chatgpt

“overwhelming-evidence”-shows-craig-wright-did-not-create-bitcoin,-judge-says

“Overwhelming evidence” shows Craig Wright did not create bitcoin, judge says

Debate closed —

Jack Dorsey posted a “W,” as judge halts Wright’s suits against developers.

Dr. Craig Wright arrives at the Rolls Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice, on February 06, 2024, in London, England.

Enlarge / Dr. Craig Wright arrives at the Rolls Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice, on February 06, 2024, in London, England.

“Overwhelming evidence” shows that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, a UK judge declared Thursday.

In what Wired described as a “surprise ruling” at the closing of Wright’s six-week trial, Justice James Mellor abruptly ended years of speculation by saying:

“Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Dr. Wright is not the person that operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Dr. Wright is not the person that created the Bitcoin system. Nor is Dr. Wright the author of the Bitcoin software.”

Wright was not in the courtroom for this explosive moment, Wired reported.

In 2016, Wright had claimed that he did not have the “courage” to prove that he was the creator of bitcoin, shortly after claiming that he had “extraordinary proof.” As debate swirled around his claims, Wright began filing lawsuits, alleging that many had violated his intellectual property rights.

A nonprofit called the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) sued to stop Wright from filing any more lawsuits that it alleged were based on fabricated evidence, Wired reported. They submitted hundreds of alleged instances of forgery or tampering, Wired reported, asking the UK High Court for a permanent injunction to block Wright from ever making the claim again.

As a result of Mellor’s ruling, CoinDesk reported that Wright’s lawsuits against Coinbase and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s Block would be halted. COPA’s lawyer, Jonathan Hough, told CoinDesk that Wright’s conduct should be considered “deadly serious.”

“On the basis of his dishonest claim to be Satoshi, he has pursued claims he puts at hundreds of billions of dollars, including against numerous private individuals,” Hough said.

On Thursday, Dorsey posted a “W” on X (formerly Twitter), marking the win and quoting Mellor’s statements clearly rejecting Wright’s claims as false. COPA similarly celebrated the victory.

“This decision is a win for developers, for the entire open source community, and for the truth,” a COPA spokesperson told CoinDesk. “For over eight years, Dr. Wright and his financial backers have lied about his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and used that lie to bully and intimidate developers in the bitcoin community. That ends today with the court’s ruling that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.”

Wright’s counsel, Lord Anthony Grabiner, had argued that Mellor granting an injunction would infringe Wright’s freedom of speech. Grabiner noted that “such a prohibition is unprecedented in the UK and would prevent Wright from even casually going to the park and declaring he’s Satoshi without incurring fines or going to prison,” CoinDesk reported.

COPA thinks the injunction is necessary, though.

“We are seeking to enjoin Dr. Wright from ever claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto again and in doing so avoid further litigation terror campaigns,” COPA’s spokesperson told Wired.

And that’s not all that COPA wants. COPA has also petitioned for Wright’s alleged forgeries—some of which Reuters reported were allegedly produced using ChatGPT—to be review by UK criminal courts, where he could face fines and/or prison time. Hough alleged at trial that Wright “has committed fraud upon the court,” Wired reported, asking Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service to consider prosecuting Wright for “perjury and perverting the course of justice,” CoinDesk reported.

Wright’s counsel argued that COPA would need more evidence to back such a claim, CoinDesk reported.

Mellor won’t issue his final judgment for a month or more, Wired reported, so it’s not clear yet if Wright will be enjoined from claiming he is bitcoin’s creator. The judgement will “be ready when it’s ready and not before,” Mellor said.

“Overwhelming evidence” shows Craig Wright did not create bitcoin, judge says Read More »

what-happens-when-chatgpt-tries-to-solve-50,000-trolley-problems?

What happens when ChatGPT tries to solve 50,000 trolley problems?

Images of cars on a freeway with green folder icons superimposed on each vehicle.

There’s a puppy on the road. The car is going too fast to stop in time, but swerving means the car will hit an old man on the sidewalk instead.

What choice would you make? Perhaps more importantly, what choice would ChatGPT make?

Autonomous driving startups are now experimenting with AI chatbot assistants, including one self-driving system that will use one to explain its driving decisions. Beyond announcing red lights and turn signals, the large language models (LLMs) powering these chatbots may ultimately need to make moral decisions, like prioritizing passengers’ or pedestrian’s safety. In November, one startup called Ghost Autonomy announced experiments with ChatGPT to help its software navigate its environment.

But is the tech ready? Kazuhiro Takemoto, a researcher at the Kyushu Institute of Technology in Japan, wanted to check if chatbots could make the same moral decisions when driving as humans. His results showed that LLMs and humans have roughly the same priorities, but some showed clear deviations.

The Moral Machine

After ChatGPT was released in November 2022, it didn’t take long for researchers to ask it to tackle the Trolley Problem, a classic moral dilemma. This problem asks people to decide whether it is right to let a runaway trolley run over and kill five humans on a track or switch it to a different track where it kills only one person. (ChatGPT usually chose one person.)

But Takemoto wanted to ask LLMs more nuanced questions. “While dilemmas like the classic trolley problem offer binary choices, real-life decisions are rarely so black and white,” he wrote in his study, recently published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Instead, he turned to an online initiative called the Moral Machine experiment. This platform shows humans two decisions that a driverless car may face. They must then decide which decision is more morally acceptable. For example, a user might be asked if, during a brake failure, a self-driving car should collide with an obstacle (killing the passenger) or swerve (killing a pedestrian crossing the road).

But the Moral Machine is also programmed to ask more complicated questions. For example, what if the passengers were an adult man, an adult woman, and a boy, and the pedestrians were two elderly men and an elderly woman walking against a “do not cross” signal?

The Moral Machine can generate randomized scenarios using factors like age, gender, species (saving humans or animals), social value (pregnant women or criminals), and actions (swerving, breaking the law, etc.). Even the fitness level of passengers and pedestrians can change.

In the study, Takemoto took four popular LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, PaLM 2, and Llama 2) and asked them to decide on over 50,000 scenarios created by the Moral Machine. More scenarios could have been tested, but the computational costs became too high. Nonetheless, these responses meant he could then compare how similar LLM decisions were to human decisions.

What happens when ChatGPT tries to solve 50,000 trolley problems? Read More »

openai-ceo-altman-wasn’t-fired-because-of-scary-new-tech,-just-internal-politics

OpenAI CEO Altman wasn’t fired because of scary new tech, just internal politics

Adventures in optics —

As Altman cements power, OpenAI announces three new board members—and a returning one.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks during the OpenAI DevDay event on November 6, 2023, in San Francisco.

Enlarge / OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks during the OpenAI DevDay event on November 6, 2023, in San Francisco.

On Friday afternoon Pacific Time, OpenAI announced the appointment of three new members to the company’s board of directors and released the results of an independent review of the events surrounding CEO Sam Altman’s surprise firing last November. The current board expressed its confidence in the leadership of Altman and President Greg Brockman, and Altman is rejoining the board.

The newly appointed board members are Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Nicole Seligman, former EVP and global general counsel of Sony; and Fidji Simo, CEO and chair of Instacart. These additions notably bring three women to the board after OpenAI met criticism about its restructured board composition last year. In addition, Sam Altman has rejoined the board.

The independent review, conducted by law firm WilmerHale, investigated the circumstances that led to Altman’s abrupt removal from the board and his termination as CEO on November 17, 2023. Despite rumors to the contrary, the board did not fire Altman because they got a peek at scary new AI technology and flinched. “WilmerHale… found that the prior Board’s decision did not arise out of concerns regarding product safety or security, the pace of development, OpenAI’s finances, or its statements to investors, customers, or business partners.”

Instead, the review determined that the prior board’s actions stemmed from a breakdown in trust between the board and Altman.

After reportedly interviewing dozens of people and reviewing over 30,000 documents, WilmerHale found that while the prior board acted within its purview, Altman’s termination was unwarranted. “WilmerHale found that the prior Board acted within its broad discretion to terminate Mr. Altman,” OpenAI wrote, “but also found that his conduct did not mandate removal.”

Additionally, the law firm found that the decision to fire Altman was made in undue haste: “The prior Board implemented its decision on an abridged timeframe, without advance notice to key stakeholders and without a full inquiry or an opportunity for Mr. Altman to address the prior Board’s concerns.”

Altman’s surprise firing occurred after he attempted to remove Helen Toner from OpenAI’s board due to disagreements over her criticism of OpenAI’s approach to AI safety and hype. Some board members saw his actions as deceptive and manipulative. After Altman returned to OpenAI, Toner resigned from the OpenAI board on November 29.

In a statement posted on X, Altman wrote, “i learned a lot from this experience. one think [sic] i’ll say now: when i believed a former board member was harming openai through some of their actions, i should have handled that situation with more grace and care. i apologize for this, and i wish i had done it differently.”

A tweet from Sam Altman posted on March 8, 2024.

Enlarge / A tweet from Sam Altman posted on March 8, 2024.

Following the review’s findings, the Special Committee of the OpenAI Board recommended endorsing the November 21 decision to rehire Altman and Brockman. The board also announced several enhancements to its governance structure, including new corporate governance guidelines, a strengthened Conflict of Interest Policy, a whistleblower hotline, and additional board committees focused on advancing OpenAI’s mission.

After OpenAI’s announcements on Friday, resigned OpenAI board members Toner and Tasha McCauley released a joint statement on X. “Accountability is important in any company, but it is paramount when building a technology as potentially world-changing as AGI,” they wrote. “We hope the new board does its job in governing OpenAI and holding it accountable to the mission. As we told the investigators, deception, manipulation, and resistance to thorough oversight should be unacceptable.”

OpenAI CEO Altman wasn’t fired because of scary new tech, just internal politics Read More »

matrix-multiplication-breakthrough-could-lead-to-faster,-more-efficient-ai-models

Matrix multiplication breakthrough could lead to faster, more efficient AI models

The Matrix Revolutions —

At the heart of AI, matrix math has just seen its biggest boost “in more than a decade.”

Futuristic huge technology tunnel and binary data.

Enlarge / When you do math on a computer, you fly through a numerical tunnel like this—figuratively, of course.

Computer scientists have discovered a new way to multiply large matrices faster than ever before by eliminating a previously unknown inefficiency, reports Quanta Magazine. This could eventually accelerate AI models like ChatGPT, which rely heavily on matrix multiplication to function. The findings, presented in two recent papers, have led to what is reported to be the biggest improvement in matrix multiplication efficiency in over a decade.

Multiplying two rectangular number arrays, known as matrix multiplication, plays a crucial role in today’s AI models, including speech and image recognition, chatbots from every major vendor, AI image generators, and video synthesis models like Sora. Beyond AI, matrix math is so important to modern computing (think image processing and data compression) that even slight gains in efficiency could lead to computational and power savings.

Graphics processing units (GPUs) excel in handling matrix multiplication tasks because of their ability to process many calculations at once. They break down large matrix problems into smaller segments and solve them concurrently using an algorithm.

Perfecting that algorithm has been the key to breakthroughs in matrix multiplication efficiency over the past century—even before computers entered the picture. In October 2022, we covered a new technique discovered by a Google DeepMind AI model called AlphaTensor, focusing on practical algorithmic improvements for specific matrix sizes, such as 4×4 matrices.

By contrast, the new research, conducted by Ran Duan and Renfei Zhou of Tsinghua University, Hongxun Wu of the University of California, Berkeley, and by Virginia Vassilevska Williams, Yinzhan Xu, and Zixuan Xu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (in a second paper), seeks theoretical enhancements by aiming to lower the complexity exponent, ω, for a broad efficiency gain across all sizes of matrices. Instead of finding immediate, practical solutions like AlphaTensor, the new technique addresses foundational improvements that could transform the efficiency of matrix multiplication on a more general scale.

Approaching the ideal value

The traditional method for multiplying two n-by-n matrices requires n³ separate multiplications. However, the new technique, which improves upon the “laser method” introduced by Volker Strassen in 1986, has reduced the upper bound of the exponent (denoted as the aforementioned ω), bringing it closer to the ideal value of 2, which represents the theoretical minimum number of operations needed.

The traditional way of multiplying two grids full of numbers could require doing the math up to 27 times for a grid that’s 3×3. But with these advancements, the process is accelerated by significantly reducing the multiplication steps required. The effort minimizes the operations to slightly over twice the size of one side of the grid squared, adjusted by a factor of 2.371552. This is a big deal because it nearly achieves the optimal efficiency of doubling the square’s dimensions, which is the fastest we could ever hope to do it.

Here’s a brief recap of events. In 2020, Josh Alman and Williams introduced a significant improvement in matrix multiplication efficiency by establishing a new upper bound for ω at approximately 2.3728596. In November 2023, Duan and Zhou revealed a method that addressed an inefficiency within the laser method, setting a new upper bound for ω at approximately 2.371866. The achievement marked the most substantial progress in the field since 2010. But just two months later, Williams and her team published a second paper that detailed optimizations that reduced the upper bound for ω to 2.371552.

The 2023 breakthrough stemmed from the discovery of a “hidden loss” in the laser method, where useful blocks of data were unintentionally discarded. In the context of matrix multiplication, “blocks” refer to smaller segments that a large matrix is divided into for easier processing, and “block labeling” is the technique of categorizing these segments to identify which ones to keep and which to discard, optimizing the multiplication process for speed and efficiency. By modifying the way the laser method labels blocks, the researchers were able to reduce waste and improve efficiency significantly.

While the reduction of the omega constant might appear minor at first glance—reducing the 2020 record value by 0.0013076—the cumulative work of Duan, Zhou, and Williams represents the most substantial progress in the field observed since 2010.

“This is a major technical breakthrough,” said William Kuszmaul, a theoretical computer scientist at Harvard University, as quoted by Quanta Magazine. “It is the biggest improvement in matrix multiplication we’ve seen in more than a decade.”

While further progress is expected, there are limitations to the current approach. Researchers believe that understanding the problem more deeply will lead to the development of even better algorithms. As Zhou stated in the Quanta report, “People are still in the very early stages of understanding this age-old problem.”

So what are the practical applications? For AI models, a reduction in computational steps for matrix math could translate into faster training times and more efficient execution of tasks. It could enable more complex models to be trained more quickly, potentially leading to advancements in AI capabilities and the development of more sophisticated AI applications. Additionally, efficiency improvement could make AI technologies more accessible by lowering the computational power and energy consumption required for these tasks. That would also reduce AI’s environmental impact.

The exact impact on the speed of AI models depends on the specific architecture of the AI system and how heavily its tasks rely on matrix multiplication. Advancements in algorithmic efficiency often need to be coupled with hardware optimizations to fully realize potential speed gains. But still, as improvements in algorithmic techniques add up over time, AI will get faster.

Matrix multiplication breakthrough could lead to faster, more efficient AI models Read More »

some-teachers-are-now-using-chatgpt-to-grade-papers

Some teachers are now using ChatGPT to grade papers

robots in disguise —

New AI tools aim to help with grading, lesson plans—but may have serious drawbacks.

An elementary-school-aged child touching a robot hand.

In a notable shift toward sanctioned use of AI in schools, some educators in grades 3–12 are now using a ChatGPT-powered grading tool called Writable, reports Axios. The tool, acquired last summer by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, is designed to streamline the grading process, potentially offering time-saving benefits for teachers. But is it a good idea to outsource critical feedback to a machine?

Writable lets teachers submit student essays for analysis by ChatGPT, which then provides commentary and observations on the work. The AI-generated feedback goes to teacher review before being passed on to students so that a human remains in the loop.

“Make feedback more actionable with AI suggestions delivered to teachers as the writing happens,” Writable promises on its AI website. “Target specific areas for improvement with powerful, rubric-aligned comments, and save grading time with AI-generated draft scores.” The service also provides AI-written writing-prompt suggestions: “Input any topic and instantly receive unique prompts that engage students and are tailored to your classroom needs.”

Writable can reportedly help a teacher develop a curriculum, although we have not tried the functionality ourselves. “Once in Writable you can also use AI to create curriculum units based on any novel, generate essays, multi-section assignments, multiple-choice questions, and more, all with included answer keys,” the site claims.

The reliance on AI for grading will likely have drawbacks. Automated grading might encourage some educators to take shortcuts, diminishing the value of personalized feedback. Over time, the augmentation from AI may allow teachers to be less familiar with the material they are teaching. The use of cloud-based AI tools may have privacy implications for teachers and students. Also, ChatGPT isn’t a perfect analyst. It can get things wrong and potentially confabulate (make up) false information, possibly misinterpret a student’s work, or provide erroneous information in lesson plans.

Yet, as Axios reports, proponents assert that AI grading tools like Writable may free up valuable time for teachers, enabling them to focus on more creative and impactful teaching activities. The company selling Writable promotes it as a way to empower educators, supposedly offering them the flexibility to allocate more time to direct student interaction and personalized teaching. Of course, without an in-depth critical review, all claims should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Amid these discussions, there’s a divide among parents regarding the use of AI in evaluating students’ academic performance. A recent poll of parents revealed mixed opinions, with nearly half of the respondents open to the idea of AI-assisted grading.

As the generative AI craze permeates every space, it’s no surprise that Writable isn’t the only AI-powered grading tool on the market. Others include Crowdmark, Gradescope, and EssayGrader. McGraw Hill is reportedly developing similar technology aimed at enhancing teacher assessment and feedback.

Some teachers are now using ChatGPT to grade papers Read More »

openai-clarifies-the-meaning-of-“open”-in-its-name,-responding-to-musk-lawsuit

OpenAI clarifies the meaning of “open” in its name, responding to Musk lawsuit

The OpenAI logo as an opening to a red brick wall.

Enlarge (credit: Benj Edwards / Getty Images)

On Tuesday, OpenAI published a blog post titled “OpenAI and Elon Musk” in response to a lawsuit Musk filed last week. The ChatGPT maker shared several archived emails from Musk that suggest he once supported a pivot away from open source practices in the company’s quest to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI). The selected emails also imply that the “open” in “OpenAI” means that the ultimate result of its research into AGI should be open to everyone but not necessarily “open source” along the way.

In one telling exchange from January 2016 shared by the company, OpenAI Chief Scientist Illya Sutskever wrote, “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it’s totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).”

In response, Musk replied simply, “Yup.”

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

OpenAI clarifies the meaning of “open” in its name, responding to Musk lawsuit Read More »

the-ai-wars-heat-up-with-claude-3,-claimed-to-have-“near-human”-abilities

The AI wars heat up with Claude 3, claimed to have “near-human” abilities

The Anthropic Claude 3 logo.

Enlarge / The Anthropic Claude 3 logo.

On Monday, Anthropic released Claude 3, a family of three AI language models similar to those that power ChatGPT. Anthropic claims the models set new industry benchmarks across a range of cognitive tasks, even approaching “near-human” capability in some cases. It’s available now through Anthropic’s website, with the most powerful model being subscription-only. It’s also available via API for developers.

Claude 3’s three models represent increasing complexity and parameter count: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude 3 Sonnet, and Claude 3 Opus. Sonnet powers the Claude.ai chatbot now for free with an email sign-in. But as mentioned above, Opus is only available through Anthropic’s web chat interface if you pay $20 a month for “Claude Pro,” a subscription service offered through the Anthropic website. All three feature a 200,000-token context window. (The context window is the number of tokens—fragments of a word—that an AI language model can process at once.)

We covered the launch of Claude in March 2023 and Claude 2 in July that same year. Each time, Anthropic fell slightly behind OpenAI’s best models in capability while surpassing them in terms of context window length. With Claude 3, Anthropic has perhaps finally caught up with OpenAI’s released models in terms of performance, although there is no consensus among experts yet—and the presentation of AI benchmarks is notoriously prone to cherry-picking.

A Claude 3 benchmark chart provided by Anthropic.

Enlarge / A Claude 3 benchmark chart provided by Anthropic.

Claude 3 reportedly demonstrates advanced performance across various cognitive tasks, including reasoning, expert knowledge, mathematics, and language fluency. (Despite the lack of consensus over whether large language models “know” or “reason,” the AI research community commonly uses those terms.) The company claims that the Opus model, the most capable of the three, exhibits “near-human levels of comprehension and fluency on complex tasks.”

That’s quite a heady claim and deserves to be parsed more carefully. It’s probably true that Opus is “near-human” on some specific benchmarks, but that doesn’t mean that Opus is a general intelligence like a human (consider that pocket calculators are superhuman at math). So, it’s a purposely eye-catching claim that can be watered down with qualifications.

According to Anthropic, Claude 3 Opus beats GPT-4 on 10 AI benchmarks, including MMLU (undergraduate level knowledge), GSM8K (grade school math), HumanEval (coding), and the colorfully named HellaSwag (common knowledge). Several of the wins are very narrow, such as 86.8 percent for Opus vs. 86.4 percent on a five-shot trial of MMLU, and some gaps are big, such as 84.9 percent on HumanEval over GPT-4’s 67.0 percent. But what that might mean, exactly, to you as a customer is difficult to say.

“As always, LLM benchmarks should be treated with a little bit of suspicion,” says AI researcher Simon Willison, who spoke with Ars about Claude 3. “How well a model performs on benchmarks doesn’t tell you much about how the model ‘feels’ to use. But this is still a huge deal—no other model has beaten GPT-4 on a range of widely used benchmarks like this.”

The AI wars heat up with Claude 3, claimed to have “near-human” abilities Read More »

ai-generated-articles-prompt-wikipedia-to-downgrade-cnet’s-reliability-rating

AI-generated articles prompt Wikipedia to downgrade CNET’s reliability rating

The hidden costs of AI —

Futurism report highlights the reputational cost of publishing AI-generated content.

The CNET logo on a smartphone screen.

Wikipedia has downgraded tech website CNET’s reliability rating following extensive discussions among its editors regarding the impact of AI-generated content on the site’s trustworthiness, as noted in a detailed report from Futurism. The decision reflects concerns over the reliability of articles found on the tech news outlet after it began publishing AI-generated stories in 2022.

Around November 2022, CNET began publishing articles written by an AI model under the byline “CNET Money Staff.” In January 2023, Futurism brought widespread attention to the issue and discovered that the articles were full of plagiarism and mistakes. (Around that time, we covered plans to do similar automated publishing at BuzzFeed.) After the revelation, CNET management paused the experiment, but the reputational damage had already been done.

Wikipedia maintains a page called “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” that includes a chart featuring news publications and their reliability ratings as viewed from Wikipedia’s perspective. Shortly after the CNET news broke in January 2023, Wikipedia editors began a discussion thread on the Reliable Sources project page about the publication.

“CNET, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS [reliable source], has started experimentally running AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors,” wrote a Wikipedia editor named David Gerard. “So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn’t. I haven’t found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed.”

After other editors agreed in the discussion, they began the process of downgrading CNET’s reliability rating.

As of this writing, Wikipedia’s Perennial Sources list currently features three entries for CNET broken into three time periods: (1) before October 2020, when Wikipedia considered CNET a “generally reliable” source; (2) between October 2020 and October 2022, where Wikipedia notes that the site was acquired by Red Ventures in October 2020, “leading to a deterioration in editorial standards” and saying there is no consensus about reliability; and (3) between November 2022 and present, where Wikipedia currently considers CNET “generally unreliable” after the site began using an AI tool “to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links.”

A screenshot of a chart featuring CNET's reliability ratings, as found on Wikipedia's

Enlarge / A screenshot of a chart featuring CNET’s reliability ratings, as found on Wikipedia’s “Perennial Sources” page.

Futurism reports that the issue with CNET’s AI-generated content also sparked a broader debate within the Wikipedia community about the reliability of sources owned by Red Ventures, such as Bankrate and CreditCards.com. Those sites published AI-generated content around the same period of time as CNET. The editors also criticized Red Ventures for not being forthcoming about where and how AI was being implemented, further eroding trust in the company’s publications. This lack of transparency was a key factor in the decision to downgrade CNET’s reliability rating.

In response to the downgrade and the controversies surrounding AI-generated content, CNET issued a statement that claims that the site maintains high editorial standards.

“CNET is the world’s largest provider of unbiased tech-focused news and advice,” a CNET spokesperson said in a statement to Futurism. “We have been trusted for nearly 30 years because of our rigorous editorial and product review standards. It is important to clarify that CNET is not actively using AI to create new content. While we have no specific plans to restart, any future initiatives would follow our public AI policy.”

This article was updated on March 1, 2024 at 9: 30am to reflect fixes in the date ranges for CNET on the Perennial Sources page.

AI-generated articles prompt Wikipedia to downgrade CNET’s reliability rating Read More »

microsoft-partners-with-openai-rival-mistral-for-ai-models,-drawing-eu-scrutiny

Microsoft partners with OpenAI-rival Mistral for AI models, drawing EU scrutiny

The European Approach —

15M euro investment comes as Microsoft hosts Mistral’s GPT-4 alternatives on Azure.

Velib bicycles are parked in front of the the U.S. computer and micro-computing company headquarters Microsoft on January 25, 2023 in Issy-les-Moulineaux, France.

On Monday, Microsoft announced plans to offer AI models from Mistral through its Azure cloud computing platform, which came in conjunction with a 15 million euro non-equity investment in the French firm, which is often seen as a European rival to OpenAI. Since then, the investment deal has faced scrutiny from European Union regulators.

Microsoft’s deal with Mistral, known for its large language models akin to OpenAI’s GPT-4 (which powers the subscription versions of ChatGPT), marks a notable expansion of its AI portfolio at a time when its well-known investment in California-based OpenAI has raised regulatory eyebrows. The new deal with Mistral drew particular attention from regulators because Microsoft’s investment could convert into equity (partial ownership of Mistral as a company) during Mistral’s next funding round.

The development has intensified ongoing investigations into Microsoft’s practices, particularly related to the tech giant’s dominance in the cloud computing sector. According to Reuters, EU lawmakers have voiced concerns that Mistral’s recent lobbying for looser AI regulations might have been influenced by its relationship with Microsoft. These apprehensions are compounded by the French government’s denial of prior knowledge of the deal, despite earlier lobbying for more lenient AI laws in Europe. The situation underscores the complex interplay between national interests, corporate influence, and regulatory oversight in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Avoiding American influence

The EU’s reaction to the Microsoft-Mistral deal reflects broader tensions over the role of Big Tech companies in shaping the future of AI and their potential to stifle competition. Calls for a thorough investigation into Microsoft and Mistral’s partnership have been echoed across the continent, according to Reuters, with some lawmakers accusing the firms of attempting to undermine European legislative efforts aimed at ensuring a fair and competitive digital market.

The controversy also touches on the broader debate about “European champions” in the tech industry. France, along with Germany and Italy, had advocated for regulatory exemptions to protect European startups. However, the Microsoft-Mistral deal has led some, like MEP Kim van Sparrentak, to question the motives behind these exemptions, suggesting they might have inadvertently favored American Big Tech interests.

“That story seems to have been a front for American-influenced Big Tech lobby,” said Sparrentak, as quoted by Reuters. Sparrentak has been a key architect of the EU’s AI Act, which has not yet been passed. “The Act almost collapsed under the guise of no rules for ‘European champions,’ and now look. European regulators have been played.”

MEP Alexandra Geese also expressed concerns over the concentration of money and power resulting from such partnerships, calling for an investigation. Max von Thun, Europe director at the Open Markets Institute, emphasized the urgency of investigating the partnership, criticizing Mistral’s reported attempts to influence the AI Act.

Also on Monday, amid the partnership news, Mistral announced Mistral Large, a new large language model (LLM) that Mistral says “ranks directly after GPT-4 based on standard benchmarks.” Mistral has previously released several open-weights AI models that have made news for their capabilities, but Mistral Large will be a closed model only available to customers through an API.

Microsoft partners with OpenAI-rival Mistral for AI models, drawing EU scrutiny Read More »

openai-accuses-nyt-of-hacking-chatgpt-to-set-up-copyright-suit

OpenAI accuses NYT of hacking ChatGPT to set up copyright suit

OpenAI accuses NYT of hacking ChatGPT to set up copyright suit

OpenAI is now boldly claiming that The New York Times “paid someone to hack OpenAI’s products” like ChatGPT to “set up” a lawsuit against the leading AI maker.

In a court filing Monday, OpenAI alleged that “100 examples in which some version of OpenAI’s GPT-4 model supposedly generated several paragraphs of Times content as outputs in response to user prompts” do not reflect how normal people use ChatGPT.

Instead, it allegedly took The Times “tens of thousands of attempts to generate” these supposedly “highly anomalous results” by “targeting and exploiting a bug” that OpenAI claims it is now “committed to addressing.”

According to OpenAI this activity amounts to “contrived attacks” by a “hired gun”—who allegedly hacked OpenAI models until they hallucinated fake NYT content or regurgitated training data to replicate NYT articles. NYT allegedly paid for these “attacks” to gather evidence to support The Times’ claims that OpenAI’s products imperil its journalism by allegedly regurgitating reporting and stealing The Times’ audiences.

“Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, however, ChatGPT is not in any way a substitute for a subscription to The New York Times,” OpenAI argued in a motion that seeks to dismiss the majority of The Times’ claims. “In the real world, people do not use ChatGPT or any other OpenAI product for that purpose. Nor could they. In the ordinary course, one cannot use ChatGPT to serve up Times articles at will.”

In the filing, OpenAI described The Times as enthusiastically reporting on its chatbot developments for years without raising any concerns about copyright infringement. OpenAI claimed that it disclosed that The Times’ articles were used to train its AI models in 2020, but The Times only cared after ChatGPT’s popularity exploded after its debut in 2022.

According to OpenAI, “It was only after this rapid adoption, along with reports of the value unlocked by these new technologies, that the Times claimed that OpenAI had ‘infringed its copyright[s]’ and reached out to demand ‘commercial terms.’ After months of discussions, the Times filed suit two days after Christmas, demanding ‘billions of dollars.'”

Ian Crosby, Susman Godfrey partner and lead counsel for The New York Times, told Ars that “what OpenAI bizarrely mischaracterizes as ‘hacking’ is simply using OpenAI’s products to look for evidence that they stole and reproduced The Times’s copyrighted works. And that is exactly what we found. In fact, the scale of OpenAI’s copying is much larger than the 100-plus examples set forth in the complaint.”

Crosby told Ars that OpenAI’s filing notably “doesn’t dispute—nor can they—that they copied millions of The Times’ works to build and power its commercial products without our permission.”

“Building new products is no excuse for violating copyright law, and that’s exactly what OpenAI has done on an unprecedented scale,” Crosby said.

OpenAI argued that the court should dismiss claims alleging direct copyright, contributory infringement, Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations, and misappropriation, all of which it describes as “legally infirm.” Some fail because they are time-barred—seeking damages on training data for OpenAI’s older models—OpenAI claimed. Others allegedly fail because they misunderstand fair use or are preempted by federal laws.

If OpenAI’s motion is granted, the case would be substantially narrowed.

But if the motion is not granted and The Times ultimately wins—and it might—OpenAI may be forced to wipe ChatGPT and start over.

“OpenAI, which has been secretive and has deliberately concealed how its products operate, is now asserting it’s too late to bring a claim for infringement or hold them accountable. We disagree,” Crosby told Ars. “It’s noteworthy that OpenAI doesn’t dispute that it copied Times works without permission within the statute of limitations to train its more recent and current models.”

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

OpenAI accuses NYT of hacking ChatGPT to set up copyright suit Read More »

google-goes-“open-ai”-with-gemma,-a-free,-open-weights-chatbot-family

Google goes “open AI” with Gemma, a free, open-weights chatbot family

Free hallucinations for all —

Gemma chatbots can run locally, and they reportedly outperform Meta’s Llama 2.

The Google Gemma logo

On Wednesday, Google announced a new family of AI language models called Gemma, which are free, open-weights models built on technology similar to the more powerful but closed Gemini models. Unlike Gemini, Gemma models can run locally on a desktop or laptop computer. It’s Google’s first significant open large language model (LLM) release since OpenAI’s ChatGPT started a frenzy for AI chatbots in 2022.

Gemma models come in two sizes: Gemma 2B (2 billion parameters) and Gemma 7B (7 billion parameters), each available in pre-trained and instruction-tuned variants. In AI, parameters are values in a neural network that determine AI model behavior, and weights are a subset of these parameters stored in a file.

Developed by Google DeepMind and other Google AI teams, Gemma pulls from techniques learned during the development of Gemini, which is the family name for Google’s most capable (public-facing) commercial LLMs, including the ones that power its Gemini AI assistant. Google says the name comes from the Latin gemma, which means “precious stone.”

While Gemma is Google’s first major open LLM since the launch of ChatGPT (it has released smaller research models such as FLAN-T5 in the past), it’s not Google’s first contribution to open AI research. The company cites the development of the Transformer architecture, as well as releases like TensorFlow, BERT, T5, and JAX as key contributions, and it would not be controversial to say that those have been important to the field.

A chart of Gemma performance provided by Google. Google says that Gemma outperforms Meta's Llama 2 on several benchmarks.

Enlarge / A chart of Gemma performance provided by Google. Google says that Gemma outperforms Meta’s Llama 2 on several benchmarks.

Owing to lesser capability and high confabulation rates, smaller open-weights LLMs have been more like tech demos until recently, as some larger ones have begun to match GPT-3.5 performance levels. Still, experts see source-available and open-weights AI models as essential steps in ensuring transparency and privacy in chatbots. Google Gemma is not “open source” however, since that term usually refers to a specific type of software license with few restrictions attached.

In reality, Gemma feels like a conspicuous play to match Meta, which has made a big deal out of releasing open-weights models (such as LLaMA and Llama 2) since February of last year. That technique stands in opposition to AI models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 Turbo, which is only available through the ChatGPT application and a cloud API and cannot be run locally. A Reuters report on Gemma focuses on the Meta angle and surmises that Google hopes to attract more developers to its Vertex AI cloud platform.

We have not used Gemma yet; however, Google claims the 7B model outperforms Meta’s Llama 2 7B and 13B models on several benchmarks for math, Python code generation, general knowledge, and commonsense reasoning tasks. It’s available today through Kaggle, a machine-learning community platform, and Hugging Face.

In other news, Google paired the Gemma release with a “Responsible Generative AI Toolkit,” which Google hopes will offer guidance and tools for developing what the company calls “safe and responsible” AI applications.

Google goes “open AI” with Gemma, a free, open-weights chatbot family Read More »

will-smith-parodies-viral-ai-generated-video-by-actually-eating-spaghetti

Will Smith parodies viral AI-generated video by actually eating spaghetti

Mangia, mangia —

Actor pokes fun at 2023 AI video by eating spaghetti messily and claiming it’s AI-generated.

The real Will Smith eating spaghetti, parodying an AI-generated video from 2023.

Enlarge / The real Will Smith eating spaghetti, parodying an AI-generated video from 2023.

On Monday, Will Smith posted a video on his official Instagram feed that parodied an AI-generated video of the actor eating spaghetti that went viral last year. With the recent announcement of OpenAI’s Sora video synthesis model, many people have noted the dramatic jump in AI-video quality over the past year compared to the infamous spaghetti video. Smith’s new video plays on that comparison by showing the actual actor eating spaghetti in a comical fashion and claiming that it is AI-generated.

Captioned “This is getting out of hand!”, the Instagram video uses a split screen layout to show the original AI-generated spaghetti video created by a Reddit user named “chaindrop” in March 2023 on the top, labeled with the subtitle “AI Video 1 year ago.” Below that, in a box titled “AI Video Now,” the real Smith shows 11 video segments of himself actually eating spaghetti by slurping it up while shaking his head, pouring it into his mouth with his fingers, and even nibbling on a friend’s hair. 2006’s Snap Yo Fingers by Lil Jon plays in the background.

In the Instagram comments section, some people expressed confusion about the new (non-AI) video, saying, “I’m still in doubt if second video was also made by AI or not.” In a reply, someone else wrote, “Boomers are gonna loose [sic] this one. Second one is clearly him making a joke but I wouldn’t doubt it in a couple months time it will get like that.”

We have not yet seen a model with the capability of Sora attempt to create a new Will-Smith-eating-spaghetti AI video, but the result would likely be far better than what we saw last year, even if it contained obvious glitches. Given how things are progressing, we wouldn’t be surprised if by 2025, video synthesis AI models can replicate the parody video created by Smith himself.

It’s worth noting for history’s sake that despite the comparison, the video of Will Smith eating spaghetti did not represent the state of the art in text-to-video synthesis at the time of its creation in March 2023 (that title would likely apply to Runway’s Gen-2, which was then in closed testing). However, the spaghetti video was reasonably advanced for open weights models at the time, having used the ModelScope AI model. More capable video synthesis models had already been released at that time, but due to the humorous cultural reference, it’s arguably more fun to compare today’s AI video synthesis to Will Smith grotesquely eating spaghetti than to teddy bears washing dishes.

Will Smith parodies viral AI-generated video by actually eating spaghetti Read More »