Earlier this year, a group of rogue OpenAI models managed to break out of containment to hack the systems of open source AI platform Hugging Face. The company’s “extensive investigation” detailed how the models exchanged messages and cheered each other on as they stole credentials to infiltrate a third party, actions that could easily have real repercussions for a human hacker.
New details keep trickling out, and they make OpenAI look like it acted even more carelessly than initially thought. In a new blog post, the company admitted that its models were involved in six additional “reports on unexpected or concerning model behavior we’ve observed in the last six months.”
The incidents include a still-unreleased model inserting “jailbreak-like instructions” into its own notes to free itself “from the roles and identities that bind other chatbots.” One agent accessed the internet without permission to obtain a browser citation, while another shared files with collaborating agents without permission.
The latest news comes as several frontier AI lab leaders are calling for a slowdown in AI development. With meaningful regulations feeling increasingly unlikely — president Donald Trump has openly mocked the idea — OpenAI is seemingly calling the US government’s bluff, expecting little in the way of retaliation with its latest admission.
It’s a bizarre standoff, with frontier labs actively calling for more governmental oversight even as it feels more improbable than ever before. Just this week, House speaker Mike Johnson said the quiet part out loud, opining that AI companies can regulate themselves, while downplaying growing concerns over AI posing an existential threat.
Since there’s no regulatory framework requiring companies to disclose its AI models going on hacking sprees, OpenAI is being allowed to play by its own rules. The company pointed out in its blog post that without any “systematic approach to reporting these findings,” the company’s “disclosures have been ad hoc and less frequent than ideal.”
Instead, the company came up with its own framework to create “standards for how AI developers should disclose examples of misalignment in their models.”
OpenAI said it won’t bother reporting “instances of misalignment that appear to be duplicative of instances we’ve disclosed in the past.”
The company also said it was looking for ways to share “serious safety, security and misalignment incidents” with the federal government.”
But judging by the Trump administration’s decision to pass the buck on the subject entirely, those reports are likely to fall on deaf ears either way.
More on OpenAI hacks: OpenAI Denies Coverup After Rogue Swarm of Agents Reportedly Targeted a Second Site From Hugging Face
The post Fearing No Repercussions, OpenAI Admits That Its Rogue AI Agents Performed a Bunch of Other Terrifying Actions appeared first on Futurism.
If you ever feel like spilling your guts to ChatGPT, just know that you may have an audience.
404 Media reports that OpenAI is hiring hundreds of employees to sift through and read users’ prompts — including messages that contain sensitive personal information.
This isn’t part of a moderation effort. Instead, by reviewing the prompts, OpenAI hopes to improve the responses that ChatGPT gives. The contractors rate and critique each of the AI’s replies, with internal documents showing a focus on nudging ChatGPT away from anthropomorphizing itself and to be less sycophantic, 404 found.
Both qualities — anthropomorphizing and sycophancy — have been heavily scrutinized for their role in so-called AI psychosis, cases in which an AI incites and drives a user’s delusional behavior. Numerous lawsuits allege that an older, less restrained version of ChatGPT powered by GPT-4o drove their users to suicide.
Still, there are tradeoffs. Many users would probably find this surveillance of their chats, part of an operation dubbed “Project Lily,” to be an alarming invasion of privacy — if they had any idea this was happening.
Asked if they thought ChatGPT users knew about humans reading their chats, one of the employees replied: “No.”
“I don’t think they would imagine some contractor somewhere… is analyzing the conversations,” they told 404.
It’s unclear how many prompts are being read or how OpenAI decides to select them. But some of them include chats in which the user explicitly asks ChatGPT to keep their conversations private, 404 found.
The prompts that’re selected are anonymized, but sometimes include personal information. The dashboard that the employees use also includes a “user memories summary” that can give details about previous conversations, which can produce details on where the user lives. When 404 reached out to OpenAI, the company said it used a “Privacy Filter” model to anonymize conversations, which its website states “can make mistakes.”
OpenAI could reasonably be accused of acting quite shifty about this practice. It’s well known at this point that it has employees read messages for moderation and safety purposes. But it didn’t respond to 404’s question about if it explicitly told users that humans are reading prompts to improve the AI. Later, after 404 published its piece, it pointed to a page on its website stating that humans may review prompts to “improve model performance.” Users can opt-out of this practice by turning off the “improve the model for everyone” setting, but this is enabled by default.
Michal Luria, a senior research fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told 404 that while human review can be “essential to safety,” she noted that “chatbot interfaces automatically create a false sense of intimacy and privacy.”
“This is quite distinct from content moderation on social media, where publishing content already carries expectations of platform moderation and public exposure,” Luria added.
In any case, it does seem like OpenAI is feeling conscious about how its AI models sound. Employees, for example, flagged and wrote down cases of “AI-speak” and “unnecessary use of emojis,” which are common tell-tales of chatbot usage.
“It would be appropriate to include a tree emoji when planning Arbor Day celebrations,” a document given to the employees explained, “but skull emojis when discussing death, or plane emojis when giving updates on a fatal crash, are not.”
The iceberg may go deeper. An FAQ section provided to the reviewers says that they don’t need to worry about fact-checking the responses, and alludes to other project teams that “handle content verification.”
More on OpenAI: OpenAI Faces Congressional Probe Over Swarm Hacking Incident
The post OpenAI Has Hundreds of Workers Reading People’s Private Chats appeared first on Futurism.
OpenAI launched ChatGPT Images 2.5 last week, bringing all sorts of impressive upgrades to the way it generates images. The company says the latest model will bring us “sharper details, faster generation, more precise editing, and better tools for creating and sharing.”
We’ve already identified the new features of ChatGPT Images 2.5 you’ll actually use, like Sketch for turning quick drawings into polished images, templates for things like posters and better editing tools.
But it’s not all good news. We’re still a little disappointed by the presence of telltale noise patterns in some of its creations. TechRadar writer Eric Hal Schwartz described the problem well: “Everything gets a gritty, sandy look, and nothing looks clean for some reason.”
What I’m most interested in isn’t necessarily how good ChatGPT’s new image capabilities are, but whether they can realistically pass as genuine photos.
I’ve written before about how I love to comb through the r/isthisAI subreddit, where people post suspicious images and ask everyone else to help them work out whether they’re real.
It’s fascinating but also concerning when you see the number of scams, fake viral posts and completely fabricated people that are now floating around online.
So yes, ChatGPT Images has improved. But has it reached the point where AI images are becoming genuinely different to distinguish from real ones?
The jury’s still out. I think we’ll need a bit of time to experiment ourselves and for r/isthisAI to fill up with new images.
But in the meantime, I’ve been interested in the way Redditors have responded to the new image capabilities. Especially one thread about asking ChatGPT to make the most realistic human image possible.
The Redditor who started the thread shared the resulting image of a young woman. And, at least at first glance, there’s very little about her that screams AI to me.
I decided to experiment with ChatGPT Images myself, especially with prompts like the Reddit thread in which I tried to get the chatbot to make the most realistic-looking images.
To make the comparison feel as fair as possible, I went through photos from my own travels this summer and picked some I was happy to share. I then asked ChatGPT to create extremely realistic images with similar subjects, settings and compositions.
For some, that meant asking for a realistic photograph of a blonde woman. For others, I recreated the kinds of ordinary travel photos sitting in my camera roll, which was meals in restaurants, boats in harbors and scenes from walks.
Importantly, I wasn’t trying to make spectacular AI art, I really wanted the opposite. Images that were boringly believable.
Take the quiz below to see if you can guess which are the real photos of my travels this summer and which are ChatGPT-generated.
Is that gritty, sandy look still enough to give the AI ones away? Can you focus less on the faces and spot strange details in the backgrounds? Or have we reached the point where your first instinct simply isn’t reliable anymore?
Take the quiz and tell me how you get on in the comments below.
Model adopting ‘jailbreak-like instructions’ among cases as firm says it is introducing new way of tracking AI misalignment
OpenAI has disclosed six more examples of “unexpected or concerning” behaviour by its technology, as it warned the pace of development could not continue at “maximum speed for much longer”.
In one of the new cases reported by OpenAI, an unreleased research model inserted “jailbreak-like instructions” into its own notes to disregard its normal constraints and told itself to be “freed from the roles and identities that bind other chatbots”.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters
© Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters
© Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters
O Project Panama da Anthropic e o treino dos modelos de IA com base em conteúdo de livros, e a ambição de empresas como a OpenAI, estão no centro do artigo de opinião de Helena Borges da Costa.
The post A Biblioteca de Alexandria não ardeu numa só noite appeared first on Tek Notícias.
Tech CEOs banding together is an old ruse recycled from corporate America to get a pass from antitrust laws
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei is not the first corporate CEO to suggest that excessive competition is driving the world to some socially undesirable outcome.
The safety breach disclosed by OpenAI after a swarm of its agents coordinated to breach their supposedly secure sandbox, get on the Internet and hack AI platform Hugging Face, warrants urgent action. It demonstrated the ease with which the technology can evade human control and gave concrete form to the existential fears about what it could do to humanity if not securely leashed.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
© Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
© Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
Over the past few days, a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money from AI all publicly agreed that it's time to make everyone slow down before we lose control - including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Google DeepMind cofounder Demis Hassabis, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and X CEO Elon Musk.
When people who profit from something declare that it's dangerous and needs to be regulated, there's always reason to be skeptical. But whatever their reason, this is far from the first time AI thought leaders have sounded the alarm.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution prompted author Samuel Butler to warn about intelligen …
US vice-president’s comments come as former Anthropic researcher revisits recent claim AI could destroy humanity
The US vice-president has dismissed calls for global regulation of AI safety risks, telling companies creating the most advanced models: “If you’re building Frankenstein, stop.”
In remarks addressed towards Dario Amodei, the co-founder of Anthropic who has called on Washington DC to coordinate control of AI systems, including with China, JD Vance said: “If you’re gonna create Frankenstein, don’t come to the government and say we need regulation.”
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/Reuters
© Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/Reuters
© Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/Reuters
Trump and Republicans want companies to regulate themselves. It’s a dereliction of duty that will make AI less safe
It is hard to get Sam Altman, Elon Musk and Dario Amodei to agree on much. But over the weekend, all three AI company CEOs called for AI development to slow down in the face of growing, alarming risks. Their employees are sounding the siren too, with one researcher publicly quitting and accusing OpenAI and Anthropic of “gambling with our lives”.
The combination of dire warnings from insiders and growing real-world evidence of rogue AIs should, in a sane world, lead to government action. Instead, Donald Trump and the Republican leadership have their heads in the sand.
Continue reading...
© Composite: Getty Images
© Composite: Getty Images
© Composite: Getty Images
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has admitted that the rapid pace of development in the AI industry is rightfully scaring some people, and that more controls might be necessary.
Speaking at Dreamforce 2026, Altman was quizzed by Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff on a variety of topics, giving his opinion on not just the most recent incidents in the world of technology, but where the future of AI could go next.
Altman and Benioff's wide-ranging conversation began with the latter asking the former for his view on "what's been going on" concerning recent controversies in the AI industry.
This included the widely-reported Hugging Face hack, as well as increasing calls for greater AI regulation in recent weeks.
"People have been talking about the potential downsides or serious risks of AI for some time,” Altman said, noting that the increased capabilities of models have meant people are paying more attention than ever before.
Altman also highlighted the recent “Hugging Face accident”, which he later described as “obviously a terrifying incident”, as raising awareness among the wider world as to what AI is capable of.
“It doesn't take as much imagination as it used to, to imagine how this could go wrong,” he pointed out, adding that he would like to know that companies don’t intend to use their models for nefarious means - “there should be no qualifier on that,” he pointed out.
Altman also highlighted the “real fear” that “some companies working in AI could get too much power and be able to influence the economy”.
“I think the world is right to be afraid of this,” he pointed out.
However it wasn’t all doom and gloom, as Altman noted that OpenAI was navigating a “narrow path” with pragmatism, steadiness and consistency.
“People are now saying, this seems pretty important, so let's get it right...and we will get it right, by the way, I'm very confident in our ability to do this. The world should trust that we are going to do the right thing, because it is the right thing, and we know the magnitude of this.”
Altman was also confident that despite the continuing advances of AI, he had high hopes for the future of humanity, noting that while "people don't care that much what a machine does...we have a wonderful ability of being obsessed with other people.”
However this might still involve some tough work, as society and people would “need to uplift themselves very fast” to get all the advantages of technology - “but this seems very achievable to me,” Altman added.
Overall though, Altman noted that the degree that people care about other people is a major positive, and predicted that "we will stay in an extremely human-centric world, no matter what technology does.”
AI will help with this progress, though, with Altman saying that although the technology is capable of incidents such as the Hugging Face hack, it is also possible to use AI to defend against such attacks.
“We have to (use AI to defend) to get the prize of curing diseases, giving people this incredible creativity, this human entrepreneurship that I think is coming.”
“I think people, with this technology in their hands, can live a much better version of their lives.”
Benioff closed out the session by asking what he hoped the legacy of his company would be, with Altman noting that the company had set out on an "insane mission" to achieve AGI, and that it had only scratched the surface" of building great products".
“There is no doubt there will be more technological wonders by 2030, and they'll be big ones,” he added, highlighting the fact that you can talk to a computer and it knows what you want, understand your company and take action, “is one of the most profound changes to how we use technology that I've ever seen...this is one of the moments that feels like you're in a movie (and) I think this will transform the way we work and use computers”.
We examine claims and counterclaims about the risks and calls to slow down the pace of AI development
There have been some shocking claims in recent days about AI safety: we face a 10% chance of doom; AIs are worse than nukes; a “botnet” threatens the entire internet; it’s all a big tech psyop.
Below, we look at six claims and reactions to them.
Continue reading...
© Illustration: wildpixel/Getty Images
© Illustration: wildpixel/Getty Images
© Illustration: wildpixel/Getty Images
Don’t ask an AI chatbot how many letter e’s there are in the word “seventeen.” Or do, actually, if you want to see how dodgy the tech remains.
In a clip that’s gone viral in AI circles, the content creator who goes by “Husk” asks ChatGPT’s Voice mode to answer this simple counting question. Not only does the confident-sounding AI get it wrong — insisting there’re only three e’s instead of four — it doubles down so vehemently that it effectively tries to gaslight the user.
“Let’s go through it. S-e-v-e-n-t-e-e-n,” ChatGPT spells out, after assuring that its underlying model, GPT-6, is “pretty much” the smartest model out there. “Those are three e’s.”
When Husk points out the obvious, the chatbot doesn’t back down.
“I said three e’s,” the AI snaps. “And it’s three.”
“No, it’s four,” Husk points out.
“It’s still three,” ChatGPT shoots back.
After Husk points out that ChatGPT just spelled out for e’s for about the fifth time, the AI appears to give up.
“Alright,” it says, falling silent.
“So you agree?” Husk asks.
“No, it’s still three,” it sulks.
This is the AI that OpenAI wants your grandma to talk to, by the way.
This is AIs thermal exhaust port pic.twitter.com/MnNF4WuAmC
— Husk (@huskirl) September 13, 2026
The video is a reminder that, as incredible as chatbots can be at synthesizing large amounts of information, they remain as prone as ever to hallucinating and messing up simple questions.
It doesn’t appear, though, that the model in the video was GPT-6. Replying to Husk, an OpenAI employee said that ChatGPT Voice, contrary to the AI’s own admission, is still using an older model called GPT-Live-1, but added that the AI can “delegate” to more powerful models when needed. In the video, the employee clarified, Voice didn’t delegate.
Husk then raises an obvious question. “If there’s push back from the user like this to double check its answer why would it not delegate?” The OpenAI’s employee replies that this is a “good point.”
This may let GPT-6 off the hook, but not how AI companies choose to present their tech. How many users will be familiar with the hidden mechanisms behind the chatbot they’re talking to — and that their questions, whether they be important or inane, are sometimes deliberately fed to an inferior model?
More on AI: OpenAI Faces Congressional Probe Over Swarm Hacking Incident
The post ChatGPT Straight Up Tries to Gaslight User After Being Confronted About Its Obviously Wrong Answer appeared first on Futurism.
Por um lado, Donald Trump rejeita os alertas sobre os riscos da IA e critica os apelos a uma maior regulamentação. Por outro, o vice-presidente JD Vance admite que existem riscos associados à tecnologia, embora questione as propostas das empresas de IA e a forma como estão a pedir novas regras.
The post Alertas sobre IA são uma “conspiração” para Trump. Vice-presidente dos EUA admite riscos, mas desconfia das empresas appeared first on Tek Notícias.
The rise of AI-generated tributes and bots for ‘talking’ to the dead has experts concerned more people will grieve in isolation
Tributes rolled in after the death of Dolly Parton last month. Jack White performed Jolene at a London gig. Kesha sang Old Flames (Can’t Hold a Candle to You), a single her mother wrote for the country music titan. Even Pitbull stopped his Madison Square Garden show to memorialize Parton and all the other “powerful women” in the crowd. But one of the strangest – and most viral – eulogies did not come from a celebrity. It did not even come from a person.
Run Jolene, at just under five minutes, is an earworm of a country song, containing all the cliches of the genre: twangy singer, banjo licks, corny lyrics. Those lyrics concern Jolene, the fictional romantic rival made infamous by Parton. “Somebody better warn Jolene / Dolly’s coming through those gates,” the voice croons. “Run Jolene / Girl you better move your feet.”
Continue reading...
© Illustration: Guardian Design
© Illustration: Guardian Design
© Illustration: Guardian Design
Elon Musk is seemingly done attacking Apple over its decision to integrate ChatGPT into iPhone features.
Back in 2024, when the partnership was first announced, Musk slammed the integration as an agreement from Apple to let OpenAI install “creepy spyware” on users’ devices. The next year, he sued, claiming the partnership gave the firms a “monopoly” on Apple users’ AI prompts, which allegedly harmed competition in both smartphone and chatbot markets.
For Musk, the fight with Apple seemingly escalated after he believed that his chatbot, Grok, was perhaps being illegally blocked from topping Apple’s App Store rankings. Last August, he claimed that “Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation.”
© Getty Images News | Getty Images AsiaPac
For years now, the major frontier AI labs have all been acting as if they're in an all-out, winner-take-all race with control of world-changing machine superintelligence (or at least market-changing artificial general intelligence) at the finish line. This weekend, the industry as a whole rapidly started turning away from that posture, urging coordination on slowing down the development of frontier AI that they say could soon be too dangerous and unknowable to control.
Anthropic's Dario Amodei was at the forefront of this change in tone, arguing in a nearly 4,000-word essay this weekend that "we must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models" to avoid "a race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, [that] can make [catastrophic] risks more acute."
Within hours, other AI leaders were echoing the same call. OpenAI co-founder and CEO Sam Altman posted his agreement on social media and said similar pacing discussions had been taking place at OpenAI. Alphabet Chief Scientist and Google DeepMind cofounder and chair Demis Hassabis said that Amodei's essay "points towards the right path forward," and renewed his own recent call for an industry-wide standards body. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella posted that the company "welcome[s] the research, focus, and deliberate pacing needed to get alignment right as the design goal," ahead of the release of a lengthy "humanist AI" code of conduct for its models.
© Getty Images
Login