlife collisions. The description of the trial area a
Why objectivity (75): The tone is generally informative and neutral, presenting facts about the technology and its goals. However, the article includes some emotionally charged descriptions of the problem (e.g., 'horrible area,' '30 dead kangaroos') which may lean toward emphasizing the severity of the issue rather than
The AgeIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 606 days agoThis opinion piece critiques artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that despite significant investment and impact on various sectors, AI remains 'dumb' due to its lack of true understanding and creativity. The author highlights examples such as AI-generated emails that excessively praise books, scientific papers, and other works, often with unrealistic and overly enthusiastic language. These emails are described as being crafted to manipulate individuals into engaging with fake book clubs or festivals. The author compares AI's inability to grasp context and nuance to a Dalek from Doctor Who encountering stairs, suggesting that AI lacks the depth and adaptability of human intelligence. The tone is critical and dismissive of AI's current capabilities.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames AI criticism through a lens that emphasizes human superiority and skepticism toward technological overreach. While not explicitly political, the critique aligns with broader concerns about technology's societal impact, which are often associated with left-leaning perspectives. The
Why factuality (85): The article presents subjective opinions about AI's capabilities and shortcomings, referencing personal experiences with AI-generated emails. While it mentions specific examples like AI praising poorly written books, there is no primary source to verify these claims. However, the general sentiment a
Why objectivity (60): The tone is clearly opinionated and emotionally charged, using metaphors like 'Dalek contemplating a set of stairs' and expressions like 'computer-generated rubbish.' The author also uses sarcastic and derogatory language toward AI, indicating a strong personal bias rather than a neutral perspective
The Sydney Morning HeraldIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 606 days agoThis opinion piece critiques the current state of artificial intelligence, highlighting its limitations despite significant investments and economic impact. The author expresses frustration with AI's inability to match human intelligence, using the metaphor of a 'Dalek contemplating a set of stairs' to illustrate its struggles with basic tasks. The article discusses how AI tools, while capable in areas like coding and medical research, often fail to demonstrate nuanced understanding. The author shares personal experiences with AI-generated scam emails sent to writers, which praise their work excessively and attempt to solicit further engagement. These emails lack the subtlety and authenticity of human writing, often containing glaring errors and overly enthusiastic language.
Bias read (Center): The article focuses on technological developments and critiques of AI capabilities rather than directly addressing political issues, policies, or figures. There is no clear ideological framing or bias in the content.
Why factuality (85): Similar to Article 0, this piece lacks primary sources and relies on anecdotal evidence. The content mirrors the first article, suggesting a shared viewpoint among writers. The discussion about AI's limitations and its role in scams remains consistent with broader narratives about AI's current state
Why objectivity (60): This article maintains the same subjective and emotionally charged tone as the previous one. It continues to use metaphorical language and expresses disdain for AI's perceived incompetence, reinforcing a one-sided narrative without presenting alternative viewpoints.
news.com.auIndependentCenterFactual 40Objective 304 days agoA mother has been using ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, to act as a virtual babysitter for her child. The AI tool provides entertainment and interaction for the child while the mother is occupied with other tasks. This approach highlights the growing integration of AI into daily life, particularly in managing household responsibilities. While some view this as a convenient solution, others raise concerns about the implications of relying on technology for childcare. The practice reflects broader discussions around the role of AI in modern parenting.
Bias read (Center): The article discusses the use of AI in everyday life but does not present any political viewpoints or controversial issues. It focuses on technological adoption and personal choice rather than policy or politics.
Why factuality (40): This article appears to be incomplete or non-functional, as it only contains the headline and no substantive content. Without additional information, it is impossible to assess factual accuracy or alignment with cross-source consensus.
Why objectivity (30): The article lacks any meaningful content, making it impossible to evaluate objectivity. It does not provide any perspective or analysis, and simply repeats the headline without elaboration.
The AgeIndependentProgressive4 hr. ago The telltale signs you’re working for a ‘ChatGPT Boss’An opinion piece from July 2026 discusses the rise of 'ChatGPT Bosses'—managers who rely heavily on AI tools like ChatGPT to generate work-related communications. The article highlights signs of such behavior, including overly formal language, excessive detail, and the inclusion of AI-generated prompts in messages. It argues that while light AI use for tasks like grammar correction is acceptable, heavy reliance on AI for critical communications risks undermining trust and professionalism. The piece references a study from the University of Florida, which found that managers using AI extensively for writing communications risk being perceived as less trustworthy. The author calls for employees to push back against overly automated communication practices, emphasizing the importance of human interaction in workplace relationships.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue of AI-driven management as a negative trend that undermines human connection and trust in workplaces. It criticizes 'ChatGPT Bosses' for prioritizing efficiency over authenticity, implying that such practices reflect a broader devaluation of human judgment. While not a政治
The Sydney Morning HeraldIndependentProgressive4 hr. ago The telltale signs you’re working for a ‘ChatGPT Boss’The article discusses the phenomenon of 'ChatGPT Bosses'—managers who rely heavily on AI tools like ChatGPT to generate work-related communications. It highlights various red flags, such as overly formal language, excessive detail, and the inclusion of AI-generated prompts in messages. The piece argues that while light AI use for minor tasks like grammar correction is acceptable, heavy reliance on AI for critical communications risks undermining trust and professionalism. It references a study from the University of Florida, which found that such practices create a 'perception gap,' making recipients doubt the sender's integrity and competence. The author calls for employees to push back for clearer, more human-centric communication.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the overuse of AI in management as a negative trend that undermines human interaction and trust. It criticizes 'ChatGPT Bosses' for prioritizing efficiency over authenticity, implying a preference for human-centered approaches. While not explicitly political, the critique aligns с
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Australia
