Artificial Intelligence

us-government-agency-drops-grok-after-mechahitler-backlash,-report-says

US government agency drops Grok after MechaHitler backlash, report says

xAI apparently lost a government contract after a tweak to Grok’s prompting triggered an antisemitic meltdown where the chatbot praised Hitler and declared itself MechaHitler last month.

Despite the scandal, xAI announced that its products would soon be available for federal workers to purchase through the General Services Administration. At the time, xAI claimed this was an “important milestone” for its government business.

But Wired reviewed emails and spoke to government insiders, which revealed that GSA leaders abruptly decided to drop xAI’s Grok from their contract offering. That decision to pull the plug came after leadership allegedly rushed staff to make Grok available as soon as possible following a persuasive sales meeting with xAI in June.

It’s unclear what exactly caused the GSA to reverse course, but two sources told Wired that they “believe xAI was pulled because of Grok’s antisemitic tirade.”

As of this writing, xAI’s “Grok for Government” website has not been updated to reflect GSA’s supposed removal of Grok from an offering that xAI noted would have allowed “every federal government department, agency, or office, to access xAI’s frontier AI products.”

xAI did not respond to Ars’ request to comment and so far has not confirmed that the GSA offering is off the table. If Wired’s report is accurate, GSA’s decision also seemingly did not influence the military’s decision to move forward with a $200 million xAI contract the US Department of Defense granted last month.

Government’s go-to tools will come from xAI’s rivals

If Grok is cut from the contract, that would suggest that Grok’s meltdown came at perhaps the worst possible moment for xAI, which is building the “world’s biggest supercomputer” as fast as it can to try to get ahead of its biggest AI rivals.

Grok seemingly had the potential to become a more widely used tool if federal workers opted for xAI’s models. Through Donald Trump’s AI Action Plan, the president has similarly emphasized speed, pushing for federal workers to adopt AI as quickly as possible. Although xAI may no longer be involved in that broad push, other AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have partnered with the government to help Trump pull that off and stand to benefit long-term if their tools become entrenched in certain agencies.

US government agency drops Grok after MechaHitler backlash, report says Read More »

google-releases-pint-size-gemma-open-ai-model

Google releases pint-size Gemma open AI model

Big tech has spent the last few years creating ever-larger AI models, leveraging rack after rack of expensive GPUs to provide generative AI as a cloud service. But tiny AI matters, too. Google has announced a tiny version of its Gemma open model designed to run on local devices. Google says the new Gemma 3 270M can be tuned in a snap and maintains robust performance despite its small footprint.

Google released its first Gemma 3 open models earlier this year, featuring between 1 billion and 27 billion parameters. In generative AI, the parameters are the learned variables that control how the model processes inputs to estimate output tokens. Generally, the more parameters in a model, the better it performs. With just 270 million parameters, the new Gemma 3 can run on devices like smartphones or even entirely inside a web browser.

Running an AI model locally has numerous benefits, including enhanced privacy and lower latency. Gemma 3 270M was designed with these kinds of use cases in mind. In testing with a Pixel 9 Pro, the new Gemma was able to run 25 conversations on the Tensor G4 chip and use just 0.75 percent of the device’s battery. That makes it by far the most efficient Gemma model.

Small Gemma benchmark

Gemma 3 270M shows strong instruction-following for its small size.

Credit: Google

Gemma 3 270M shows strong instruction-following for its small size. Credit: Google

Developers shouldn’t expect the same performance level of a multi-billion-parameter model, but Gemma 3 270M has its uses. Google used the IFEval benchmark, which tests a model’s ability to follow instructions, to show that its new model punches above its weight. Gemma 3 270M hits a score of 51.2 percent in this test, which is higher than other lightweight models that have more parameters. The new Gemma falls predictably short of 1 billion-plus models like Llama 3.2, but it gets closer than you might think for having just a fraction of the parameters.

Google releases pint-size Gemma open AI model Read More »

sam-altman-finally-stood-up-to-elon-musk-after-years-of-x-trolling

Sam Altman finally stood up to Elon Musk after years of X trolling


Elon Musk and Sam Altman are beefing. But their relationship is complicated.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Much attention was paid to OpenAI’s Sam Altman and xAI’s Elon Musk trading barbs on X this week after Musk threatened to sue Apple over supposedly biased App Store rankings privileging ChatGPT over Grok.

But while the heated social media exchanges were among the most tense ever seen between the two former partners who cofounded OpenAI—more on that below—it seems likely that their jabs were motivated less by who’s in the lead on Apple’s “Must Have” app list than by an impending order in a lawsuit that landed in the middle of their public beefing.

Yesterday, a court ruled that OpenAI can proceed with claims that Musk was so incredibly stung by OpenAI’s success after his exit didn’t doom the nascent AI company that he perpetrated a “years-long harassment campaign” to take down OpenAI.

Musk’s motivation? To clear the field for xAI to dominate the AI industry instead, OpenAI alleged.

OpenAI’s accusations arose as counterclaims in a lawsuit that Musk initially filed in 2024. Musk has alleged that Altman and OpenAI had made a “fool” of Musk, goading him into $44 million in donations by “preying on Musk’s humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence.”

But OpenAI insists that Musk’s lawsuit is just one prong in a sprawling, “unlawful,” and “unrelenting” harassment campaign that Musk waged to harm OpenAI’s business by forcing the company to divert resources or expend money on things like withdrawn legal claims and fake buyouts.

“Musk could not tolerate seeing such success for an enterprise he had abandoned and declared doomed,” OpenAI argued. “He made it his project to take down OpenAI, and to build a direct competitor that would seize the technological lead—not for humanity but for Elon Musk.”

Most significantly, OpenAI alleged that Musk forced OpenAI to entertain a “sham” bid to buy the company in February. Musk then shared details of the bid with The Wall Street Journal to artificially raise the price of OpenAI and potentially spook investors, OpenAI alleged. The company further said that Musk never intended to buy OpenAI and is willing to go to great lengths to mislead the public about OpenAI’s business so he can chip away at OpenAI’s head start in releasing popular generative AI products.

“Musk has tried every tool available to harm OpenAI,” Altman’s company said.

To this day, Musk maintains that Altman pretended that OpenAI would remain a nonprofit serving the public good in order to seize access to Musk’s money and professional connections in its first five years and gain a lead in AI. As Musk sees it, Altman always intended to “betray” these promises in pursuit of personal gains, and Musk is hoping a court will return any ill-gotten gains to Musk and xAI.

In a small win for Musk, the court ruled that OpenAI will have to wait until the first phase of the trial litigating Musk’s claims concludes before the court will weigh OpenAI’s theories on Musk’s alleged harassment campaign. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers noted that all of OpenAI’s counterclaims occurred after the period in which Musk’s claims about a supposed breach of contract occurred, necessitating a division of the lawsuit into two parts. Currently, the jury trial is scheduled for March 30, 2026, presumably after which, OpenAI’s claims can be resolved.

If yesterday’s X clash between the billionaires is any indication, it seems likely that tensions between Altman and Musk will only grow as discovery and expert testimony on Musk’s claims proceed through December.

Whether OpenAI will prevail on its counterclaims is anybody’s guess. Gonzalez Rogers noted that Musk and OpenAI have been hypocritical in arguments raised so far, condemning the “gamesmanship of both sides” as “obvious, as each flip flops.” However, “for the purposes of pleading an unfair or fraudulent business practice, it is sufficient [for OpenAI] to allege that the bid was a sham and designed to mislead,” Gonzalez Rogers said, since OpenAI has alleged the sham bid “ultimately did” harm its business.

In April, OpenAI told the court that the AI company risks “future irreparable harm” if Musk’s alleged campaign continues. Fast-forward to now, and Musk’s legal threat to OpenAI’s partnership with Apple seems to be the next possible front Musk may be exploring to allegedly harass Altman and intimidate OpenAI.

“With every month that has passed, Musk has intensified and expanded the fronts of his campaign against OpenAI,” OpenAI argued. Musk “has proven himself willing to take ever more dramatic steps to seek a competitive advantage for xAI and to harm Altman, whom, in the words of the President of the United States, Musk ‘hates.'”

Tensions escalate as Musk brands Altman a “liar”

On Monday evening, Musk threatened to sue Apple for supposedly favoring ChatGPT in App Store rankings, which he claimed was “an unequivocal antitrust violation.”

Seemingly defending Apple later that night, Altman called Musk’s claim “remarkable,” claiming he’s heard allegations that Musk manipulates “X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

At 4 am on Tuesday, Musk appeared to lose his cool, firing back a post that sought to exonerate the X owner of any claims that he tweaks his social platform to favor his own posts.

“You got 3M views on your bullshit post, you liar, far more than I’ve received on many of mine, despite me having 50 times your follower count!” Musk responded.

Altman apparently woke up ready to keep the fight going, suggesting that his post got more views as a fluke. He mocked X as running into a “skill issue” or “bots” messing with Musk’s alleged agenda to boost his posts above everyone else. Then, in what may be the most explosive response to Musk yet, Altman dared Musk to double down on his defense, asking, “Will you sign an affidavit that you have never directed changes to the X algorithm in a way that has hurt your competitors or helped your own companies? I will apologize if so.”

Court filings from each man’s legal team show how fast their friendship collapsed. But even as Musk’s alleged harassment campaign started taking shape, their social media interactions show that underlying the legal battles and AI ego wars, the tech billionaires are seemingly hiding profound respect for—and perhaps jealousy of—each other’s accomplishments.

A brief history of Musk and Altman’s feud

Musk and Altman’s friendship started over dinner in July 2015. That’s when Musk agreed to help launch “an AGI project that could become and stay competitive with DeepMind, an AI company under the umbrella of Google,” OpenAI’s filing said. At that time, Musk feared that a private company like Google would never be motivated to build AI to serve the public good.

The first clash between Musk and Altman happened six months later. Altman wanted OpenAI to be formed as a nonprofit, but Musk thought that was not “optimal,” OpenAI’s filing said. Ultimately, Musk was overruled, and he joined the nonprofit as a “member” while also becoming co-chair of OpenAI’s board.

But perhaps the first major disagreement, as Musk tells it, came in 2016, when Altman and Microsoft struck a deal to sell compute to OpenAI at a “steep discount”—”so long as the non-profit agreed to publicly promote Microsoft’s products.” Musk rejected the “marketing ploy,” telling Altman that “this actually made me feel nauseous.”

Next, OpenAI claimed that Musk had a “different idea” in 2017 when OpenAI “began considering an organizational change that would allow supporters not just to donate, but to invest.” Musk wanted “sole control of the new for-profit,” OpenAI alleged, and he wanted to be CEO. The other founders, including Altman, “refused to accept” an “AGI dictatorship” that was “dominated by Musk.”

“Musk was incensed,” OpenAI said, threatening to leave OpenAI over the disagreement, “or I’m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for you to create a startup.”

But Musk floated one more idea between 2017 and 2018 before severing ties—offering to sell OpenAI to Tesla so that OpenAI could use Tesla as a “cash cow.” But Altman and the other founders still weren’t comfortable with Musk controlling OpenAI, rejecting the idea and prompting Musk’s exit.

In his filing, Musk tells the story a little differently, however. He claimed that he only “briefly toyed with the idea of using Tesla as OpenAI’s ‘cash cow'” after Altman and others pressured him to agree to a for-profit restructuring. According to Musk, among the last straws was a series of “get-rich-quick schemes” that Altman proposed to raise funding, including pushing a strategy where OpenAI would launch a cryptocurrency that Musk worried threatened the AI company’s credibility.

When Musk left OpenAI, it was “noisy but relatively amicable,” OpenAI claimed. But Musk continued to express discomfort from afar, still donating to OpenAI as Altman grabbed the CEO title in 2019 and created a capped-profit entity that Musk seemed to view as shady.

“Musk asked Altman to make clear to others that he had ‘no financial interest in the for-profit arm of OpenAI,'” OpenAI noted, and Musk confirmed he issued the demand “with evident displeasure.”

Although they often disagreed, Altman and Musk continued to publicly play nice on Twitter (the platform now known as X), casually chatting for years about things like movies, space, and science, including repeatedly joking about Musk’s posts about using drugs like Ambien.

By 2019, it seemed like none of these disagreements had seriously disrupted the friendship. For example, at that time, Altman defended Musk against people rooting against Tesla’s success, writing that “betting against Elon is historically a mistake” and seemingly hyping Tesla by noting that “the best product usually wins.”

The niceties continued into 2021, when Musk publicly praised “nice work by OpenAI” integrating its coding model into GitHub’s AI tool. “It is hard to do useful things,” Musk said, drawing a salute emoji from Altman.

This was seemingly the end of Musk playing nice with OpenAI, though. Soon after ChatGPT’s release in November 2022, Musk allegedly began his attacks, seemingly willing to change his tactics on a whim.

First, he allegedly deemed OpenAI “irrelevant,” predicting it would “obviously” fail. Then, he started sounding alarms, joining a push for a six-month pause on generative AI development. Musk specifically claimed that any model “more advanced than OpenAI’s just-released GPT-4” posed “profound risks to society and humanity,” OpenAI alleged, seemingly angling to pause OpenAI’s development in particular.

However, in the meantime, Musk started “quietly building a competitor,” xAI, without announcing those efforts in March 2023, OpenAI alleged. Allegedly preparing to hobble OpenAI’s business after failing with the moratorium push, Musk had his personal lawyer contact OpenAI and demand “access to OpenAI’s confidential and commercially sensitive internal documents.”

Musk claimed the request was to “ensure OpenAI was not being taken advantage of or corrupted by Microsoft,” but two weeks later, he appeared on national TV, insinuating that OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft was “improper,” OpenAI alleged.

Eventually, Musk announced xAI in July 2023, and that supposedly motivated Musk to deepen his harassment campaign, “this time using the courts and a parallel, carefully coordinated media campaign,” OpenAI said, as well as his own social media platform.

Musk “supercharges” X attacks

As OpenAI’s success mounted, the company alleged that Musk began specifically escalating his social media attacks on X, including broadcasting to his 224 million followers that “OpenAI is a house of cards” after filing his 2024 lawsuit.

Claiming he felt conned, Musk also pressured regulators to probe OpenAI, encouraging attorneys general of California and Delaware to “force” OpenAI, “without legal basis, to auction off its assets for the benefit of Musk and his associates,” OpenAI said.

By 2024, Musk had “supercharged” his X attacks, unleashing a “barrage of invective against the enterprise and its leadership, variously describing OpenAI as a ‘digital Frankenstein’s monster,’ ‘a lie,’ ‘evil,’ and ‘a total scam,'” OpenAI alleged.

These attacks allegedly culminated in Musk’s seemingly fake OpenAI takeover attempt in 2025, which OpenAI claimed a Musk ally, Ron Baron, admitted on CNBC was “pitched to him” as not an attempt to actually buy OpenAI’s assets, “but instead to obtain ‘discovery’ and get ‘behind the wall’ at OpenAI.”

All of this makes it harder for OpenAI to achieve the mission that Musk is supposedly suing to defend, OpenAI claimed. They told the court that “OpenAI has borne costs, and been harmed, by Musk’s abusive tactics and unrelenting efforts to mislead the public for his own benefit and to OpenAI’s detriment and the detriment of its mission.”

But Musk argues that it’s Altman who always wanted sole control over OpenAI, accusing his former partner of rampant self-dealing and “locking down the non-profit’s technology for personal gain” as soon as “OpenAI reached the threshold of commercially viable AI.” He further claimed OpenAI blocked xAI funding by reportedly asking investors to avoid backing rival startups like Anthropic or xAI.

Musk alleged:

Altman alone stands to make billions from the non-profit Musk co-founded and invested considerable money, time, recruiting efforts, and goodwill in furtherance of its stated mission. Altman’s scheme has now become clear: lure Musk with phony philanthropy; exploit his money, stature, and contacts to secure world-class AI scientists to develop leading technology; then feed the non-profit’s lucrative assets into an opaque profit engine and proceed to cash in as OpenAI and Microsoft monopolize the generative AI market.

For Altman, this week’s flare-up, where he finally took a hard jab back at Musk on X, may be a sign that Altman is done letting Musk control the narrative on X after years of somewhat tepidly pushing back on Musk’s more aggressive posts.

In 2022, for example, Musk warned after ChatGPT’s release that the chatbot was “scary good,” warning that “we are not far from dangerously strong AI.” Altman responded, cautiously agreeing that OpenAI was “dangerously” close to “strong AI in the sense of an AI that poses e.g. a huge cybersecurity risk” but “real” artificial general intelligence still seemed at least a decade off.

And Altman gave no response when Musk used Grok’s jokey programming to mock GPT-4 as “GPT-Snore” in 2024.

However, Altman seemingly got his back up after Musk mocked OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate Project, which launched with the US government in January of this year. On X, Musk claimed that OpenAI doesn’t “actually have the money” for the project, which Altman said was “wrong,” while mockingly inviting Musk to visit the worksite.

“This is great for the country,” Altman said, retorting, “I realize what is great for the country isn’t always what’s optimal for your companies, but in your new role [at the Department of Government Efficiency], I hope you’ll mostly put [America] first.”

It remains to be seen whether Altman wants to keep trading jabs with Musk, who is generally a huge fan of trolling on X. But Altman seems more emboldened this week than he was back in January before Musk’s breakup with Donald Trump. Back then, even when he was willing to push back on Musk’s Stargate criticism by insulting Musk’s politics, he still took the time to let Musk know that he still cares.

“I genuinely respect your accomplishments and think you are the most inspiring entrepreneur of our time,” Altman told Musk in January.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Sam Altman finally stood up to Elon Musk after years of X trolling Read More »

musk-threatens-to-sue-apple-so-grok-can-get-top-app-store-ranking

Musk threatens to sue Apple so Grok can get top App Store ranking

After spending last week hyping Grok’s spicy new features, Elon Musk kicked off this week by threatening to sue Apple for supposedly gaming the App Store rankings to favor ChatGPT over Grok.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote on X, without providing any evidence. “xAI will take immediate legal action.”

In another post, Musk tagged Apple, asking, “Why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps?”

“Are you playing politics?” Musk asked. “What gives? Inquiring minds want to know.”

Apple did not respond to the post and has not responded to Ars’ request to comment.

At the heart of Musk’s complaints is an OpenAI partnership that Apple announced last year, integrating ChatGPT into versions of its iPhone, iPad, and Mac operating systems.

Musk has alleged that this partnership incentivized Apple to boost ChatGPT rankings. OpenAI’s popular chatbot “currently holds the top spot in the App Store’s ‘Top Free Apps’ section for iPhones in the US,” Reuters noted, “while xAI’s Grok ranks fifth and Google’s Gemini chatbot sits at 57th.” Sensor Tower data shows ChatGPT similarly tops Google Play Store rankings.

While Musk seems insistent that ChatGPT is artificially locked in the lead, fact-checkers on X added a community note to his post. They confirmed that at least one other AI tool has somewhat recently unseated ChatGPT in the US rankings. Back in January, DeepSeek topped App Store charts and held the lead for days, ABC News reported.

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on Musk’s allegations, but an OpenAI developer, Steven Heidel, did add a quip in response to one of Musk’s posts, writing, “Don’t forget to also blame Google for OpenAI being #1 on Android, and blame SimilarWeb for putting ChatGPT above X on the most-visited websites list, and blame….”

Musk threatens to sue Apple so Grok can get top App Store ranking Read More »

reddit-blocks-internet-archive-to-end-sneaky-ai-scraping

Reddit blocks Internet Archive to end sneaky AI scraping

“Until they’re able to defend their site and comply with platform policies (e.g., respecting user privacy, re: deleting removed content) we’re limiting some of their access to Reddit data to protect redditors,” Rathschmidt said.

A review of social media comments suggests that in the past, some Redditors have used the Wayback Machine to research deleted comments or threads. Those commenters noted that myriad other tools exist for surfacing deleted posts or researching a user’s activity, with some suggesting that the Wayback Machine was maybe not the easiest platform to navigate for that purpose.

Redditors have also turned to resources like IA during times when Reddit’s platform changes trigger content removals. Most recently in 2023, when changes to Reddit’s public API threatened to kill beloved subreddits, archives stepped in to preserve content before it was lost.

IA has not signaled whether it’s looking into fixes to get Reddit’s restrictions lifted and did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on how this change might impact the archive’s utility as an open web resource, given Reddit’s popularity.

The director of the Wayback Machine, Mark Graham, told Ars that IA has “a longstanding relationship with Reddit” and continues to have “ongoing discussions about this matter.”

It seems likely that Reddit is financially motivated to restrict AI firms from taking advantage of Wayback Machine archives, perhaps hoping to spur more lucrative licensing deals like Reddit struck with OpenAI and Google. The terms of the OpenAI deal were kept quiet, but the Google deal was reportedly worth $60 million. Over the next three years, Reddit expects to make more than $200 million off such licensing deals.

Disclosure: Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit.

Reddit blocks Internet Archive to end sneaky AI scraping Read More »

ai-industry-horrified-to-face-largest-copyright-class-action-ever-certified

AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified

According to the groups, allowing copyright class actions in AI training cases will result in a future where copyright questions remain unresolved and the risk of “emboldened” claimants forcing enormous settlements will chill investments in AI.

“Such potential liability in this case exerts incredibly coercive settlement pressure for Anthropic,” industry groups argued, concluding that “as generative AI begins to shape the trajectory of the global economy, the technology industry cannot withstand such devastating litigation. The United States currently may be the global leader in AI development, but that could change if litigation stymies investment by imposing excessive damages on AI companies.”

Some authors won’t benefit from class actions

Industry groups joined Anthropic in arguing that, generally, copyright suits are considered a bad fit for class actions because each individual author must prove ownership of their works. And the groups weren’t alone.

Also backing Anthropic’s appeal, advocates representing authors—including Authors Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and Public Knowledge—pointed out that the Google Books case showed that proving ownership is anything but straightforward.

In the Anthropic case, advocates for authors criticized Alsup for basically judging all 7 million books in the lawsuit by their covers. The judge allegedly made “almost no meaningful inquiry into who the actual members are likely to be,” as well as “no analysis of what types of books are included in the class, who authored them, what kinds of licenses are likely to apply to those works, what the rightsholders’ interests might be, or whether they are likely to support the class representatives’ positions.”

Ignoring “decades of research, multiple bills in Congress, and numerous studies from the US Copyright Office attempting to address the challenges of determining rights across a vast number of books,” the district court seemed to expect that authors and publishers would easily be able to “work out the best way to recover” damages.

AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified Read More »

chatgpt-users-hate-gpt-5’s-“overworked-secretary”-energy,-miss-their-gpt-4o-buddy

ChatGPT users hate GPT-5’s “overworked secretary” energy, miss their GPT-4o buddy

Others are irked by how quickly they run up against usage limits on the free tier, which pushes them toward the Plus ($20) and Pro ($200) subscriptions. But running generative AI is hugely expensive, and OpenAI is hemorrhaging cash. It wouldn’t be surprising if the wide rollout of GPT-5 is aimed at increasing revenue. At the same time, OpenAI can point to AI evaluations that show GPT-5 is more intelligent than its predecessor.

RIP your AI buddy

OpenAI built ChatGPT to be a tool people want to use. It’s a fine line to walk—OpenAI has occasionally made its flagship AI too friendly and complimentary. Several months ago, the company had to roll back a change that made the bot into a sycophantic mess that would suck up to the user at every opportunity. That was a bridge too far, certainly, but many of the company’s users liked the generally friendly tone of the chatbot. They tuned the AI with custom prompts and built it into a personal companion. They’ve lost that with GPT-5.

No new AI

Naturally, ChatGPT users have turned to AI to express their frustration.

Credit: /u/Responsible_Cow2236

Naturally, ChatGPT users have turned to AI to express their frustration. Credit: /u/Responsible_Cow2236

There are reasons to be wary of this kind of parasocial attachment to artificial intelligence. As companies have tuned these systems to increase engagement, they prioritize outputs that make people feel good. This results in interactions that can reinforce delusions, eventually leading to serious mental health episodes and dangerous medical beliefs. It can be hard to understand for those of us who don’t spend our days having casual conversations with ChatGPT, but the Internet is teeming with folks who build their emotional lives around AI.

Is GPT-5 safer? Early impressions from frequent chatters decry the bot’s more corporate, less effusively creative tone. In short, a significant number of people don’t like the outputs as much. GPT-5 could be a more able analyst and worker, but it isn’t the digital companion people have come to expect, and in some cases, love. That might be good in the long term, both for users’ mental health and OpenAI’s bottom line, but there’s going to be an adjustment period for fans of GPT-4o.

Chatters who are unhappy with the more straightforward tone of GPT-5 can always go elsewhere. Elon Musk’s xAI has shown it is happy to push the envelope with Grok, featuring Taylor Swift nudes and AI waifus. Of course, Ars does not recommend you do that.

ChatGPT users hate GPT-5’s “overworked secretary” energy, miss their GPT-4o buddy Read More »

openai-releases-its-first-open-source-models-since-2019

OpenAI releases its first open source models since 2019

OpenAI is releasing new generative AI models today, and no, GPT-5 is not one of them. Depending on how you feel about generative AI, these new models may be even more interesting, though. The company is rolling out gpt-oss-120b and gpt-oss-20b, its first open weight models since the release of GPT-2 in 2019. You can download and run these models on your own hardware, with support for simulated reasoning, tool use, and deep customization.

When you access the company’s proprietary models in the cloud, they’re running on powerful server infrastructure that cannot be replicated easily, even in enterprise. The new OpenAI models come in two variants (120b and 20b) to be run on less powerful hardware configurations. Both are transformers with configurable chain of thought (CoT), supporting low, medium, and high settings. The lower settings are faster and use fewer compute resources, but the outputs are better with the highest setting. You can set the CoT level with a single line in the system prompt.

The smaller gpt-oss-20b has a total of 21 billion parameters, utilizing mixture-of-experts (MoE) to reduce that to 3.6 billion parameters per token. As for gpt-oss-120b, its 117 billion parameters come down to 5.1 billion per token with MoE. The company says the smaller model can run on a consumer-level machine with 16GB or more of memory. To run gpt-oss-120b, you need 80GB of memory, which is more than you’re likely to find in the average consumer machine. It should fit on a single AI accelerator GPU like the Nvidia H100, though. Both models have a context window of 128,000 tokens.

Credit: OpenAI

The team says users of gpt-oss can expect robust performance similar to its leading cloud-based models. The larger one benchmarks between the o3 and o4-mini proprietary models in most tests, with the smaller version running just a little behind. It gets closest in math and coding tasks. In the knowledge-based Humanity’s Last Exam, o3 is far out in front with 24.9 percent (with tools), while gpt-oss-120b only manages 19 percent. For comparison, Google’s leading Gemini Deep Think hits 34.8 percent in that test.

OpenAI releases its first open source models since 2019 Read More »

deepmind-reveals-genie-3-“world-model”-that-creates-real-time-interactive-simulations

DeepMind reveals Genie 3 “world model” that creates real-time interactive simulations

While no one has figured out how to make money from generative artificial intelligence, that hasn’t stopped Google DeepMind from pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with a big pile of inference. The capabilities (and costs) of these models have been on an impressive upward trajectory, a trend exemplified by the reveal of Genie 3. A mere seven months after showing off the Genie 2 “foundational world model,” which was itself a significant improvement over its predecessor, Google now has Genie 3.

With Genie 3, all it takes is a prompt or image to create an interactive world. Since the environment is continuously generated, it can be changed on the fly. You can add or change objects, alter weather conditions, or insert new characters—DeepMind calls these “promptable events.” The ability to create alterable 3D environments could make games more dynamic for players and offer developers new ways to prove out concepts and level designs. However, many in the gaming industry have expressed doubt that such tools would help.

Genie 3: building better worlds.

It’s tempting to think of Genie 3 simply as a way to create games, but DeepMind sees this as a research tool, too. Games play a significant role in the development of artificial intelligence because they provide challenging, interactive environments with measurable progress. That’s why DeepMind previously turned to games like Go and StarCraft to expand the bounds of AI.

World models take that to the next level, generating an interactive world frame by frame. This provides an opportunity to refine how AI models—including so-called “embodied agents”—behave when they encounter real-world situations. One of the primary limitations as companies work toward the goal of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the scarcity of reliable training data. After piping basically every webpage and video on the planet into AI models, researchers are turning toward synthetic data for many applications. DeepMind believes world models could be a key part of this effort, as they can be used to train AI agents with essentially unlimited interactive worlds.

DeepMind says Genie 3 is an important advancement because it offers much higher visual fidelity than Genie 2, and it’s truly real-time. Using keyboard input, it’s possible to navigate the simulated world in 720p resolution at 24 frames per second. Perhaps even more importantly, Genie 3 can remember the world it creates.

DeepMind reveals Genie 3 “world model” that creates real-time interactive simulations Read More »

delta-denies-using-ai-to-come-up-with-inflated,-personalized-prices

Delta denies using AI to come up with inflated, personalized prices

Delta scandal highlights value of transparency

According to Delta, the company has “zero tolerance for discriminatory or predatory pricing” and only feeds its AI system aggregated data “to enhance our existing fare pricing processes.”

Rather than basing fare prices on customers’ personal information, Carter clarified that “all customers have access to the same fares and offers based on objective criteria provided by the customer such as origin and destination, advance purchase, length of stay, refundability, and travel experience selected.”

The AI use can result in higher or lower prices, but not personalized fares for different customers, Carter said. Instead, Delta plans to use AI pricing to “enhance market competitiveness and drive sales, benefiting both our customers and our business.”

Factors weighed by the AI system, Carter explained, include “customer demand for seats and purchasing data at an aggregated level, competitive offers and schedules, route performance, and cost of providing the service inclusive of jet fuel.” That could potentially mean a rival’s promotion or schedule change could trigger the AI system to lower prices to stay competitive, or it might increase prices based on rising fuel costs to help increase revenue or meet business goals.

“Given the tens of millions of fares and hundreds of thousands of routes for sale at any given time, the use of new technology like AI promises to streamline the process by which we analyze existing data and the speed and scale at which we can respond to changing market dynamics,” Carter wrote.

He explained the AI system helps Delta aggregate purchasing data for specific routes and flights, adapt to new market conditions, and factor in “thousands of variables simultaneously.” AI could also eventually be used to assist with crew scheduling, improve flight availability, or help reservation specialists answer complex questions or resolve disputes.

But “to reiterate, prices are not targeted to individual consumers,” Carter emphasized.

Delta further pointed out that the company does not require customers to log in to search for tickets, which means customers can search for flights without sharing any personal information.

For AI companies paying attention to the Delta backlash, there may be a lesson about the value of transparency in Delta’s scandal. Critics noted Delta was among the first to admit it was using AI to influence pricing, but the vague explanation on the earnings call stoked confusion over how, as Delta seemed to drag its feet amid calls by groups like Consumer Watchdog for more transparency.

Delta denies using AI to come up with inflated, personalized prices Read More »

google-releases-gemini-2.5-deep-think-for-ai-ultra-subscribers

Google releases Gemini 2.5 Deep Think for AI Ultra subscribers

Google is unleashing its most powerful Gemini model today, but you probably won’t be able to try it. After revealing Gemini 2.5 Deep Think at the I/O conference back in May, Google is making this AI available in the Gemini app. Deep Think is designed for the most complex queries, which means it uses more compute resources than other models. So it should come as no surprise that only those subscribing to Google’s $250 AI Ultra plan will be able to access it.

Deep Think is based on the same foundation as Gemini 2.5 Pro, but it increases the “thinking time” with greater parallel analysis. According to Google, Deep Think explores multiple approaches to a problem, even revisiting and remixing the various hypotheses it generates. This process helps it create a higher-quality output.

Deep Think benchmarks

Credit: Google

Like some other heavyweight Gemini tools, Deep Think takes several minutes to come up with an answer. This apparently makes the AI more adept at design aesthetics, scientific reasoning, and coding. Google has exposed Deep Think to the usual battery of benchmarks, showing that it surpasses the standard Gemini 2.5 Pro and competing models like OpenAI o3 and Grok 4. Deep Think shows a particularly large gain in Humanity’s Last Exam, a collection of 2,500 complex, multi-modal questions that cover more than 100 subjects. Other models top out at 20 or 25 percent, but Gemini 2.5 Deep Think managed a score of 34.8 percent.

Google releases Gemini 2.5 Deep Think for AI Ultra subscribers Read More »

google-confirms-it-will-sign-the-eu-ai-code-of-practice

Google confirms it will sign the EU AI Code of Practice

The regulation of AI systems could be the next hurdle as Big Tech aims to deploy technologies framed as transformative and vital to the future. Google products like search and Android have been in the sights of EU regulators for years, so getting in on the ground floor with the AI code would help it navigate what will surely be a tumultuous legal environment.

A comprehensive AI framework

The US has shied away from AI regulation, and the current administration is actively working to remove what few limits are in place. The White House even attempted to ban all state-level AI regulation for a period of ten years in the recent tax bill. Europe, meanwhile, is taking the possible negative impacts of AI tools seriously with a rapidly evolving regulatory framework.

The AI Code of Practice aims to provide AI firms with a bit more certainty in the face of a shifting landscape. It was developed with the input of more than 1,000 citizen groups, academics, and industry experts. The EU Commission says companies that adopt the voluntary code will enjoy a lower bureaucratic burden, easing compliance with the block’s AI Act, which came into force last year.

Under the terms of the code, Google will have to publish summaries of its model training data and disclose additional model features to regulators. The code also includes guidance on how firms should manage safety and security in compliance with the AI Act. Likewise, it includes paths to align a company’s model development with EU copyright law as it pertains to AI, a sore spot for Google and others.

Companies like Meta that don’t sign the code will not escape regulation. All AI companies operating in Europe will have to abide by the AI Act, which includes the most detailed regulatory framework for generative AI systems in the world. The law bans high-risk uses of AI like intentional deception or manipulation of users, social scoring systems, and real-time biometric scanning in public spaces. Companies that violate the rules in the AI Act could be hit with fines as high as 35 million euros ($40.1 million) or up to 7 percent of the offender’s global revenue.

Google confirms it will sign the EU AI Code of Practice Read More »