world

Betty Ann Dresser believed she had found a safe haven for her father, Howard Wyllie, a man battling both diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. But within days of a handshake agreement with a marketing director at Village Retirement Communities in Greenville, Rhode Island, that sense of security dissolved, revealing a system where promises were easily broken and critical medical needs were overlooked.

Dresser’s experience, detailed in reports from Fox News and Newsdirectory3.com, began with a search for a “lock-down” facility – a secure environment necessary due to her father’s advanced Alzheimer’s and tendency to wander. The marketing director at Village Retirement Communities assured Dresser that the Village at East Farms in Waterbury, Connecticut, could accommodate Wyllie’s complex needs, including a strict diet and medication management. An initial fee structure was sketched on the back of an envelope, sealing the deal with a verbal agreement.

The reality proved starkly different. Upon moving her father into East Farms, Dresser was presented with a contract that increased the monthly fee by several hundred dollars. More critically, the facility’s head nurse and kitchen staff were unaware of Wyllie’s dietary restrictions and medical conditions, information the marketing director had failed to convey. East Farms refused to adhere to his prescribed diet and demanded his prescriptions be altered for easier administration.

Just six days later, Dresser received a call informing her that her father was running a fever. When Dresser’s sister arrived to retrieve Wyllie, she found him in a state of severe neglect – naked and sitting in his own feces. According to Dresser, no staff member offered assistance with cleaning or dressing him. A subsequent visit to Wyllie’s personal physician revealed he had no fever and stable blood sugar levels. Upon informing East Farms of this assessment, the facility refused to readmit him, telling Dresser’s brother-in-law, “He’s your problem now.”

Dresser’s case, while extreme, highlights systemic issues within the assisted-living industry, as reported by multiple sources. These include a tendency to overpromise services, particularly regarding long-term care for increasingly frail residents, and a lack of robust federal regulation. The industry’s business model, according to reports, often prioritizes filling beds over providing sustained care for those with escalating medical needs.

The average assisted-living resident stays for only two years, a figure that suggests the facilities are not designed for long-term care of severely ill individuals. Facilities may be legally required to discharge residents whose health deteriorates to the point where they require skilled nursing care, even if the facility initially suggested it could accommodate their evolving needs. Altera Healthcare’s consumer information page, cited in reports, explicitly states that residents may be required to move if they need skilled nursing or excessive personal assistance.

Financial concerns also contribute to potential problems. Assisted-living facilities can raise prices with little notice, and the cost of care – averaging $2,000 to $6,000 per month – is typically not covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Facilities may also tack on additional charges for services not included in the base rate, as illustrated by the case of Lisa Lewis, whose father was assessed extra fees for needing aid with basic tasks like flushing the toilet and changing clothes.

Concerns extend to staffing and training. Many assisted-living facilities rely on minimally trained staff earning near minimum wage. Medication errors are common, and pharmacies affiliated with facilities may charge higher prices than independent drugstores. The lack of stringent regulation allows for inconsistencies in care and oversight, with some states requiring minimal training for administrators and limited inspections of facilities.

The case of Al Schmidt, whose wife was sexually abused by another resident at a Sunrise Assisted Living facility in Michigan, underscores the potential for serious safety lapses. The facility initially attempted to cover up the incident, and Schmidt found limited legal recourse due to the lack of federal oversight and the state’s limited regulations regarding resident protection.

Reports also indicate that staffing levels often decrease during nighttime hours, leaving residents with minimal supervision. Families may locate themselves forced to supplement care with private-duty nurses, adding significant financial burden. Facilities may cease investing in maintenance and improvements once beds are full, leading to a decline in the quality of the environment.

As of February 18, 2026, the industry continues to grapple with these challenges, and consumers are urged to thoroughly investigate facilities, carefully review contracts, and ask detailed questions about staffing, services, and potential additional costs before making a decision.

As Lunar New Year celebrations unfolded across China this week, a different kind of spectacle emerged from the country’s technology sector: a wave of new artificial intelligence tools capable of generating remarkably realistic videos. These tools, launched by companies including TikTok’s parent ByteDance, have quickly gone viral, showcasing scenarios ranging from fantastical battles to reimagined television scenes – and raising serious concerns about copyright infringement within Hollywood.

The rapid proliferation of these AI-generated videos, particularly those featuring recognizable faces and intellectual property, has triggered a swift backlash from the entertainment industry. A 15-second clip depicting a fight between actors Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, created using ByteDance’s new Seedance 2.0 model, quickly became emblematic of the issue, sparking outrage and fear among studios. The incident highlights a growing tension between the innovative potential of AI and the protection of creative rights in the digital age.

Seedance 2.0 and the Rise of AI-Generated Content

Seedance 2.0, the AI video model at the center of the controversy, allows users to create videos from simple text prompts. The tool has demonstrated an unsettling ability to replicate copyrighted material with startling accuracy, generating clips that appear to repurpose content from major studios like Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount. Beyond the Cruise-Pitt fight, viral videos created with Seedance 2.0 include remixes of Avengers: Endgame, a battle between Optimus Prime and Godzilla, and a reimagining of the television show Friends with otters playing the main characters.

The speed and ease with which these videos are created are particularly alarming to industry professionals. According to the Deadline, the Tom Cruise vs. Brad Pitt fight was generated from a mere two-line prompt within Seedance 2.0. This ease of use, coupled with the tool’s ability to produce highly realistic results, has raised fears about the potential for widespread copyright violations.

Tom Cruise vs Brad Pitt deepfake video from Seedance 2.0

Hollywood’s Response and Legal Challenges

The Motion Picture Association (MPA), representing major US studios including Netflix, Paramount, and Disney, has demanded that ByteDance “immediately cease” infringing copyright with its clips. The MPA stated that Seedance 2.0 has engaged in “unauthorised use of US copyrighted works on a massive scale” in a single day, according to the BBC. Charles Rivkin, Chairman and CEO of the MPA, emphasized that ByteDance is disregarding established copyright law and undermining the jobs of millions of Americans.

ByteDance has responded by suspending the ability for users to upload images of real people and stating that it respects intellectual property rights. The company claims the infringing content was created during a limited pre-launch testing phase. However, this response has done little to quell the concerns of Hollywood studios, who are exploring legal options to protect their intellectual property. Warner Bros Discovery has already issued a cease and desist notice regarding the unauthorized use of Batman and Superman, as reported by Deadline.

Geopolitical Context and China’s AI Ambitions

The launch of Seedance 2.0 and its rapid viral spread also occur within a broader context of China’s growing ambitions in the field of artificial intelligence. Chinese state-backed media outlets, such as Global Times, have actively promoted the capabilities of the tool, highlighting examples of AI-generated content. This promotion suggests a degree of state support for the development and dissemination of these technologies. The timing of the launch, coinciding with the Lunar New Year – a period of heightened social media activity in China – further indicates a strategic effort to maximize visibility and engagement.

The viral success of Seedance 2.0 in China, with hashtags related to the AI model generating tens of millions of clicks on Weibo, demonstrates a strong domestic appetite for this type of technology, as reported by Deadline and The New York Times. A video featuring Kim Kardashian and Kanye West singing in Mandarin has also gained traction, showcasing the tool’s versatility and appeal.

What to Watch Next

The situation remains fluid, with ongoing legal and technological developments. The immediate focus will be on ByteDance’s response to the MPA’s demands and the potential for further legal action from Hollywood studios. Beyond the legal battles, the incident raises fundamental questions about the future of copyright in the age of AI and the need for new regulatory frameworks to address the challenges posed by these rapidly evolving technologies. The coming weeks will likely see increased scrutiny of AI-generated content and a broader debate about the balance between innovation and intellectual property protection.

What are your thoughts on the implications of AI-generated content for the entertainment industry? Share your opinions in the comments below.