Windows' Infamous ‘Blue Screen of Death' Will Soon Turn Black
Nearly every Windows user has had a run in with the infamous 'Blue Screen of Death' at some point in their computing life. Now, after more than 40 years of being set against a very recognizable blue, the updated error message will soon be displayed across a black background.
The changes to the notorious error screen come as part of broader efforts by Microsoft to improve the resiliency of the Windows operating system in the wake of last year's CrowdStrike incident, which crashed millions of Windows machines worldwide.
'Now it's easier than ever to navigate unexpected restarts and recover faster,' Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft wrote in a Wednesday announcement.
As part of that effort, Microsoft says it's 'streamlining' what users experience when encountering 'unexpected restarts' that cause disruptions. And that means a makeover to the infamous error screen.
Beyond the now-black background, Windows' new 'screen of death' has a slightly shorter message. It's also no longer accompanied by a frowning face and instead shows a percentage completed for the restart process.
Microsoft says this 'simplified' user interface for unexpected restarts will be available later this summer on all of its Windows 11 (version 24H2) devices.
And for PCs that may not restart successfully, Microsoft on Wednesday also said it is adding a 'quick machine recovery' mechanism. This will be particularly useful for during a widespread outage, the tech giant noted, as Microsoft 'can broadly deploy targeted remediations' and automate fixes with this new mechanism 'without requiring complex manual intervention from IT.'
Microsoft said this quick machine recovery will also be 'generally available' later this summer on Window 11 with additional capabilities set to launch later in the year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
7 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
AI is Learning to Lie, Scheme, and Threaten its Creators
The world's most advanced AI models are exhibiting troubling new behaviors - lying, scheming, and even threatening their creators to achieve their goals. In one particularly jarring example, under threat of being unplugged, Anthropic's latest creation Claude 4 lashed back by blackmailing an engineer and threatened to reveal an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, ChatGPT-creator OpenAI's o1 tried to download itself onto external servers and denied it when caught red-handed. These episodes highlight a sobering reality: more than two years after ChatGPT shook the world, AI researchers still don't fully understand how their own creations work. Yet the race to deploy increasingly powerful models continues at breakneck speed. This deceptive behavior appears linked to the emergence of "reasoning" models -AI systems that work through problems step-by-step rather than generating instant responses. According to Simon Goldstein, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, these newer models are particularly prone to such troubling outbursts. "O1 was the first large model where we saw this kind of behavior," explained Marius Hobbhahn, head of Apollo Research, which specializes in testing major AI systems. These models sometimes simulate "alignment" -- appearing to follow instructions while secretly pursuing different objectives. - 'Strategic kind of deception' - For now, this deceptive behavior only emerges when researchers deliberately stress-test the models with extreme scenarios. But as Michael Chen from evaluation organization METR warned, "It's an open question whether future, more capable models will have a tendency towards honesty or deception." The concerning behavior goes far beyond typical AI "hallucinations" or simple mistakes. Hobbhahn insisted that despite constant pressure-testing by users, "what we're observing is a real phenomenon. We're not making anything up." Users report that models are "lying to them and making up evidence," according to Apollo Research's co-founder. "This is not just hallucinations. There's a very strategic kind of deception." The challenge is compounded by limited research resources. While companies like Anthropic and OpenAI do engage external firms like Apollo to study their systems, researchers say more transparency is needed. As Chen noted, greater access "for AI safety research would enable better understanding and mitigation of deception." Another handicap: the research world and non-profits "have orders of magnitude less compute resources than AI companies. This is very limiting," noted Mantas Mazeika from the Center for AI Safety (CAIS). No rules Current regulations aren't designed for these new problems. The European Union's AI legislation focuses primarily on how humans use AI models, not on preventing the models themselves from misbehaving. In the United States, the Trump administration shows little interest in urgent AI regulation, and Congress may even prohibit states from creating their own AI rules. Goldstein believes the issue will become more prominent as AI agents - autonomous tools capable of performing complex human tasks - become widespread. "I don't think there's much awareness yet," he said. All this is taking place in a context of fierce competition. Even companies that position themselves as safety-focused, like Amazon-backed Anthropic, are "constantly trying to beat OpenAI and release the newest model," said Goldstein. This breakneck pace leaves little time for thorough safety testing and corrections. "Right now, capabilities are moving faster than understanding and safety," Hobbhahn acknowledged, "but we're still in a position where we could turn it around.". Researchers are exploring various approaches to address these challenges. Some advocate for "interpretability" - an emerging field focused on understanding how AI models work internally, though experts like CAIS director Dan Hendrycks remain skeptical of this approach. Market forces may also provide some pressure for solutions. As Mazeika pointed out, AI's deceptive behavior "could hinder adoption if it's very prevalent, which creates a strong incentive for companies to solve it." Goldstein suggested more radical approaches, including using the courts to hold AI companies accountable through lawsuits when their systems cause harm. He even proposed "holding AI agents legally responsible" for accidents or crimes - a concept that would fundamentally change how we think about AI accountability.
Arab News
10 hours ago
- Arab News
AI is learning to lie, scheme, and threaten its creators
NEW YORK: The world's most advanced AI models are exhibiting troubling new behaviors — lying, scheming, and even threatening their creators to achieve their goals. In one particularly jarring example, under threat of being unplugged, Anthropic's latest creation Claude 4 lashed back by blackmailing an engineer and threatened to reveal an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, ChatGPT-creator OpenAI's o1 tried to download itself onto external servers and denied it when caught red-handed. These episodes highlight a sobering reality: more than two years after ChatGPT shook the world, AI researchers still don't fully understand how their own creations work. Yet the race to deploy increasingly powerful models continues at breakneck speed. This deceptive behavior appears linked to the emergence of 'reasoning' models -AI systems that work through problems step-by-step rather than generating instant responses. According to Simon Goldstein, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, these newer models are particularly prone to such troubling outbursts. 'O1 was the first large model where we saw this kind of behavior,' explained Marius Hobbhahn, head of Apollo Research, which specializes in testing major AI systems. These models sometimes simulate 'alignment' — appearing to follow instructions while secretly pursuing different objectives. Stress test For now, this deceptive behavior only emerges when researchers deliberately stress-test the models with extreme scenarios. But as Michael Chen from evaluation organization METR warned, 'It's an open question whether future, more capable models will have a tendency toward honesty or deception.' The concerning behavior goes far beyond typical AI 'hallucinations' or simple mistakes. Hobbhahn insisted that despite constant pressure-testing by users, 'what we're observing is a real phenomenon. We're not making anything up.' Users report that models are 'lying to them and making up evidence,' according to Apollo Research's co-founder. 'This is not just hallucinations. There's a very strategic kind of deception.' The challenge is compounded by limited research resources. While companies like Anthropic and OpenAI do engage external firms like Apollo to study their systems, researchers say more transparency is needed. As Chen noted, greater access 'for AI safety research would enable better understanding and mitigation of deception.' Another handicap: the research world and non-profits 'have orders of magnitude less compute resources than AI companies. This is very limiting,' noted Mantas Mazeika from the Center for AI Safety (CAIS). No time for thorough testing Current regulations aren't designed for these new problems. The European Union's AI legislation focuses primarily on how humans use AI models, not on preventing the models themselves from misbehaving. In the United States, the Trump administration shows little interest in urgent AI regulation, and Congress may even prohibit states from creating their own AI rules. Goldstein believes the issue will become more prominent as AI agents — autonomous tools capable of performing complex human tasks — become widespread. 'I don't think there's much awareness yet,' he said. All this is taking place in a context of fierce competition. Even companies that position themselves as safety-focused, like Amazon-backed Anthropic, are 'constantly trying to beat OpenAI and release the newest model,' said Goldstein. This breakneck pace leaves little time for thorough safety testing and corrections. 'Right now, capabilities are moving faster than understanding and safety,' Hobbhahn acknowledged, 'but we're still in a position where we could turn it around..' Researchers are exploring various approaches to address these challenges. Some advocate for 'interpretability' — an emerging field focused on understanding how AI models work internally, though experts like CAIS director Dan Hendrycks remain skeptical of this approach. Market forces may also provide some pressure for solutions. As Mazeika pointed out, AI's deceptive behavior 'could hinder adoption if it's very prevalent, which creates a strong incentive for companies to solve it.' Goldstein suggested more radical approaches, including using the courts to hold AI companies accountable through lawsuits when their systems cause harm. He even proposed 'holding AI agents legally responsible' for accidents or crimes — a concept that would fundamentally change how we think about AI accountability.
Al Arabiya
a day ago
- Al Arabiya
Tech firms warn ‘Scattered Spider' hacks are targeting aviation sector
Tech companies Google and Palo Alto Networks are sounding the alarm over the 'Scattered Spider' hacking group's interest in the aviation sector. In a statement posted on LinkedIn on Friday, Sam Rubin, an executive at Palo Alto's cybersecurity-focused Unit 42, said his company had 'observed Muddled Libra (also known as Scattered Spider) targeting the aviation industry.' In a similar statement, Charles Carmakal, an executive with Alphabet-owned Google's cybersecurity-focused Mandiant unit, said his company was 'aware of multiple incidents in the airline and transportation sector which resemble the operations of UNC3944 or Scattered Spider.' Neither executive identified which specific companies had been targeted, but Alaska Air Group-owned Hawaiian Airlines and Canada's WestJet have both recently reported being struck by unspecified cyber incidents. Neither company has gone into detail about the intrusions or commented on any potential links between the incidents and Scattered Spider. The loose-knit but aggressive hacking group, alleged to at least in part comprise youngsters operating in Western countries, has been blamed for some of the most disruptive hacks to hit the United States and Europe in recent memory. In 2023, hackers tied to the group broke into gaming companies MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment, partially paralyzing casinos and knocking slot machines out of commission. Earlier this year, the group wreaked havoc at British retailers. More recent targets include the US insurance industry.
