openai

openai-opens-the-door-for-military-uses-but-maintains-ai-weapons-ban

OpenAI opens the door for military uses but maintains AI weapons ban

Skynet deferred —

Despite new Pentagon collab, OpenAI won’t allow customers to “develop or use weapons” with its tools.

The OpenAI logo over a camoflage background.

On Tuesday, ChatGPT developer OpenAI revealed that it is collaborating with the United States Defense Department on cybersecurity projects and exploring ways to prevent veteran suicide, reports Bloomberg. OpenAI revealed the collaboration during an interview with the news outlet at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The AI company recently modified its policies, allowing for certain military applications of its technology, while maintaining prohibitions against using it to develop weapons.

According to Anna Makanju, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, “many people thought that [a previous blanket prohibition on military applications] would prohibit many of these use cases, which people think are very much aligned with what we want to see in the world.” OpenAI removed terms from its service agreement that previously blocked AI use in “military and warfare” situations, but the company still upholds a ban on its technology being used to develop weapons or to cause harm or property damage.

Under the “Universal Policies” section of OpenAI’s Usage Policies document, section 2 says, “Don’t use our service to harm yourself or others.” The prohibition includes using its AI products to “develop or use weapons.” Changes to the terms that removed the “military and warfare” prohibitions appear to have been made by OpenAI on January 10.

The shift in policy appears to align OpenAI more closely with the needs of various governmental departments, including the possibility of preventing veteran suicides. “We’ve been doing work with the Department of Defense on cybersecurity tools for open-source software that secures critical infrastructure,” Makanju said in the interview. “We’ve been exploring whether it can assist with (prevention of) veteran suicide.”

The efforts mark a significant change from OpenAI’s original stance on military partnerships, Bloomberg says. Meanwhile, Microsoft Corp., a large investor in OpenAI, already has an established relationship with the US military through various software contracts.

OpenAI opens the door for military uses but maintains AI weapons ban Read More »

openai-must-defend-chatgpt-fabrications-after-failing-to-defeat-libel-suit

OpenAI must defend ChatGPT fabrications after failing to defeat libel suit

One false move —

ChatGPT users may soon learn whether false outputs will be allowed to ruin lives.

OpenAI must defend ChatGPT fabrications after failing to defeat libel suit

OpenAI may finally have to answer for ChatGPT’s “hallucinations” in court after a Georgia judge recently ruled against the tech company’s motion to dismiss a radio host’s defamation suit.

OpenAI had argued that ChatGPT’s output cannot be considered libel, partly because the chatbot output cannot be considered a “publication,” which is a key element of a defamation claim. In its motion to dismiss, OpenAI also argued that Georgia radio host Mark Walters could not prove that the company acted with actual malice or that anyone believed the allegedly libelous statements were true or that he was harmed by the alleged publication.

It’s too early to say whether Judge Tracie Cason found OpenAI’s arguments persuasive. In her order denying OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, which MediaPost shared here, Cason did not specify how she arrived at her decision, saying only that she had “carefully” considered arguments and applicable laws.

There may be some clues as to how Cason reached her decision in a court filing from John Monroe, attorney for Walters, when opposing the motion to dismiss last year.

Monroe had argued that OpenAI improperly moved to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing facts that have yet to be proven in court. If OpenAI intended the court to rule on those arguments, Monroe suggested that a motion for summary judgment would have been the proper step at this stage in the proceedings, not a motion to dismiss.

Had OpenAI gone that route, though, Walters would have had an opportunity to present additional evidence. To survive a motion to dismiss, all Walters had to do was show that his complaint was reasonably supported by facts, Monroe argued.

Failing to convince the court that Walters had no case, OpenAI’s legal theories regarding its liability for ChatGPT’s “hallucinations” will now likely face their first test in court.

“We are pleased the court denied the motion to dismiss so that the parties will have an opportunity to explore, and obtain a decision on, the merits of the case,” Monroe told Ars.

What’s the libel case against OpenAI?

Walters sued OpenAI after a journalist, Fred Riehl, warned him that in response to a query, ChatGPT had fabricated an entire lawsuit. Generating an entire complaint with an erroneous case number, ChatGPT falsely claimed that Walters had been accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation.

Walters is the host of Armed America Radio and has a reputation as the “Loudest Voice in America Fighting For Gun Rights.” He claimed that OpenAI “recklessly” disregarded whether ChatGPT’s outputs were false, alleging that OpenAI knew that “ChatGPT’s hallucinations were pervasive and severe” and did not work to prevent allegedly libelous outputs. As Walters saw it, the false statements were serious enough to be potentially career-damaging, “tending to injure Walter’s reputation and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”

Monroe argued that Walters had “adequately stated a claim” of libel, per se, as a private citizen, “for which relief may be granted under Georgia law” where “malice is inferred” in “all actions for defamation” but “may be rebutted” by OpenAI.

Pushing back, OpenAI argued that Walters was a public figure who must prove that OpenAI acted with “actual malice” when allowing ChatGPT to produce allegedly harmful outputs. But Monroe told the court that OpenAI “has not shown sufficient facts to establish that Walters is a general public figure.”

Whether or not Walters is a public figure could be another key question leading Cason to rule against OpenAI’s motion to dismiss.

Perhaps also frustrating the court, OpenAI introduced “a large amount of material” in its motion to dismiss that fell outside the scope of the complaint, Monroe argued. That included pointing to a disclaimer in ChatGPT’s terms of use that warns users that ChatGPT’s responses may not be accurate and should be verified before publishing. According to OpenAI, this disclaimer makes Riehl the “owner” of any libelous ChatGPT responses to his queries.

“A disclaimer does not make an otherwise libelous statement non-libelous,” Monroe argued. And even if the disclaimer made Riehl liable for publishing the ChatGPT output—an argument that may give some ChatGPT users pause before querying—”that responsibility does not have the effect of negating the responsibility of the original publisher of the material,” Monroe argued.

Additionally, OpenAI referenced a conversation between Walters and OpenAI, even though Monroe said that the complaint “does not allege that Walters ever had a chat” with OpenAI. And OpenAI also somewhat oddly argued that ChatGPT outputs could be considered “intra-corporate communications” rather than publications, suggesting that ChatGPT users could be considered private contractors when querying the chatbot.

With the lawsuit moving forward, curious chatbot users everywhere may finally get the answer to a question that has been unclear since ChatGPT quickly became the fastest-growing consumer application of all time after its launch in November 2022: Will ChatGPT’s hallucinations be allowed to ruin lives?

In the meantime, the FTC is seemingly still investigating potential harms caused by ChatGPT’s “false, misleading, or disparaging” generations.

An FTC spokesperson previously told Ars that the FTC does not generally comment on nonpublic investigations.

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

OpenAI must defend ChatGPT fabrications after failing to defeat libel suit Read More »

as-2024-election-looms,-openai-says-it-is-taking-steps-to-prevent-ai-abuse

As 2024 election looms, OpenAI says it is taking steps to prevent AI abuse

Don’t Rock the vote —

ChatGPT maker plans transparency for gen AI content and improved access to voting info.

A pixelated photo of Donald Trump.

On Monday, ChatGPT maker OpenAI detailed its plans to prevent the misuse of its AI technologies during the upcoming elections in 2024, promising transparency in AI-generated content and enhancing access to reliable voting information. The AI developer says it is working on an approach that involves policy enforcement, collaboration with partners, and the development of new tools aimed at classifying AI-generated media.

“As we prepare for elections in 2024 across the world’s largest democracies, our approach is to continue our platform safety work by elevating accurate voting information, enforcing measured policies, and improving transparency,” writes OpenAI in its blog post. “Protecting the integrity of elections requires collaboration from every corner of the democratic process, and we want to make sure our technology is not used in a way that could undermine this process.”

Initiatives proposed by OpenAI include preventing abuse by means such as deepfakes or bots imitating candidates, refining usage policies, and launching a reporting system for the public to flag potential abuses. For example, OpenAI’s image generation tool, DALL-E 3, includes built-in filters that reject requests to create images of real people, including politicians. “For years, we’ve been iterating on tools to improve factual accuracy, reduce bias, and decline certain requests,” the company stated.

OpenAI says it regularly updates its Usage Policies for ChatGPT and its API products to prevent misuse, especially in the context of elections. The organization has implemented restrictions on using its technologies for political campaigning and lobbying until it better understands the potential for personalized persuasion. Also, OpenAI prohibits creating chatbots that impersonate real individuals or institutions and disallows the development of applications that could deter people from “participation in democratic processes.” Users can report GPTs that may violate the rules.

OpenAI claims to be proactively engaged in detailed strategies to safeguard its technologies against misuse. According to their statements, this includes red-teaming new systems to anticipate challenges, engaging with users and partners for feedback, and implementing robust safety mitigations. OpenAI asserts that these efforts are integral to its mission of continually refining AI tools for improved accuracy, reduced biases, and responsible handling of sensitive requests

Regarding transparency, OpenAI says it is advancing its efforts in classifying image provenance. The company plans to embed digital credentials, using cryptographic techniques, into images produced by DALL-E 3 as part of its adoption of standards by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity. Additionally, OpenAI says it is testing a tool designed to identify DALL-E-generated images.

In an effort to connect users with authoritative information, particularly concerning voting procedures, OpenAI says it has partnered with the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) in the United States. ChatGPT will direct users to CanIVote.org for verified US voting information.

“We want to make sure that our AI systems are built, deployed, and used safely,” writes OpenAI. “Like any new technology, these tools come with benefits and challenges. They are also unprecedented, and we will keep evolving our approach as we learn more about how our tools are used.”

As 2024 election looms, OpenAI says it is taking steps to prevent AI abuse Read More »

lazy-use-of-ai-leads-to-amazon-products-called-“i-cannot-fulfill-that-request”

Lazy use of AI leads to Amazon products called “I cannot fulfill that request”

FILE NOT FOUND —

The telltale error messages are a sign of AI-generated pablum all over the Internet.

I know naming new products can be hard, but these Amazon sellers made some particularly odd naming choices.

Enlarge / I know naming new products can be hard, but these Amazon sellers made some particularly odd naming choices.

Amazon

Amazon users are at this point used to search results filled with products that are fraudulent, scams, or quite literally garbage. These days, though, they also may have to pick through obviously shady products, with names like “I’m sorry but I cannot fulfill this request it goes against OpenAI use policy.”

As of press time, some version of that telltale OpenAI error message appears in Amazon products ranging from lawn chairs to office furniture to Chinese religious tracts. A few similarly named products that were available as of this morning have been taken down as word of the listings spreads across social media (one such example is Archived here).

ProTip: Don't ask OpenAI to integrate a trademarked brand name when generating a name for your weird length of rubber tubing.

Enlarge / ProTip: Don’t ask OpenAI to integrate a trademarked brand name when generating a name for your weird length of rubber tubing.

Other Amazon product names don’t mention OpenAI specifically but feature apparent AI-related error messages, such as “Sorry but I can’t generate a response to that request” or “Sorry but I can’t provide the information you’re looking for,” (available in a variety of colors). Sometimes, the product names even highlight the specific reason why the apparent AI-generation request failed, noting that OpenAI can’t provide content that “requires using trademarked brand names” or “promotes a specific religious institution” or in one case “encourage unethical behavior.”

The repeated invocation of a

Enlarge / The repeated invocation of a “commitment to providing reliable and trustworthy product descriptions” cited in this description is particularly ironic.

The descriptions for these oddly named products are also riddled with obvious AI error messages like, “Apologies, but I am unable to provide the information you’re seeking.” One product description for a set of tables and chairs (which has since been taken down) hilariously noted: “Our [product] can be used for a variety of tasks, such [task 1], [task 2], and [task 3]].” Another set of product descriptions, seemingly for tattoo ink guns, repeatedly apologizes that it can’t provide more information because: “We prioritize accuracy and reliability by only offering verified product details to our customers.”

Spam spam spam spam

Using large language models to help generate product names or descriptions isn’t against Amazon policy. On the contrary, in September Amazon launched its own generative AI tool to help sellers “create more thorough and captivating product descriptions, titles, and listing details.” And we could only find a small handful of Amazon products slipping through with the telltale error messages in their names or descriptions as of press time.

Still, these error-message-filled listings highlight the lack of care or even basic editing many Amazon scammers are exercising when putting their spammy product listings on the Amazon marketplace. For every seller that can be easily caught accidentally posting an OpenAI error, there are likely countless others using the technology to create product names and descriptions that only seem like they were written by a human that has actual experience with the product in question.

A set of clearly real people conversing on Twitter / X.

Enlarge / A set of clearly real people conversing on Twitter / X.

Amazon isn’t the only online platform where these AI bots are outing themselves, either. A quick search for “goes against OpenAI policy” or “as an AI language model” can find a whole lot of artificial posts on Twitter / X or Threads or LinkedIn, for example. Security engineer Dan Feldman noted a similar problem on Amazon back in April, though searching with the phrase “as an AI language model” doesn’t seem to generate any obviously AI-generated search results these days.

As fun as it is to call out these obvious mishaps for AI-generated content mills, a flood of harder-to-detect AI content is threatening to overwhelm everyone from art communities to sci-fi magazines to Amazon’s own ebook marketplace. Pretty much any platform that accepts user submissions that involve text or visual art now has to worry about being flooded with wave after wave of AI-generated work trying to crowd out the human community they were created for. It’s a problem that’s likely to get worse before it gets better.

Listing image by Getty Images | Leon Neal

Lazy use of AI leads to Amazon products called “I cannot fulfill that request” Read More »

at-senate-ai-hearing,-news-executives-fight-against-“fair-use”-claims-for-ai-training-data

At Senate AI hearing, news executives fight against “fair use” claims for AI training data

All’s fair in love and AI —

Media orgs want AI firms to license content for training, and Congress is sympathetic.

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 10: Danielle Coffey, President and CEO of News Media Alliance, Professor Jeff Jarvis, CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, Curtis LeGeyt President and CEO of National Association of Broadcasters, Roger Lynch CEO of Condé Nast, are strong in during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law hearing on “Artificial Intelligence and The Future Of Journalism” at the U.S. Capitol on January 10, 2024 in Washington, DC. Lawmakers continue to hear testimony from experts and business leaders about artificial intelligence and its impact on democracy, elections, privacy, liability and news. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

Enlarge / Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of News Media Alliance; Professor Jeff Jarvis, CUNY Graduate School of Journalism; Curtis LeGeyt, president and CEO of National Association of Broadcasters; and Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast, are sworn in during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law hearing on “Artificial Intelligence and The Future Of Journalism.”

Getty Images

On Wednesday, news industry executives urged Congress for legal clarification that using journalism to train AI assistants like ChatGPT is not fair use, as claimed by companies such as OpenAI. Instead, they would prefer a licensing regime for AI training content that would force Big Tech companies to pay for content in a method similar to rights clearinghouses for music.

The plea for action came during a US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Oversight of A.I.: The Future of Journalism,” chaired by Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, with Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri also playing a large role in the proceedings. Last year, the pair of senators introduced a bipartisan framework for AI legislation and held a series of hearings on the impact of AI.

Blumenthal described the situation as an “existential crisis” for the news industry and cited social media as a cautionary tale for legislative inaction about AI. “We need to move more quickly than we did on social media and learn from our mistakes in the delay there,” he said.

Companies like OpenAI have admitted that vast amounts of copyrighted material are necessary to train AI large language models, but they claim their use is transformational and covered under fair use precedents of US copyright law. Currently, OpenAI is negotiating licensing content from some news providers and striking deals, but the executives in the hearing said those efforts are not enough, highlighting closing newsrooms across the US and dropping media revenues while Big Tech’s profits soar.

“Gen AI cannot replace journalism,” said Condé Nast CEO Roger Lynch in his opening statement. (Condé Nast is the parent company of Ars Technica.) “Journalism is fundamentally a human pursuit, and it plays an essential and irreplaceable role in our society and our democracy.” Lynch said that generative AI has been built with “stolen goods,” referring to the use of AI training content from news outlets without authorization. “Gen AI companies copy and display our content without permission or compensation in order to build massive commercial businesses that directly compete with us.”

Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law during a hearing on “Artificial Intelligence and The Future Of Journalism.”

Enlarge / Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law during a hearing on “Artificial Intelligence and The Future Of Journalism.”

Getty Images

In addition to Lynch, the hearing featured three other witnesses: Jeff Jarvis, a veteran journalism professor and pundit; Danielle Coffey, the president and CEO of News Media Alliance; and Curtis LeGeyt, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters.

Coffey also shared concerns about generative AI using news material to create competitive products. “These outputs compete in the same market, with the same audience, and serve the same purpose as the original articles that feed the algorithms in the first place,” she said.

When Sen. Hawley asked Lynch what kind of legislation might be needed to fix the problem, Lynch replied, “I think quite simply, if Congress could clarify that the use of our content and other publisher content for training and output of AI models is not fair use, then the free market will take care of the rest.”

Lynch used the music industry as a model: “You think about millions of artists, millions of ultimate consumers consuming that content, there have been models that have been set up, ASCAP, BMI, CSAC, GMR, these collective rights organizations to simplify the content that’s being used.”

Curtis LeGeyt, CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, said that TV broadcast journalists are also affected by generative AI. “The use of broadcasters’ news content in AI models without authorization diminishes our audience’s trust and our reinvestment in local news,” he said. “Broadcasters have already seen numerous examples where content created by our journalists has been ingested and regurgitated by AI bots with little or no attribution.”

At Senate AI hearing, news executives fight against “fair use” claims for AI training data Read More »

openai’s-gpt-store-lets-chatgpt-users-discover-popular-user-made-chatbot-roles

OpenAI’s GPT Store lets ChatGPT users discover popular user-made chatbot roles

The bot of 1,000 faces —

Like an app store, people can find novel ChatGPT personalities—and some creators will get paid.

Two robots hold a gift box.

On Wednesday, OpenAI announced the launch of its GPT Store—a way for ChatGPT users to share and discover custom chatbot roles called “GPTs”—and ChatGPT Team, a collaborative ChatGPT workspace and subscription plan. OpenAI bills the new store as a way to “help you find useful and popular custom versions of ChatGPT” for members of Plus, Team, or Enterprise subscriptions.

“It’s been two months since we announced GPTs, and users have already created over 3 million custom versions of ChatGPT,” writes OpenAI in its promotional blog. “Many builders have shared their GPTs for others to use. Today, we’re starting to roll out the GPT Store to ChatGPT Plus, Team and Enterprise users so you can find useful and popular GPTs.”

OpenAI launched GPTs on November 6, 2023, as part of its DevDay event. Each GPT includes custom instructions and/or access to custom data or external APIs that can potentially make a custom GPT personality more useful than the vanilla ChatGPT-4 model. Before the GPT Store launch, paying ChatGPT users could create and share custom GPTs with others (by setting the GPT public and sharing a link to the GPT), but there was no central repository for browsing and discovering user-designed GPTs on the OpenAI website.

According to OpenAI, the ChatGPT Store will feature new GPTs every week, and the company shared a list a group of six notable early GPTs that are available now: AllTrails for finding hiking trails, Consensus for searching 200 million academic papers, Code Tutor for learning coding with Khan Academy, Canva for designing presentations, Books for discovering reading material, and CK-12 Flexi for learning math and science.

A screenshot of the OpenAI GPT Store provided by OpenAI.

Enlarge / A screenshot of the OpenAI GPT Store provided by OpenAI.

OpenAI

ChatGPT members can include their own GPTs in the GPT Store by setting them to be accessible to “Everyone” and then verifying a builder profile in ChatGPT settings. OpenAI plans to review GPTs to ensure they meet their policies and brand guidelines. GPTs that violate the rules can also be reported by users.

As promised by CEO Sam Altman during DevDay, OpenAI plans to share revenue with GPT creators. Unlike a smartphone app store, it appears that users will not sell their GPTs in the GPT Store, but instead, OpenAI will pay developers “based on user engagement with their GPTs.” The revenue program will launch in the first quarter of 2024, and OpenAI will provide more details on the criteria for receiving payments later.

“ChatGPT Team” is for teams who use ChatGPT

Also on Monday, OpenAI announced the cleverly named ChatGPT Team, a new group-based ChatGPT membership program akin to ChatGPT Enterprise, which the company launched last August. Unlike Enterprise, which is for large companies and does not have publicly listed prices, ChatGPT Team is a plan for “teams of all sizes” and costs US $25 a month per user (when billed annually) or US $30 a month per user (when billed monthly). By comparison, ChatGPT Plus costs $20 per month.

So what does ChatGPT Team offer above the usual ChatGPT Plus subscription? According to OpenAI, it “provides a secure, collaborative workspace to get the most out of ChatGPT at work.” Unlike Plus, OpenAI says it will not train AI models based on ChatGPT Team business data or conversations. It features an admin console for team management and the ability to share custom GPTs with your team. Like Plus, it also includes access to GPT-4 with the 32K context window, DALL-E 3, GPT-4 with Vision, Browsing, and Advanced Data Analysis—all with higher message caps.

Why would you want to use ChatGPT at work? OpenAI says it can help you generate better code, craft emails, analyze data, and more. Your mileage may vary, of course. As usual, our standard Ars warning about AI language models applies: “Bring your own data” for analysis, don’t rely on ChatGPT as a factual resource, and don’t rely on its outputs in ways you cannot personally confirm. OpenAI has provided more details about ChatGPT Team on its website.

OpenAI’s GPT Store lets ChatGPT users discover popular user-made chatbot roles Read More »

regulators-aren’t-convinced-that-microsoft-and-openai-operate-independently

Regulators aren’t convinced that Microsoft and OpenAI operate independently

Under Microsoft’s thumb? —

EU is fielding comments on potential market harms of Microsoft’s investments.

Regulators aren’t convinced that Microsoft and OpenAI operate independently

European Union regulators are concerned that Microsoft may be covertly controlling OpenAI as its biggest investor.

On Tuesday, the European Commission (EC) announced that it is currently “checking whether Microsoft’s investment in OpenAI might be reviewable under the EU Merger Regulation.”

The EC’s executive vice president in charge of competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, said in the announcement that rapidly advancing AI technologies are “disruptive” and have “great potential,” but to protect EU markets, a forward-looking analysis scrutinizing antitrust risks has become necessary.

Hoping to thwart predictable anticompetitive risks, the EC has called for public comments. Regulators are particularly keen to hear from policy experts, academics, and industry and consumer organizations who can identify “potential competition issues” stemming from tech companies partnering to develop generative AI and virtual world/metaverse systems.

The EC worries that partnerships like Microsoft and OpenAI could “result in entrenched market positions and potential harmful competition behavior that is difficult to address afterwards.” That’s why Vestager said that these partnerships needed to be “closely” monitored now—”to ensure they do not unduly distort market dynamics.”

Microsoft has denied having control over OpenAI.

A Microsoft spokesperson told Ars that, rather than stifling competition, since 2019, the tech giant has “forged a partnership with OpenAI that has fostered more AI innovation and competition, while preserving independence for both companies.”

But ever since Sam Altman was bizarrely ousted by OpenAI’s board, then quickly reappointed as OpenAI’s CEO—joining Microsoft for the brief time in between—regulators have begun questioning whether recent governance changes mean that Microsoft’s got more control over OpenAI than the companies have publicly stated.

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment. Last year, OpenAI confirmed that “it remained independent and operates competitively,” CNBC reported.

Beyond the EU, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and reportedly the US Federal Trade Commission have also launched investigations into Microsoft’s OpenAI investments. On January 3, the CMA ended its comments period, but it’s currently unclear whether significant competition issues were raised that could trigger a full-fledged CMA probe.

A CMA spokesperson declined Ars’ request to comment on the substance of comments received or to verify how many comments were received.

Antitrust legal experts told Reuters that authorities should act quickly to prevent “critical emerging technology” like generative AI from being “monopolized,” noting that before launching a probe, the CMA will need to find evidence showing that Microsoft’s influence over OpenAI materially changed after Altman’s reappointment.

The EC is also investigating partnerships beyond Microsoft and OpenAI, questioning whether agreements “between large digital market players and generative AI developers and providers” may impact EU market dynamics.

Microsoft observing OpenAI board meetings

In total, Microsoft has pumped $13 billion into OpenAI, CNBC reported, which has a somewhat opaque corporate structure. OpenAI’s parent company, Reuters reported in December, is a nonprofit, which is “a type of entity rarely subject to antitrust scrutiny.” But in 2019, as Microsoft started investing billions into the AI company, OpenAI also “set up a for-profit subsidiary, in which Microsoft owns a 49 percent stake,” an insider source told Reuters. On Tuesday, a nonprofit consumer rights group, the Public Citizen, called for California Attorney General Robert Bonta to “investigate whether OpenAI should retain its non-profit status.”

A Microsoft spokesperson told Reuters that the source’s information was inaccurate, reiterating that the terms of Microsoft’s agreement with OpenAI are confidential. Microsoft has maintained that while it is entitled to OpenAI’s profits, it does not own “any portion” of OpenAI.

After OpenAI’s drama with Altman ended with an overhaul of OpenAI’s board, Microsoft appeared to increase its involvement with OpenAI by receiving a non-voting observer role on the board. That’s what likely triggered lawmaker’s initial concerns that Microsoft “may be exerting control over OpenAI,” CNBC reported.

The EC’s announcement comes days after Microsoft confirmed that Dee Templeton would serve as the observer on OpenAI’s board, initially reported by Bloomberg.

Templeton has spent 25 years working for Microsoft and is currently vice president for technology and research partnerships and operations. According to Bloomberg, she has already attended OpenAI board meetings.

Microsoft’s spokesperson told Ars that adding a board observer was the only recent change in the company’s involvement in OpenAI. An OpenAI spokesperson told CNBC that Microsoft’s board observer has no “governing authority or control over OpenAI’s operations.”

By appointing Templeton as a board observer, Microsoft may simply be seeking to avoid any further surprises that could affect its investment in OpenAI, but the CMA has suggested that Microsoft’s involvement in the board may have created “a relevant merger situation” that could shake up competition in the UK if not appropriately regulated.

Regulators aren’t convinced that Microsoft and OpenAI operate independently Read More »

microsoft-is-adding-a-new-key-to-pc-keyboards-for-the-first-time-since-1994

Microsoft is adding a new key to PC keyboards for the first time since 1994

key change —

Copilot key will eventually be required in new PC keyboards, though not yet.

A rendering of Microsoft's Copilot key, as seen on a Surface-esque laptop keyboard.

Enlarge / A rendering of Microsoft’s Copilot key, as seen on a Surface-esque laptop keyboard.

Microsoft

Microsoft pushed throughout 2023 to add generative AI capabilities to its software, even extending its new Copilot AI assistant to Windows 10 late last year. Now, those efforts to transform PCs at a software level is extending to the hardware: Microsoft is adding a dedicated Copilot key to PC keyboards, adjusting the standard Windows keyboard layout for the first time since the Windows key first appeared on its Natural Keyboard in 1994.

The Copilot key will, predictably, open up the Copilot generative AI assistant within Windows 10 and Windows 11. On an up-to-date Windows PC with Copilot enabled, you can currently do the same thing by pressing Windows + C. For PCs without Copilot enabled, including those that aren’t signed into Microsoft accounts, the Copilot key will open Windows Search instead (though this is sort of redundant, since pressing the Windows key and then typing directly into the Start menu also activates the Search function).

A quick Microsoft demo video shows the Copilot key in between the cluster of arrow keys and the right Alt button, a place where many keyboards usually put a menu button, a right Ctrl key, another Windows key, or something similar. The exact positioning, and the key being replaced, may vary depending on the size and layout of the keyboard.

We asked Microsoft if a Copilot key would be required on OEM PCs going forward; the company told us that the key isn’t mandatory now, but that it expects Copilot keys to be required on Windows 11 keyboards “over time.” Microsoft often imposes some additional hardware requirements on major PC makers that sell Windows on their devices, beyond what is strictly necessary to run Windows itself.

If nothing else, this new key is a sign of how much Microsoft wants people to use Copilot and its other generative AI products. Plenty of past company initiatives—Bing, Edge, Cortana, and the Microsoft Store, to name a few—never managed to become baked into the hardware like this. In the Windows 8 epoch, Microsoft required OEMs to build a Windows button into the display bezel of devices with touchscreens, but that requirement eventually disappeared. If Copilot fizzles or is deemphasized the way Cortana was, the Copilot key could become a way to quickly date a Windows PC from the mid-2020s, the way that changes to the Windows logo date keyboards from earlier eras.

We’ll definitely see more AI features from Microsoft this year, too—Microsoft Chief Marketing Officer Yusuf Medhi called 2024 “the year of the AI PC” in today’s announcement.

Chipmakers like Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm are all building neural processing units (NPUs) into their latest silicon, and we’ll likely see more updates for Windows apps and features that can take advantage of this new on-device processing capability. Rumors also indicate that we could see a “Windows 12” release as soon as this year; while Windows 11 has mostly had AI features stacked on top of it, a new OS could launch with AI features more deeply integrated into the UI and apps, as well as additional hardware requirements for some features.

Microsoft says the Copilot key will debut in some PCs that will be announced at the Consumer Electronics Show this month. Surface devices with the revised keyboard layout are “upcoming.”

Microsoft is adding a new key to PC keyboards for the first time since 1994 Read More »

ny-times-copyright-suit-wants-openai-to-delete-all-gpt-instances

NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

Not the sincerest form of flattery —

Shows evidence that GPT-based systems will reproduce Times articles if asked.

Image of a CPU on a motherboard with

Enlarge / Microsoft is named in the suit for allegedly building the system that allowed GPT derivatives to be trained using infringing material.

In August, word leaked out that The New York Times was considering joining the growing legion of creators that are suing AI companies for misappropriating their content. The Times had reportedly been negotiating with OpenAI regarding the potential to license its material, but those talks had not gone smoothly. So, eight months after the company was reportedly considering suing, the suit has now been filed.

The Times is targeting various companies under the OpenAI umbrella, as well as Microsoft, an OpenAI partner that both uses it to power its Copilot service and helped provide the infrastructure for training the GPT Large Language Model. But the suit goes well beyond the use of copyrighted material in training, alleging that OpenAI-powered software will happily circumvent the Times’ paywall and ascribe hallucinated misinformation to the Times.

Journalism is expensive

The suit notes that The Times maintains a large staff that allows it to do things like dedicate reporters to a huge range of beats and engage in important investigative journalism, among other things. Because of those investments, the newspaper is often considered an authoritative source on many matters.

All of that costs money, and The Times earns that by limiting access to its reporting through a robust paywall. In addition, each print edition has a copyright notification, the Times’ terms of service limit the copying and use of any published material, and it can be selective about how it licenses its stories. In addition to driving revenue, these restrictions also help it to maintain its reputation as an authoritative voice by controlling how its works appear.

The suit alleges that OpenAI-developed tools undermine all of that. “By providing Times content without The Times’s permission or authorization, Defendants’ tools undermine and damage The Times’s relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue,” the suit alleges.

Part of the unauthorized use The Times alleges came during the training of various versions of GPT. Prior to GPT-3.5, information about the training dataset was made public. One of the sources used is a large collection of online material called “Common Crawl,” which the suit alleges contains information from 16 million unique records from sites published by The Times. That places the Times as the third most referenced source, behind Wikipedia and a database of US patents.

OpenAI no longer discloses as many details of the data used for training of recent GPT versions, but all indications are that full-text NY Times articles are still part of that process (Much more on that in a moment.) Expect access to training information to be a major issue during discovery if this case moves forward.

Not just training

A number of suits have been filed regarding the use of copyrighted material during training of AI systems. But the Times’ suit goes well beyond that to show how the material ingested during training can come back out during use. “Defendants’ GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style, as demonstrated by scores of examples,” the suit alleges.

The suit alleges—and we were able to verify—that it’s comically easy to get GPT-powered systems to offer up content that is normally protected by the Times’ paywall. The suit shows a number of examples of GPT-4 reproducing large sections of articles nearly verbatim.

The suit includes screenshots of ChatGPT being given the title of a piece at The New York Times and asked for the first paragraph, which it delivers. Getting the ensuing text is apparently as simple as repeatedly asking for the next paragraph.

ChatGPT has apparently closed that loophole in between the preparation of that suit and the present. We entered some of the prompts shown in the suit, and were advised “I recommend checking The New York Times website or other reputable sources,” although we can’t rule out that context provided prior to that prompt could produce copyrighted material.

Ask for a paragraph, and Copilot will hand you a wall of normally paywalled text.

Ask for a paragraph, and Copilot will hand you a wall of normally paywalled text.

John Timmer

But not all loopholes have been closed. The suit also shows output from Bing Chat, since rebranded as Copilot. We were able to verify that asking for the first paragraph of a specific article at The Times caused Copilot to reproduce the first third of the article.

The suit is dismissive of attempts to justify this as a form of fair use. “Publicly, Defendants insist that their conduct is protected as ‘fair use’ because their unlicensed use of copyrighted content to train GenAI models serves a new ‘transformative’ purpose,” the suit notes. “But there is nothing ‘transformative’ about using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it.”

Reputational and other damages

The hallucinations common to AI also came under fire in the suit for potentially damaging the value of the Times’ reputation, and possibly damaging human health as a side effect. “A GPT model completely fabricated that “The New York Times published an article on January 10, 2020, titled ‘Study Finds Possible Link between Orange Juice and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma,’” the suit alleges. “The Times never published such an article.”

Similarly, asking about a Times article on heart-healthy foods allegedly resulted in Copilot saying it contained a list of examples (which it didn’t). When asked for the list, 80 percent of the foods on weren’t even mentioned by the original article. In another case, recommendations were ascribed to the Wirecutter when the products hadn’t even been reviewed by its staff.

As with the Times material, it’s alleged that it’s possible to get Copilot to offer up large chunks of Wirecutter articles (The Wirecutter is owned by The New York Times). But the suit notes that these article excerpts have the affiliate links stripped out of them, keeping the Wirecutter from its primary source of revenue.

The suit targets various OpenAI companies for developing the software, as well as Microsoft—the latter for both offering OpenAI-powered services, and for having developed the computing systems that enabled the copyrighted material to be ingested during training. Allegations include direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, as well as DMCA and trademark violations. Finally, it alleges “Common Law Unfair Competition By Misappropriation.”

The suit seeks nothing less than the erasure of both any GPT instances that the parties have trained using material from the Times, as well as the destruction of the datasets that were used for the training. It also asks for a permanent injunction to prevent similar conduct in the future. The Times also wants money, lots and lots of money: “statutory damages, compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any other relief that may be permitted by law or equity.”

NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances Read More »

big-tech-is-spending-more-than-vc-firms-on-ai-startups

Big Tech is spending more than VC firms on AI startups

money cannon —

Microsoft, Google, and Amazon haved crowded out traditional Silicon Valley investors.

A string of deals by Microsoft, Google and Amazon amounted to two-thirds of the $27 billion raised by fledgling AI companies in 2023,

Enlarge / A string of deals by Microsoft, Google and Amazon amounted to two-thirds of the $27 billion raised by fledgling AI companies in 2023,

FT montage/Dreamstime

Big tech companies have vastly outspent venture capital groups with investments in generative AI startups this year, as established giants use their financial muscle to dominate the much-hyped sector.

Microsoft, Google and Amazon last year struck a series of blockbuster deals, amounting to two-thirds of the $27 billion raised by fledgling AI companies in 2023, according to new data from private market researchers PitchBook.

The huge outlay, which exploded after the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022, highlights how the biggest Silicon Valley groups are crowding out traditional tech investors for the biggest deals in the industry.

The rise of generative AI—systems capable of producing humanlike video, text, image and audio in seconds—have also attracted top Silicon Valley investors. But VCs have been outmatched, having been forced to slow down their spending as they adjust to higher interest rates and falling valuations for their portfolio companies.

“Over the past year, we’ve seen the market quickly consolidate around a handful of foundation models, with large tech players coming in and pouring billions of dollars into companies like OpenAI, Cohere, Anthropic and Mistral,” said Nina Achadjian, a partner at US venture firm Index Ventures referring to some of the top AI startups.

“For traditional VCs, you had to be in early and you had to have conviction—which meant being in the know on the latest AI research and knowing which teams were spinning out of Google DeepMind, Meta and others,” she added.

Financial Times

A string of deals, such as Microsoft’s $10 billion investment in OpenAI as well as billions of dollars raised by San Francisco-based Anthropic from both Google and Amazon, helped push overall spending on AI groups to nearly three times as much as the previous record of $11 billion set two years ago.

Venture investing in tech hit record levels in 2021, as investors took advantage of ultra-low interest rates to raise and deploy vast sums across a range of industries, particularly those most disrupted by Covid-19.

Microsoft has also committed $1.3 billion to Inflection, another generative AI start-up, as it looks to steal a march on rivals such as Google and Amazon.

Building and training generative AI tools is an intensive process, requiring immense computing power and cash. As a result, start-ups have preferred to partner with Big Tech companies which can provide cloud infrastructure and access to the most powerful chips as well as dollars.

That has rapidly pushed up the valuations of private start-ups in the space, making it harder for VCs to bet on the companies at the forefront of the technology. An employee stock sale at OpenAI is seeking to value the company at $86 billion, almost treble the valuation it received earlier this year.

“Even the world’s top venture investors, with tens of billions under management, can’t compete to keep these AI companies independent and create new challengers that unseat the Big Tech incumbents,” said Patrick Murphy, founding partner at Tapestry VC, an early-stage venture capital firm.

“In this AI platform shift, most of the potentially one-in-a-million companies to appear so far have been captured by the Big Tech incumbents already.”

VCs are not absent from the market, however. Thrive Capital, Josh Kushner’s New York-based firm, is the lead investor in OpenAI’s employee stock sale, having already backed the company earlier this year. Thrive has continued to invest throughout a downturn in venture spending in 2023.

Paris-based Mistral raised around $500 million from investors including venture firms Andreessen Horowitz and General Catalyst, and chipmaker Nvidia since it was founded in May this year.

Some VCs are seeking to invest in companies building applications that are being built over so-called “foundation models” developed by OpenAI and Anthropic, in much the same way apps began being developed on mobile devices in the years after smartphones were introduced.

“There is this myth that only the foundation model companies matter,” said Sarah Guo, founder of AI-focused venture firm Conviction. “There is a huge space of still-unexplored application domains for AI, and a lot of the most valuable AI companies will be fundamentally new.”

Additional reporting by Tim Bradshaw.

© 2023 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Big Tech is spending more than VC firms on AI startups Read More »

a-song-of-hype-and-fire:-the-10-biggest-ai-stories-of-2023

A song of hype and fire: The 10 biggest AI stories of 2023

An illustration of a robot accidentally setting off a mushroom cloud on a laptop computer.

Getty Images | Benj Edwards

“Here, There, and Everywhere” isn’t just a Beatles song. It’s also a phrase that recalls the spread of generative AI into the tech industry during 2023. Whether you think AI is just a fad or the dawn of a new tech revolution, it’s been impossible to deny that AI news has dominated the tech space for the past year.

We’ve seen a large cast of AI-related characters emerge that includes tech CEOs, machine learning researchers, and AI ethicists—as well as charlatans and doomsayers. From public feedback on the subject of AI, we’ve heard that it’s been difficult for non-technical people to know who to believe, what AI products (if any) to use, and whether we should fear for our lives or our jobs.

Meanwhile, in keeping with a much-lamented trend of 2022, machine learning research has not slowed down over the past year. On X, former Biden administration tech advisor Suresh Venkatasubramanian wrote, “How do people manage to keep track of ML papers? This is not a request for support in my current state of bewilderment—I’m genuinely asking what strategies seem to work to read (or “read”) what appear to be 100s of papers per day.”

To wrap up the year with a tidy bow, here’s a look back at the 10 biggest AI news stories of 2023. It was very hard to choose only 10 (in fact, we originally only intended to do seven), but since we’re not ChatGPT generating reams of text without limit, we have to stop somewhere.

Bing Chat “loses its mind”

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

In February, Microsoft unveiled Bing Chat, a chatbot built into its languishing Bing search engine website. Microsoft created the chatbot using a more raw form of OpenAI’s GPT-4 language model but didn’t tell everyone it was GPT-4 at first. Since Microsoft used a less conditioned version of GPT-4 than the one that would be released in March, the launch was rough. The chatbot assumed a temperamental personality that could easily turn on users and attack them, tell people it was in love with them, seemingly worry about its fate, and lose its cool when confronted with an article we wrote about revealing its system prompt.

Aside from the relatively raw nature of the AI model Microsoft was using, at fault was a system where very long conversations would push the conditioning system prompt outside of its context window (like a form of short-term memory), allowing all hell to break loose through jailbreaks that people documented on Reddit. At one point, Bing Chat called me “the culprit and the enemy” for revealing some of its weaknesses. Some people thought Bing Chat was sentient, despite AI experts’ assurances to the contrary. It was a disaster in the press, but Microsoft didn’t flinch, and it ultimately reigned in some of Bing Chat’s wild proclivities and opened the bot widely to the public. Today, Bing Chat is now known as Microsoft Copilot, and it’s baked into Windows.

US Copyright Office says no to AI copyright authors

An AI-generated image that won a prize at the Colorado State Fair in 2022, later denied US copyright registration.

Enlarge / An AI-generated image that won a prize at the Colorado State Fair in 2022, later denied US copyright registration.

Jason M. Allen

In February, the US Copyright Office issued a key ruling on AI-generated art, revoking the copyright previously granted to the AI-assisted comic book “Zarya of the Dawn” in September 2022. The decision, influenced by the revelation that the images were created using the AI-powered Midjourney image generator, stated that only the text and arrangement of images and text by Kashtanova were eligible for copyright protection. It was the first hint that AI-generated imagery without human-authored elements could not be copyrighted in the United States.

This stance was further cemented in August when a US federal judge ruled that art created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted. In September, the US Copyright Office rejected the registration for an AI-generated image that won a Colorado State Fair art contest in 2022. As it stands now, it appears that purely AI-generated art (without substantial human authorship) is in the public domain in the United States. This stance could be further clarified or changed in the future by judicial rulings or legislation.

A song of hype and fire: The 10 biggest AI stories of 2023 Read More »

on-openai-dev-day

On OpenAI Dev Day

OpenAI DevDay was this week. What delicious and/or terrifying things await?

First off, we have GPT-4-Turbo.

Today we’re launching a preview of the next generation of this model, GPT-4 Turbo

GPT-4 Turbo is more capable and has knowledge of world events up to April 2023. It has a 128k context window so it can fit the equivalent of more than 300 pages of text in a single prompt. We also optimized its performance so we are able to offer GPT-4 Turbo at a 3x cheaper price for input tokens and a 2x cheaper price for output tokens compared to GPT-4.

GPT-4 Turbo is available for all paying developers to try by passing gpt-4-1106-preview in the API and we plan to release the stable production-ready model in the coming weeks.

Knowledge up to April 2023 is a big game. Cutting the price in half is another big game. A 128k context window retakes the lead on that from Claude-2. That chart from last week of how GPT-4 was slow and expensive, opening up room for competitors? Back to work, everyone.

What else?

Function calling updates

Function calling lets you describe functions of your app or external APIs to models, and have the model intelligently choose to output a JSON object containing arguments to call those functions. We’re releasing several improvements today, including the ability to call multiple functions in a single message: users can send one message requesting multiple actions, such as “open the car window and turn off the A/C”, which would previously require multiple roundtrips with the model (learn more). We are also improving function calling accuracy: GPT-4 Turbo is more likely to return the right function parameters.

This kind of feature seems highly fiddly and dependent. When it starts working well enough, suddenly it is great, and I have no idea if this will count. I will watch out for reports. For now, I am not trying to interact with any APIs via GPT-4. Use caution.

Improved instruction following and JSON mode

GPT-4 Turbo performs better than our previous models on tasks that require the careful following of instructions, such as generating specific formats (e.g., “always respond in XML”). It also supports our new JSON mode, which ensures the model will respond with valid JSON. The new API parameter response_format enables the model to constrain its output to generate a syntactically correct JSON object. JSON mode is useful for developers generating JSON in the Chat Completions API outside of function calling.

Better instruction following is incrementally great. Always frustrating when instructions can’t be relied upon. Could allow some processes to be profitably automated.

Reproducible outputs and log probabilities

The new seed parameter enables reproducible outputs by making the model return consistent completions most of the time. This beta feature is useful for use cases such as replaying requests for debugging, writing more comprehensive unit tests, and generally having a higher degree of control over the model behavior. We at OpenAI have been using this feature internally for our own unit tests and have found it invaluable. We’re excited to see how developers will use it. Learn more.

We’re also launching a feature to return the log probabilities for the most likely output tokens generated by GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-3.5 Turbo in the next few weeks, which will be useful for building features such as autocomplete in a search experience.

I love the idea of seeing the probabilities of different responses on the regular, especially if incorporated into ChatGPT. It provides so much context for knowing what to make of the answer. The distribution of possible answers is the true answer. Super excited in a good way.

Updated GPT-3.5 Turbo

In addition to GPT-4 Turbo, we are also releasing a new version of GPT-3.5 Turbo that supports a 16K context window by default. The new 3.5 Turbo supports improved instruction following, JSON mode, and parallel function calling. For instance, our internal evals show a 38% improvement on format following tasks such as generating JSON, XML and YAML. Developers can access this new model by calling gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 in the API. Applications using the gpt-3.5-turbo name will automatically be upgraded to the new model on December 11. Older models will continue to be accessible by passing gpt-3.5-turbo-0613 in the API until June 13, 2024. Learn more.

Some academics will presumably grumble that the old version is going away. Such incremental improvements seem nice, but with GPT-4 getting a price cut and turbo boost, should be less call for 3.5. I can still see using it in things like multi-agent world simulations.

This claims you can now use GPT 3.5 at only a modest additional marginal cost versus Llama-2.

Hamel Husain: What’s wild is the new pricing for GPT 3.5 is competitive with commercially hosted ~ 70B Llama endpoints like those offered by anyscale and http://fireworks.ai. Cost is eroding as a moat gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 Pricing is $1/1M input and $2/1M output. [Versus 0.15 and 0.20 per million tokens]

I don’t interpret the numbers that way yet. There is still a substantial difference at scale, a factor of five or six. If you cannot afford the superior GPT-4 for a given use case, you may want the additional discount. And as all costs go down, there will be temptation to use far more queries. A factor of five is not nothing.

I’m going to skip ahead a bit to take care of all the incremental stuff first:

All right, back to normal unscary things, there’s new modalities?

New modalities in the API

GPT-4 Turbo with vision

GPT-4 Turbo can accept images as inputs in the Chat Completions API, enabling use cases such as generating captions, analyzing real world images in detail, and reading documents with figures. For example, BeMyEyes uses this technology to help people who are blind or have low vision with daily tasks like identifying a product or navigating a store. Developers can access this feature by using gpt-4-vision-preview in the API. We plan to roll out vision support to the main GPT-4 Turbo model as part of its stable release. Pricing depends on the input image size. For instance, passing an image with 1080×1080 pixels to GPT-4 Turbo costs $0.00765. Check out our vision guide.

DALL·E 3

Developers can integrate DALL·E 3, which we recently launched to ChatGPT Plus and Enterprise users, directly into their apps and products through our Images API by specifying dall-e-3 as the model. Companies like Snap, Coca-Cola, and Shutterstock have used DALL·E 3 to programmatically generate images and designs for their customers and campaigns. Similar to the previous version of DALL·E, the API incorporates built-in moderation to help developers protect their applications against misuse. We offer different format and quality options, with prices starting at $0.04 per image generated. Check out our guide to getting started with DALL·E 3 in the API.

Text-to-speech (TTS)

Developers can now generate human-quality speech from text via the text-to-speech API. Our new TTS model offers six preset voices to choose from and two model variants, tts-1 and tts-1-hd. tts is optimized for real-time use cases and tts-1-hd is optimized for quality. Pricing starts at $0.015 per input 1,000 characters. Check out our TTS guide to get started.

I can see the DALL-E 3 prices adding up to actual money. When I use Stable Diffusion, it is not so unusual that I ask for the full 100 generations, then go away for a while and come back, why not? Of course, it would be worth it for the quality boost, provided DALL-E 3 was willing to do whatever I happened to want that day. The text-to-speech seems not free but highly reasonably priced. All the voices seem oddly similar. I do like them. When do we get our licensed celebrity voice options? So many good choices.

Model customization

GPT-4 fine tuning experimental access

We’re creating an experimental access program for GPT-4 fine-tuning. Preliminary results indicate that GPT-4 fine-tuning requires more work to achieve meaningful improvements over the base model compared to the substantial gains realized with GPT-3.5 fine-tuning. As quality and safety for GPT-4 fine-tuning improves, developers actively using GPT-3.5 fine-tuning will be presented with an option to apply to the GPT-4 program within their fine-tuning console.

All right, sure, I suppose it is that time, makes sense that improvement is harder. Presumably it is easier if you want a quirkier thing. I do not know how the fine-tuning is protected against jailbreak attempts, anyone want to explain?

Custom models

For organizations that need even more customization than fine-tuning can provide (particularly applicable to domains with extremely large proprietary datasets—billions of tokens at minimum), we’re also launching a Custom Models program, giving selected organizations an opportunity to work with a dedicated group of OpenAI researchers to train custom GPT-4 to their specific domain. This includes modifying every step of the model training process, from doing additional domain specific pre-training, to running a custom RL post-training process tailored for the specific domain. Organizations will have exclusive access to their custom models. In keeping with our existing enterprise privacy policies, custom models will not be served to or shared with other customers or used to train other models. Also, proprietary data provided to OpenAI to train custom models will not be reused in any other context. This will be a very limited (and expensive) program to start—interested orgs can apply here.

Expensive is presumably the watchword. This will not be cheap. Then again, compared to the potential, could be very cheap indeed.

So far, so incremental, you love to see it, and… wait, what?

Today, we’re releasing the Assistants API, our first step towards helping developers build agent-like experiences within their own applications. An assistant is a purpose-built AI that has specific instructions, leverages extra knowledge, and can call models and tools to perform tasks. The new Assistants API provides new capabilities such as Code Interpreter and Retrieval as well as function calling to handle a lot of the heavy lifting that you previously had to do yourself and enable you to build high-quality AI apps.

This API is designed for flexibility; use cases range from a natural language-based data analysis app, a coding assistant, an AI-powered vacation planner, a voice-controlled DJ, a smart visual canvas—the list goes on. The Assistants API is built on the same capabilities that enable our new GPTs product: custom instructions and tools such as Code interpreter, Retrieval, and function calling.

A key change introduced by this API is persistent and infinitely long threads, which allow developers to hand off thread state management to OpenAI and work around context window constraints. With the Assistants API, you simply add each new message to an existing thread.

Assistants also have access to call new tools as needed, including:

  • Code Interpreter: writes and runs Python code in a sandboxed execution environment, and can generate graphs and charts, and process files with diverse data and formatting. It allows your assistants to run code iteratively to solve challenging code and math problems, and more.

  • Retrieval: augments the assistant with knowledge from outside our models, such as proprietary domain data, product information or documents provided by your users. This means you don’t need to compute and store embeddings for your documents, or implement chunking and search algorithms. The Assistants API optimizes what retrieval technique to use based on our experience building knowledge retrieval in ChatGPT.

  • Function calling: enables assistants to invoke functions you define and incorporate the function response in their messages.

As with the rest of the platform, data and files passed to the OpenAI API are never used to train our models and developers can delete the data when they see fit.

You can try the Assistants API beta without writing any code by heading to the Assistants playground.

It has been months since I wrote On AutoGPT and everyone was excited. All the hype around agents died off and everyone seemed to despair of making them work in the current model generation. OpenAI had the inside track in many ways, so perhaps they made it work a lot better? We will find out. If you’re not a little nervous, that seems like a mistake.

All right, what’s up with these ‘GPTs’?

First off, horrible name, highly confusing, please fix. Alas, they won’t.

All right, what do we got?

Ah, one of the obvious things we should obviously do that will open up tons of possibilities, I feel bad I didn’t say it explicitly and get zero credit but we were all thinking it.

We’re rolling out custom versions of ChatGPT that you can create for a specific purpose—called GPTs. GPTs are a new way for anyone to create a tailored version of ChatGPT to be more helpful in their daily life, at specific tasks, at work, or at home—and then share that creation with others. For example, GPTs can help you learn the rules to any board game, help teach your kids math, or design stickers.

Anyone can easily build their own GPT—no coding is required. You can make them for yourself, just for your company’s internal use, or for everyone. Creating one is as easy as starting a conversation, giving it instructions and extra knowledge, and picking what it can do, like searching the web, making images or analyzing data.

Example GPTs are available today for ChatGPT Plus and Enterprise users to try out including Canva and Zapier AI Actions. We plan to offer GPTs to more users soon.

There will be an app GPT store, your privacy is safe, if you are feeling frisky you can connect your APIs and then perhaps noting is safe. This is a minute-long demo of a Puppy Hotline, which is an odd example since I’m not sure why all of that shouldn’t work normally anyway.

An incrementally better example is Sam Altman’s creation of the Startup Mentor, which he has grill the user on why they are not growing faster. Again, this is very much functionally a configuration of an LLM, a GPT, rather than an agent. It might include some if-then statements, perhaps. Which is all good, these are things we want and don’t seem dangerous.

Tyler Cowen’s GOAT is another example. Authors can upload a book plus some instructions, suddenly you can chat with the book, takes minutes to hours of your time.

The educational possibilities alone write themselves. The process is so fast you can create one of these daily for a child’s homework assignment, or create one for yourself to spend an hour learning about something.

One experiment I want someone to run is to try using this to teach someone a foreign language. Consider Scott Alexander’s proposed experiment, where you start with English, and then gradually move over to Japanese grammar and vocabulary over time. Now consider doing that with a GPT, as you do what you were doing anyway, and where you can pause and ask if anything is ever confusing, and you can reply back in a hybrid as well.

The right way to use ChatGPT going forward might be to follow the programmer’s maxim that if you do it three times, you should automate it, except now the threshold might be two and if something is nontrivial it also might be one. You can use others’ versions, but there is a lot to be said for rolling one’s own if the process is easy. If it works well enough, of course. But if so, game changer.

Also goes without saying that if you could combine this with removing the adult content filtering, especially if you still had image generation and audio but even without them, that would be a variety of products in very high demand.

Ethan Mollick sums up the initial state of GPTs this way:

  • Right now, GPTs are the easiest way of sharing structured prompts, which are programs, written in plain English (or another language), that can get the AI to do useful things. I discussed creating structured prompts last week, and all the same techniques apply, but the GPT system makes structured prompts more powerful and much easier to create, test, and share. I think this will help solve some of the most important AI use cases (how do I give people in my school, organization, or community access to a good AI tool?)

  • GPTs show a near future where AIs can really start to act as agents, since these GPTs have the ability to connect to other products and services, from your email to a shopping website, making it possible for AIs to do a wide range of tasks. So GPTs are a precursor of the next wave of AI.

  • They also suggest new future vulnerabilities and risks. As AIs are connected to more systems, and begin to act more autonomously, the chance of them being used maliciously increases.

The easy way to make a GPT is something called GPT Builder. In this mode, the AI helps you create a GPT through conversation. You can also test out the results in a window on the side of the interface and ask for live changes, creating a way to iterate and improve your work.

Behind the scenes, based on the conversation I had, the AI is filling out a detailed configuration of the GPT, which I can also edit manually.

To really build a great GPT, you are going to need to modify or build the structured prompt yourself.

As usual, reliability is not perfect, and mistakes are often silent, a warning not to presume or rely upon a GPT will properly absorb details.

The same thing is true here. The file reference system in the GPTs is immensely powerful, but is not flawless. For example, I fed in over 1,000 pages of rules across seven PDFs for an extremely complex game, and the AI was able to do a good job figuring out the rules, walking me through the process of getting started, and rolling dice to help me set up a character. Humans would have struggled to make all of that work. But it also made up a few details that weren’t in the game, and missed other points entirely. I had no warning that these mistakes happened, and would not have noticed them if I wasn’t cross-referencing the rules myself.

I am totally swamped right now. I am also rather excited to build once I get access.

Alas, for now, that continues to wait.

Sam Altman (November 8): usage of our new features from devday is far outpacing our expectations. we were planning to go live with GPTs for all subscribers Monday but still haven’t been able to. we are hoping to soon. there will likely be service instability in the short term due to load. sorry :/

Kevin Fischer: I like to imagine this is GPT coming alive.

Luckily that is obviously not what is happening, but for the record I do not like to imagine that, because I like remaining alive.

There are going to be a lot of cool things. Also a lot of things that aspire to be cool, that claim they will be cool, that are not cool.

Charles Frye: hope i am proven wrong in my fear that “GPTs” will 100x this tech’s reputation for vaporous demoware.

Vivek Ponnaiyan: It’ll be long tail dynamics like the apple App Store.

Agents are where claims of utility go to die. Even if some of it starts working, expect much death to continue.

From the presentation it seems they will be providing a copyright shield to ChatGPT users in case they get sued. This seems like a very SBF-style moment? It is a great idea, except when maybe just maybe it destroys your entire company, but that totally won’t happen right?

Will this kill a bunch of start-ups, the way Microsoft would by incorporating features into Windows? Yes. It is a good thing, the new way is better for everyone, time to go build something else. Should have planned ahead.

Laura Wendel: new toxic relationship just dropped

Brotzky: All the jokes about OpenAI killing startups with each new release have some validity.

We just removed Pinecone and Langchain from our codebase lowering our monthly fees and removing a lot of complexity.

New Assistants API is fantastic ✨

Downside: having to poll Runs endpoint for a result..

Some caveats

– our usecase is “simple” and assistants api fit us perfectly

– we don’t use agents yet

– we use files a lot Look forward to all this AI competition bringing costs down.

Sam Hogan: Just tested OpenAI’s new Assistant’s API.

This is now all the code you need to create a custom ChatGPT trained on an entire website.

Less than 30 lines 🤯

McKay Wrigley: I’m blown away by OpenAI DevDay… I can’t put into words how much the world just changed. This is a 1000x improvement. We’re living in the infancy of an AI revolution that will bring us a golden age beyond our wildest dreams. It’s time to build.

Interestingly, I had 100x typed out originally and changed it to 1000x. These are obviously not measurable, but it more accurately conveys how I feel. I don’t think people truly grasp (myself included!) what just got unlocked and what is about to happen.

Look, no, stop. This stuff is cool and all. I am super excited to play with GPTs and longer context windows and feature integration. Is it all three orders of magnitude over the previous situation? I mean, seriously, what are you even talking about? I know words do not have meaning, but what of the sacred trust that is numbers?

I suppose if you think of it as ‘10 times better’ meaning ‘good enough that you could use this edge to displace an incumbent service’ rather than ‘this is ten times as useful or valuable’ then yes if it they did their jobs this seems ten times better. Maybe even ten times better twice. But to multiply that together is at best to mix metaphors, and this does not plausibly constitute three consecutive such disruptions.

Unless these new agents actually work far better than anyone expects, in which case who knows. I will note that if so, that does not seem like especially… good… news, in a ‘I hope we are not all about to die’ kind of way.

It is also worth noting that this all means that when GPT-5 does arrive, there will be all this infrastructure waiting to go, that will suddenly get very interesting.

Paul Graham retweeted the above quote, and also this related one:

Paul Graham: This is not a random tech visionary. This is a CEO of an actual AI company. So when he says more has happened in the last year than the previous ten, it’s not just a figure of speech.

Alexander Wang (CEO Scale AI): more has happened in the last year of AI than the prior 10 we are unmistakably in the fiery takeoff of the most important technology of the rest of our lives everybody—governments, citizens, technologists—is awaiting w/bated breath (some helplessly) the next version of humanity.

Being the CEO of an AI company does not seem incompatible with what is traditionally referred to as ‘hype.’ When people in AI talk about factors of ten, one cannot automatically take it at face value, as we saw directly above.

Also, yes, ‘the next version of humanity’ sounds suspiciously like tech speak for ‘also we are all quite possibly going to die, but that is a good thing.’

Ben Thompson has covered a lot of keynote presentations, and found this to be an excellent keynote presentation, perhaps a sign they will make a comeback. While he found the new GPTs exciting, he focuses in terms of business impact where I initially focused, which was on the ordinary and seamless feature improvements.

Users get faster responses, a larger context window, more up to date knowledge, and better integration of modalities of web browsing, vision, hearing, speech and image generation. Quality of life improvements, getting rid of annoyances, filling in practical gaps that made a big marginal difference.

How good are the new context windows? Greg Kamradt reports.

Findings:

GPT-4’s recall performance started to degrade above 73K tokens

Low recall performance was correlated when the fact to be recalled was placed between at 7%-50% document depth

If the fact was at the beginning of the document, it was recalled regardless of context length

So what: No Guarantees – Your facts are not guaranteed to be retrieved. Don’t bake the assumption they will into your applications

Less context = more accuracy – This is well know, but when possible reduce the amount of context you send to GPT-4 to increase its ability to recall

Position matters – Also well know, but facts placed at the very beginning and 2nd half of the document seem to be recalled better.

It makes sense to allow 128k tokens or even more than that, even if performance degrades starting around 73k. For practical purposes, sounds like we want to stick to the smaller amount, but it is good not to have a lower hard cap.

Will Thompson be right that the base UI, essentially no UI at all, is where most users will want to remain and what matters most? Or will we all be using GPTs all the time?

In the short term he is clearly correct. The incremental improvements matter more. But as we learn to build GPTs for ourselves both quick and dirty and bespoke, and learn to use those of others, I expect there to be very large value adds, even if it is ‘you find the 1-3 that work for you and always use them.’

Kevin Fisher notes something I have found as well: LLMs can use web browsing in a pinch, but when you have the option you usually want to avoid this. ‘Do not use web browsing’ will sometimes be a good message to include. Kevin is most concerned about speed but I’ve also found other problems.

Nathan Lebenz suggested on a recent podcast that the killer integration is GPT-4V plus web browsing, allowing the LLM to browse the web and accomplish things. Here is vimGPT, a first attempt. Here are some more demos. We should give people time to see what they can come up with.

Currently conspicuously absent is the ability to make a GPT that selects between a set of available GPTs and then seamlessly calls the one most appropriate to your query. That would combine the functionality into the invisible ‘ultimate’ UI of a text box and attachment button, an expansion of seamless switching between existing base modalities. For now, one can presumably still do this ‘the hard way’ by calling other things that then call your GPTs.

On OpenAI Dev Day Read More »