Enlarge/ Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., during a fireside discussion on artificial intelligence risks with Rishi Sunak, UK prime minister, in London, UK, on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023.
On Monday, Elon Musk announced the start of training for what he calls “the world’s most powerful AI training cluster” at xAI’s new supercomputer facility in Memphis, Tennessee. The billionaire entrepreneur and CEO of multiple tech companies took to X (formerly Twitter) to share that the so-called “Memphis Supercluster” began operations at approximately 4: 20 am local time that day.
Musk’s xAI team, in collaboration with X and Nvidia, launched the supercomputer cluster featuring 100,000 liquid-cooled H100 GPUs on a single RDMA fabric. This setup, according to Musk, gives xAI “a significant advantage in training the world’s most powerful AI by every metric by December this year.”
Given issues with xAI’s Grok chatbot throughout the year, skeptics would be justified in questioning whether those claims will match reality, especially given Musk’s tendency for grandiose, off-the-cuff remarks on the social media platform he runs.
Power issues
According to a report by News Channel 3 WREG Memphis, the startup of the massive AI training facility marks a milestone for the city. WREG reports that xAI’s investment represents the largest capital investment by a new company in Memphis’s history. However, the project has raised questions among local residents and officials about its impact on the area’s power grid and infrastructure.
WREG reports that Doug McGowen, president of Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW), previously stated that xAI could consume up to 150 megawatts of power at peak times. This substantial power requirement has prompted discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) regarding the project’s electricity demands and connection to the power system.
The TVA told the local news station, “TVA does not have a contract in place with xAI. We are working with xAI and our partners at MLGW on the details of the proposal and electricity demand needs.”
The local news outlet confirms that MLGW has stated that xAI moved into an existing building with already existing utility services, but the full extent of the company’s power usage and its potential effects on local utilities remain unclear. To address community concerns, WREG reports that MLGW plans to host public forums in the coming days to provide more information about the project and its implications for the city.
For now, Tom’s Hardware reports that Musk is side-stepping power issues by installing a fleet of 14 VoltaGrid natural gas generators that provide supplementary power to the Memphis computer cluster while his company works out an agreement with the local power utility.
As training at the Memphis Supercluster gets underway, all eyes are on xAI and Musk’s ambitious goal of developing the world’s most powerful AI by the end of the year (by which metric, we are uncertain), given the competitive landscape in AI at the moment between OpenAI/Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Anthropic, and Google. If such an AI model emerges from xAI, we’ll be ready to write about it.
This article was updated on July 24, 2024 at 1: 11 pm to mention Musk installing natural gas generators onsite in Memphis.
In the AI world, there’s a buzz in the air about a new AI language model released Tuesday by Meta: Llama 3.1 405B. The reason? It’s potentially the first time anyone can download a GPT-4-class large language model (LLM) for free and run it on their own hardware. You’ll still need some beefy hardware: Meta says it can run on a “single server node,” which isn’t desktop PC-grade equipment. But it’s a provocative shot across the bow of “closed” AI model vendors such as OpenAI and Anthropic.
“Llama 3.1 405B is the first openly available model that rivals the top AI models when it comes to state-of-the-art capabilities in general knowledge, steerability, math, tool use, and multilingual translation,” says Meta. Company CEO Mark Zuckerberg calls 405B “the first frontier-level open source AI model.”
In the AI industry, “frontier model” is a term for an AI system designed to push the boundaries of current capabilities. In this case, Meta is positioning 405B among the likes of the industry’s top AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4o, Claude’s 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini 1.5 Pro.
A chart published by Meta suggests that 405B gets very close to matching the performance of GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet in benchmarks like MMLU (undergraduate level knowledge), GSM8K (grade school math), and HumanEval (coding).
But as we’ve noted many times since March, these benchmarks aren’t necessarily scientifically sound or translate to the subjective experience of interacting with AI language models. In fact, this traditional slate of AI benchmarks is so generally useless to laypeople that even Meta’s PR department now just posts a few images of charts and doesn’t even try to explain them in any detail.
Enlarge/ A Meta-provided chart that shows Llama 3.1 405B benchmark results versus other major AI models.
We’ve instead found that measuring the subjective experience of using a conversational AI model (through what might be called “vibemarking”) on A/B leaderboards like Chatbot Arena is a better way to judge new LLMs. In the absence of Chatbot Arena data, Meta has provided the results of its own human evaluations of 405B’s outputs that seem to show Meta’s new model holding its own against GPT-4 Turbo and Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Enlarge/ A Meta-provided chart that shows how humans rated Llama 3.1 405B’s outputs compared to GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet in its own studies.
Whatever the benchmarks, early word on the street (after the model leaked on 4chan yesterday) seems to match the claim that 405B is roughly equivalent to GPT-4. It took a lot of expensive computer training time to get there—and money, of which the social media giant has plenty to burn. Meta trained the 405B model on over 15 trillion tokens of training data scraped from the web (then parsed, filtered, and annotated by Llama 2), using more than 16,000 H100 GPUs.
So what’s with the 405B name? In this case, “405B” means 405 billion parameters, and parameters are numerical values that store trained information in a neural network. More parameters translate to a larger neural network powering the AI model, which generally (but not always) means more capability, such as better ability to make contextual connections between concepts. But larger-parameter models have a tradeoff in needing more computing power (AKA “compute”) to run.
We’ve been expecting the release of a 400 billion-plus parameter model of the Llama 3 family since Meta gave word that it was training one in April, and today’s announcement isn’t just about the biggest member of the Llama 3 family: There’s an entirely new iteration of improved Llama models with the designation “Llama 3.1.” That includes upgraded versions of its smaller 8B and 70B models, which now feature multilingual support and an extended context length of 128,000 tokens (the “context length” is roughly the working memory capacity of the model, and “tokens” are chunks of data used by LLMs to process information).
Meta says that 405B is useful for long-form text summarization, multilingual conversational agents, and coding assistants and for creating synthetic data used to train future AI language models. Notably, that last use-case—allowing developers to use outputs from Llama models to improve other AI models—is now officially supported by Meta’s Llama 3.1 license for the first time.
Abusing the term “open source”
Llama 3.1 405B is an open-weights model, which means anyone can download the trained neural network files and run them or fine-tune them. That directly challenges a business model where companies like OpenAI keep the weights to themselves and instead monetize the model through subscription wrappers like ChatGPT or charge for access by the token through an API.
Fighting the “closed” AI model is a big deal to Mark Zuckerberg, who simultaneously released a 2,300-word manifesto today on why the company believes in open releases of AI models, titled, “Open Source AI Is the Path Forward.” More on the terminology in a minute. But briefly, he writes about the need for customizable AI models that offer user control and encourage better data security, higher cost-efficiency, and better future-proofing, as opposed to vendor-locked solutions.
All that sounds reasonable, but undermining your competitors using a model subsidized by a social media war chest is also an efficient way to play spoiler in a market where you might not always win with the most cutting-edge tech. That benefits Meta, Zuckerberg says, because he doesn’t want to get locked into a system where companies like his have to pay a toll to access AI capabilities, drawing comparisons to “taxes” Apple levies on developers through its App Store.
Enlarge/ A screenshot of Mark Zuckerberg’s essay, “Open Source AI Is the Path Forward,” published on July 23, 2024.
So, about that “open source” term. As we first wrote in an update to our Llama 2 launch article a year ago, “open source” has a very particular meaning that has traditionally been defined by the Open Source Initiative. The AI industry has not yet settled on terminology for AI model releases that ship either code or weights with restrictions (such as Llama 3.1) or that ship without providing training data. We’ve been calling these releases “open weights” instead.
Unfortunately for terminology sticklers, Zuckerberg has now baked the erroneous “open source” label into the title of his potentially historic aforementioned essay on open AI releases, so fighting for the correct term in AI may be a losing battle. Still, his usage annoys people like independent AI researcher Simon Willison, who likes Zuckerberg’s essay otherwise.
“I see Zuck’s prominent misuse of ‘open source’ as a small-scale act of cultural vandalism,” Willison told Ars Technica. “Open source should have an agreed meaning. Abusing the term weakens that meaning which makes the term less generally useful, because if someone says ‘it’s open source,’ that no longer tells me anything useful. I have to then dig in and figure out what they’re actually talking about.”
The Llama 3.1 models are available for download through Meta’s own website and on Hugging Face. They both require providing contact information and agreeing to a license and an acceptable use policy, which means that Meta can technically legally pull the rug out from under your use of Llama 3.1 or its outputs at any time.
OpenAI recently unveiled a five-tier system to gauge its advancement toward developing artificial general intelligence (AGI), according to an OpenAI spokesperson who spoke with Bloomberg. The company shared this new classification system on Tuesday with employees during an all-hands meeting, aiming to provide a clear framework for understanding AI advancement. However, the system describes hypothetical technology that does not yet exist and is possibly best interpreted as a marketing move to garner investment dollars.
OpenAI has previously stated that AGI—a nebulous term for a hypothetical concept that means an AI system that can perform novel tasks like a human without specialized training—is currently the primary goal of the company. The pursuit of technology that can replace humans at most intellectual work drives most of the enduring hype over the firm, even though such a technology would likely be wildly disruptive to society.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has previously stated his belief that AGI could be achieved within this decade, and a large part of the CEO’s public messaging has been related to how the company (and society in general) might handle the disruption that AGI may bring. Along those lines, a ranking system to communicate AI milestones achieved internally on the path to AGI makes sense.
OpenAI’s five levels—which it plans to share with investors—range from current AI capabilities to systems that could potentially manage entire organizations. The company believes its technology (such as GPT-4o that powers ChatGPT) currently sits at Level 1, which encompasses AI that can engage in conversational interactions. However, OpenAI executives reportedly told staff they’re on the verge of reaching Level 2, dubbed “Reasoners.”
Bloomberg lists OpenAI’s five “Stages of Artificial Intelligence” as follows:
Level 1: Chatbots, AI with conversational language
Level 2: Reasoners, human-level problem solving
Level 3: Agents, systems that can take actions
Level 4: Innovators, AI that can aid in invention
Level 5: Organizations, AI that can do the work of an organization
A Level 2 AI system would reportedly be capable of basic problem-solving on par with a human who holds a doctorate degree but lacks access to external tools. During the all-hands meeting, OpenAI leadership reportedly demonstrated a research project using their GPT-4 model that the researchers believe shows signs of approaching this human-like reasoning ability, according to someone familiar with the discussion who spoke with Bloomberg.
The upper levels of OpenAI’s classification describe increasingly potent hypothetical AI capabilities. Level 3 “Agents” could work autonomously on tasks for days. Level 4 systems would generate novel innovations. The pinnacle, Level 5, envisions AI managing entire organizations.
This classification system is still a work in progress. OpenAI plans to gather feedback from employees, investors, and board members, potentially refining the levels over time.
Ars Technica asked OpenAI about the ranking system and the accuracy of the Bloomberg report, and a company spokesperson said they had “nothing to add.”
The problem with ranking AI capabilities
OpenAI isn’t alone in attempting to quantify levels of AI capabilities. As Bloomberg notes, OpenAI’s system feels similar to levels of autonomous driving mapped out by automakers. And in November 2023, researchers at Google DeepMind proposed their own five-level framework for assessing AI advancement, showing that other AI labs have also been trying to figure out how to rank things that don’t yet exist.
OpenAI’s classification system also somewhat resembles Anthropic’s “AI Safety Levels” (ASLs) first published by the maker of the Claude AI assistant in September 2023. Both systems aim to categorize AI capabilities, though they focus on different aspects. Anthropic’s ASLs are more explicitly focused on safety and catastrophic risks (such as ASL-2, which refers to “systems that show early signs of dangerous capabilities”), while OpenAI’s levels track general capabilities.
However, any AI classification system raises questions about whether it’s possible to meaningfully quantify AI progress and what constitutes an advancement (or even what constitutes a “dangerous” AI system, as in the case of Anthropic). The tech industry so far has a history of overpromising AI capabilities, and linear progression models like OpenAI’s potentially risk fueling unrealistic expectations.
There is currently no consensus in the AI research community on how to measure progress toward AGI or even if AGI is a well-defined or achievable goal. As such, OpenAI’s five-tier system should likely be viewed as a communications tool to entice investors that shows the company’s aspirational goals rather than a scientific or even technical measurement of progress.
Enlarge/ The app lets you invoke ChatGPT from anywhere in the system with a keyboard shortcut, Spotlight-style.
Samuel Axon
OpenAI announced its Mac desktop app for ChatGPT with a lot of fanfare a few weeks ago, but it turns out it had a rather serious security issue: user chats were stored in plain text, where any bad actor could find them if they gained access to your machine.
As Threads user Pedro José Pereira Vieito noted earlier this week, “the OpenAI ChatGPT app on macOS is not sandboxed and stores all the conversations in plain-text in a non-protected location,” meaning “any other running app / process / malware can read all your ChatGPT conversations without any permission prompt.”
He added:
macOS has blocked access to any user private data since macOS Mojave 10.14 (6 years ago!). Any app accessing private user data (Calendar, Contacts, Mail, Photos, any third-party app sandbox, etc.) now requires explicit user access.
OpenAI chose to opt-out of the sandbox and store the conversations in plain text in a non-protected location, disabling all of these built-in defenses.
OpenAI has now updated the app, and the local chats are now encrypted, though they are still not sandboxed. (The app is only available as a direct download from OpenAI’s website and is not available through Apple’s App Store where more stringent security is required.)
Many people now use ChatGPT like they might use Google: to ask important questions, sort through issues, and so on. Often, sensitive personal data could be shared in those conversations.
It’s not a great look for OpenAI, which recently entered into a partnership with Apple to offer chat bot services built into Siri queries in Apple operating systems. Apple detailed some of the security around those queries at WWDC last month, though, and they’re more stringent than what OpenAI did (or to be more precise, didn’t do) with its Mac app, which is a separate initiative from the partnership.
If you’ve been using the app recently, be sure to update it as soon as possible.
On Thursday, OpenAI researchers unveiled CriticGPT, a new AI model designed to identify mistakes in code generated by ChatGPT. It aims to enhance the process of making AI systems behave in ways humans want (called “alignment”) through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), which helps human reviewers make large language model (LLM) outputs more accurate.
As outlined in a new research paper called “LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs,” OpenAI created CriticGPT to act as an AI assistant to human trainers who review programming code generated by the ChatGPT AI assistant. CriticGPT—based on the GPT-4 family of LLMS—analyzes the code and points out potential errors, making it easier for humans to spot mistakes that might otherwise go unnoticed. The researchers trained CriticGPT on a dataset of code samples with intentionally inserted bugs, teaching it to recognize and flag various coding errors.
The researchers found that CriticGPT’s critiques were preferred by annotators over human critiques in 63 percent of cases involving naturally occurring LLM errors and that human-machine teams using CriticGPT wrote more comprehensive critiques than humans alone while reducing confabulation (hallucination) rates compared to AI-only critiques.
Developing an automated critic
The development of CriticGPT involved training the model on a large number of inputs containing deliberately inserted mistakes. Human trainers were asked to modify code written by ChatGPT, introducing errors and then providing example feedback as if they had discovered these bugs. This process allowed the model to learn how to identify and critique various types of coding errors.
In experiments, CriticGPT demonstrated its ability to catch both inserted bugs and naturally occurring errors in ChatGPT’s output. The new model’s critiques were preferred by trainers over those generated by ChatGPT itself in 63 percent of cases involving natural bugs (the aforementioned statistic). This preference was partly due to CriticGPT producing fewer unhelpful “nitpicks” and generating fewer false positives, or hallucinated problems.
The researchers also created a new technique they call Force Sampling Beam Search (FSBS). This method helps CriticGPT write more detailed reviews of code. It lets the researchers adjust how thorough CriticGPT is in looking for problems, while also controlling how often it might make up issues that don’t really exist. They can tweak this balance depending on what they need for different AI training tasks.
Interestingly, the researchers found that CriticGPT’s capabilities extend beyond just code review. In their experiments, they applied the model to a subset of ChatGPT training data that had previously been rated as flawless by human annotators. Surprisingly, CriticGPT identified errors in 24 percent of these cases—errors that were subsequently confirmed by human reviewers. OpenAI thinks this demonstrates the model’s potential to generalize to non-code tasks and highlights its ability to catch subtle mistakes that even careful human evaluation might miss.
Despite its promising results, like all AI models, CriticGPT has limitations. The model was trained on relatively short ChatGPT answers, which may not fully prepare it for evaluating longer, more complex tasks that future AI systems might tackle. Additionally, while CriticGPT reduces confabulations, it doesn’t eliminate them entirely, and human trainers can still make labeling mistakes based on these false outputs.
The research team acknowledges that CriticGPT is most effective at identifying errors that can be pinpointed in one specific location within the code. However, real-world mistakes in AI outputs can often be spread across multiple parts of an answer, presenting a challenge for future iterations of the model.
OpenAI plans to integrate CriticGPT-like models into its RLHF labeling pipeline, providing its trainers with AI assistance. For OpenAI, it’s a step toward developing better tools for evaluating outputs from LLM systems that may be difficult for humans to rate without additional support. However, the researchers caution that even with tools like CriticGPT, extremely complex tasks or responses may still prove challenging for human evaluators—even those assisted by AI.
Enlarge/ Al Michaels looks on prior to the game between the Minnesota Vikings and Philadelphia Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field on September 14, 2023, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On Wednesday, NBC announced plans to use an AI-generated clone of famous sports commentator Al Michaels‘ voice to narrate daily streaming video recaps of the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, which start on July 26. The AI-powered narration will feature in “Your Daily Olympic Recap on Peacock,” NBC’s streaming service. But this new, high-profile use of voice cloning worries critics, who say the technology may muscle out upcoming sports commentators by keeping old personas around forever.
NBC says it has created a “high-quality AI re-creation” of Michaels’ voice, trained on Michaels’ past NBC appearances to capture his distinctive delivery style.
The veteran broadcaster, revered in the sports commentator world for his iconic “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” call during the 1980 Winter Olympics, has been covering sports on TV since 1971, including a high-profile run of play-by-play coverage of NFL football games for both ABC and NBC since the 1980s. NBC dropped him from NFL coverage in 2023, however, possibly due to his age.
Michaels, who is 79 years old, shared his initial skepticism about the project in an interview with Vanity Fair, as NBC News notes. After hearing the AI version of his voice, which can greet viewers by name, he described the experience as “astonishing” and “a little bit frightening.” He said the AI recreation was “almost 2% off perfect” in mimicking his style.
The Vanity Fair article provides some insight into how NBC’s new AI system works. It first uses a large language model (similar technology to what powers ChatGPT) to analyze subtitles and metadata from NBC’s Olympics video coverage, summarizing events and writing custom output to imitate Michaels’ style. This text is then fed into an unspecified voice AI model trained on Michaels’ previous NBC appearances, reportedly replicating his unique pronunciations and intonations.
NBC estimates that the system could generate nearly 7 million personalized variants of the recaps across the US during the games, pulled from the network’s 5,000 hours of live coverage. Using the system, each Peacock user will receive about 10 minutes of personalized highlights.
A diminished role for humans in the future?
Enlarge/ Al Michaels reports on the Sweden vs. USA men’s ice hockey game at the 1980 Olympic Winter Games on February 12, 1980.
It’s no secret that while AI is wildly hyped right now, it’s also controversial among some. Upon hearing the NBC announcement, critics of AI technology reacted strongly. “@NBCSports, this is gross,” tweeted actress and filmmaker Justine Bateman, who frequently uses X to criticize technologies that might replace human writers or performers in the future.
A thread of similar responses from X users reacting to the sample video provided above included criticisms such as, “Sounds pretty off when it’s just the same tone for every single word.” Another user wrote, “It just sounds so unnatural. No one talks like that.”
The technology will not replace NBC’s regular human sports commentators during this year’s Olympics coverage, and like other forms of AI, it leans heavily on existing human work by analyzing and regurgitating human-created content in the form of captions pulled from NBC footage.
Looking down the line, due to AI media cloning technologies like voice, video, and image synthesis, today’s celebrities may be able to attain a form of media immortality that allows new iterations of their likenesses to persist through the generations, potentially earning licensing fees for whoever holds the rights.
We’ve already seen it with James Earl Jones playing Darth Vader’s voice, and the trend will likely continue with other celebrity voices, provided the money is right. Eventually, it may extend to famous musicians through music synthesis and famous actors in video-synthesis applications as well.
The possibility of being muscled out by AI replicas factored heavily into a Hollywood actors’ strike last year, with SAG-AFTRA union President Fran Drescher saying, “If we don’t stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble. We are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines.”
For companies that like to monetize media properties for as long as possible, AI may provide a way to maintain a media legacy through automation. But future human performers may have to compete against all of the greatest performers of the past, rendered through AI, to break out and forge a new career—provided there will be room for human performers at all.
“Al Michaels became Al Michaels because he was brought in to replace people who died, or retired, or moved on,” tweeted a writer named Geonn Cannon on X. “If he can’t do the job anymore, it’s time to let the next Al Michaels have a shot at it instead of just planting a code-generated ghoul in an empty chair.“
On Monday, Apple announced it would be integrating OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI assistant into upcoming versions of its iPhone, iPad, and Mac operating systems. It paves the way for future third-party AI model integrations, but given Google’s multi-billion-dollar deal with Apple for preferential web search, the OpenAI announcement inspired speculation about who is paying whom. According to a Bloomberg report published Wednesday, Apple considers ChatGPT’s placement on its devices as compensation enough.
“Apple isn’t paying OpenAI as part of the partnership,” writes Bloomberg reporter Mark Gurman, citing people familiar with the matter who wish to remain anonymous. “Instead, Apple believes pushing OpenAI’s brand and technology to hundreds of millions of its devices is of equal or greater value than monetary payments.”
The Bloomberg report states that neither company expects the agreement to generate meaningful revenue in the short term, and in fact, the partnership could burn extra money for OpenAI, because it pays Microsoft to host ChatGPT’s capabilities on its Azure cloud. However, OpenAI could benefit by converting free users to paid subscriptions, and Apple potentially benefits by providing easy, built-in access to ChatGPT during a time when its own in-house LLMs are still catching up.
And there’s another angle at play. Currently, OpenAI offers subscriptions (ChatGPT Plus, Enterprise, Team) that unlock additional features. If users subscribe to OpenAI through the ChatGPT app on an Apple device, the process will reportedly use Apple’s payment platform, which may give Apple a significant cut of the revenue. According to the report, Apple hopes to negotiate additional revenue-sharing deals with AI vendors in the future.
Why OpenAI
The rise of ChatGPT in the public eye over the past 18 months has made OpenAI a power player in the tech industry, allowing it to strike deals with publishers for AI training content—and ensure continued support from Microsoft in the form of investments that trade vital funding and compute for access to OpenAI’s large language model (LLM) technology like GPT-4.
Still, Apple’s choice of ChatGPT as Apple’s first external AI integration has led to widespread misunderstanding, especially since Apple buried the lede about its own in-house LLM technology that powers its new “Apple Intelligence” platform.
On Apple’s part, CEO Tim Cook told The Washington Post that it chose OpenAI as its first third-party AI partner because he thinks the company controls the leading LLM technology at the moment: “I think they’re a pioneer in the area, and today they have the best model,” he said. “We’re integrating with other people as well. But they’re first, and I think today it’s because they’re best.”
Apple’s choice also brings risk. OpenAI’s record isn’t spotless, racking up a string of public controversies over the past month that include an accusation from actress Scarlett Johansson that the company intentionally imitated her voice, resignations from a key scientist and safety personnel, the revelation of a restrictive NDA for ex-employees that prevented public criticism, and accusations against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman of “psychological abuse” related by a former member of the OpenAI board.
Meanwhile, critics of privacy issues related to gathering data for training AI models—including OpenAI foe Elon Musk, who took to X on Monday to spread misconceptions about how the ChatGPT integration might work—also worried that the Apple-OpenAI deal might expose personal data to the AI company, although both companies strongly deny that will be the case.
Looking ahead, Apple’s deal with OpenAI is not exclusive, and the company is already in talks to offer Google’s Gemini chatbot as an additional option later this year. Apple has also reportedly held talks with Anthropic (maker of Claude 3) as a potential chatbot partner, signaling its intention to provide users with a range of AI services, much like how the company offers various search engine options in Safari.
Victor Miller is running for mayor of Cheyenne, Wyoming, with an unusual campaign promise: If elected, he will not be calling the shots—an AI bot will. VIC, the Virtual Integrated Citizen, is a ChatGPT-based chatbot that Miller created. And Miller says the bot has better ideas—and a better grasp of the law—than many people currently serving in government.
“I realized that this entity is way smarter than me, and more importantly, way better than some of the outward-facing public servants I see,” he says. According to Miller, VIC will make the decisions, and Miller will be its “meat puppet,” attending meetings, signing documents, and otherwise doing the corporeal job of running the city.
But whether VIC—and Victor—will be allowed to run at all is still an open question.
Because it’s not legal for a bot to run for office, Miller says he is technically the one on the ballot, at least on the candidate paperwork filed with the state.
When Miller went to register his candidacy at the county clerk’s office, he says, he “wanted to use Vic without my last name. And so I had read the statute, so it merely said that you have to print what you are generally referred to as. So you know, most people call me Vic. My name is Victor Miller. So on the ballot Vic is short for Victor Miller, the human.”
When Miller came home from filing, he told the then nameless chatbot about it and says it “actually came up with the name Virtual Integrated Citizen.”
In a statement to WIRED, Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray said, “We are monitoring this very closely to ensure uniform application of the Election Code.” Gray said that anyone running for office must be a “qualified elector,” “which necessitates being a real person. Therefore, an AI bot is not a qualified elector.” Gray also sent a letter to the county clerk raising concerns about VIC and suggesting that the clerk reject Miller’s application for candidacy.
On Thursday, DuckDuckGo unveiled a new “AI Chat” service that allows users to converse with four mid-range large language models (LLMs) from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Mistral in an interface similar to ChatGPT while attempting to preserve privacy and anonymity. While the AI models involved can output inaccurate information readily, the site allows users to test different mid-range LLMs without having to install anything or sign up for an account.
DuckDuckGo’s AI Chat currently features access to OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo, Anthropic’s Claude 3 Haiku, and two open source models, Meta’s Llama 3 and Mistral’s Mixtral 8x7B. The service is currently free to use within daily limits. Users can access AI Chat through the DuckDuckGo search engine, direct links to the site, or by using “!ai” or “!chat” shortcuts in the search field. AI Chat can also be disabled in the site’s settings for users with accounts.
According to DuckDuckGo, chats on the service are anonymized, with metadata and IP address removed to prevent tracing back to individuals. The company states that chats are not used for AI model training, citing its privacy policy and terms of use.
“We have agreements in place with all model providers to ensure that any saved chats are completely deleted by the providers within 30 days,” says DuckDuckGo, “and that none of the chats made on our platform can be used to train or improve the models.”
Enlarge/ An example of DuckDuckGo AI Chat with GPT-3.5 answering a silly question in an inaccurate way.
Benj Edwards
However, the privacy experience is not bulletproof because, in the case of GPT-3.5 and Claude Haiku, DuckDuckGo is required to send a user’s inputs to remote servers for processing over the Internet. Given certain inputs (i.e., “Hey, GPT, my name is Bob, and I live on Main Street, and I just murdered Bill”), a user could still potentially be identified if such an extreme need arose.
While the service appears to work well for us, there’s a question about its utility. For example, while GPT-3.5 initially wowed people when it launched with ChatGPT in 2022, it also confabulated a lot—and it still does. GPT-4 was the first major LLM to get confabulations under control to a point where the bot became more reasonably useful for some tasks (though this itself is a controversial point), but that more capable model isn’t present in DuckDuckGo’s AI Chat. Also missing are similar GPT-4-level models like Claude Opus or Google’s Gemini Ultra, likely because they are far more expensive to run. DuckDuckGo says it may roll out paid plans in the future, and those may include higher daily usage limits or access to “more advanced models.”)
It’s true that the other three models generally (and subjectively) pass GPT-3.5 in capability for coding with lower hallucinations, but they can still make things up, too. With DuckDuckGo AI Chat as it stands, the company is left with a chatbot novelty with a decent interface and the promise that your conversations with it will remain private. But what use are fully private AI conversations if they are full of errors?
Enlarge/ Mixtral 8x7B on DuckDuckGo AI Chat when asked about the author. Everything in red boxes is sadly incorrect, but it provides an interesting fantasy scenario. It’s a good example of an LLM plausibly filling gaps between concepts that are underrepresented in its training data, called confabulation. For the record, Llama 3 gives a more accurate answer.
Benj Edwards
As DuckDuckGo itself states in its privacy policy, “By its very nature, AI Chat generates text with limited information. As such, Outputs that appear complete or accurate because of their detail or specificity may not be. For example, AI Chat cannot dynamically retrieve information and so Outputs may be outdated. You should not rely on any Output without verifying its contents using other sources, especially for professional advice (like medical, financial, or legal advice).”
So, have fun talking to bots, but tread carefully. They’ll easily “lie” to your face because they don’t understand what they are saying and are tuned to output statistically plausible information, not factual references.
Enlarge/ Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang delivers his keystone speech ahead of Computex 2024 in Taipei on June 2, 2024.
On Sunday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang reached beyond Blackwell and revealed the company’s next-generation AI-accelerating GPU platform during his keynote at Computex 2024 in Taiwan. Huang also detailed plans for an annual tick-tock-style upgrade cycle of its AI acceleration platforms, mentioning an upcoming Blackwell Ultra chip slated for 2025 and a subsequent platform called “Rubin” set for 2026.
Nvidia’s data center GPUs currently power a large majority of cloud-based AI models, such as ChatGPT, in both development (training) and deployment (inference) phases, and investors are keeping a close watch on the company, with expectations to keep that run going.
During the keynote, Huang seemed somewhat hesitant to make the Rubin announcement, perhaps wary of invoking the so-called Osborne effect, whereby a company’s premature announcement of the next iteration of a tech product eats into the current iteration’s sales. “This is the very first time that this next click as been made,” Huang said, holding up his presentation remote just before the Rubin announcement. “And I’m not sure yet whether I’m going to regret this or not.”
Nvidia Keynote at Computex 2023.
The Rubin AI platform, expected in 2026, will use HBM4 (a new form of high-bandwidth memory) and NVLink 6 Switch, operating at 3,600GBps. Following that launch, Nvidia will release a tick-tock iteration called “Rubin Ultra.” While Huang did not provide extensive specifications for the upcoming products, he promised cost and energy savings related to the new chipsets.
During the keynote, Huang also introduced a new ARM-based CPU called “Vera,” which will be featured on a new accelerator board called “Vera Rubin,” alongside one of the Rubin GPUs.
Much like Nvidia’s Grace Hopper architecture, which combines a “Grace” CPU and a “Hopper” GPU to pay tribute to the pioneering computer scientist of the same name, Vera Rubin refers to Vera Florence Cooper Rubin (1928–2016), an American astronomer who made discoveries in the field of deep space astronomy. She is best known for her pioneering work on galaxy rotation rates, which provided strong evidence for the existence of dark matter.
A calculated risk
Enlarge/ Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang reveals the “Rubin” AI platform for the first time during his keynote at Computex 2024 on June 2, 2024.
Nvidia’s reveal of Rubin is not a surprise in the sense that most big tech companies are continuously working on follow-up products well in advance of release, but it’s notable because it comes just three months after the company revealed Blackwell, which is barely out of the gate and not yet widely shipping.
At the moment, the company seems to be comfortable leapfrogging itself with new announcements and catching up later; Nvidia just announced that its GH200 Grace Hopper “Superchip,” unveiled one year ago at Computex 2023, is now in full production.
With Nvidia stock rising and the company possessing an estimated 70–95 percent of the data center GPU market share, the Rubin reveal is a calculated risk that seems to come from a place of confidence. That confidence could turn out to be misplaced if a so-called “AI bubble” pops or if Nvidia misjudges the capabilities of its competitors. The announcement may also stem from pressure to continue Nvidia’s astronomical growth in market cap with nonstop promises of improving technology.
Accordingly, Huang has been eager to showcase the company’s plans to continue pushing silicon fabrication tech to its limits and widely broadcast that Nvidia plans to keep releasing new AI chips at a steady cadence.
“Our company has a one-year rhythm. Our basic philosophy is very simple: build the entire data center scale, disaggregate and sell to you parts on a one-year rhythm, and we push everything to technology limits,” Huang said during Sunday’s Computex keynote.
Despite Nvidia’s recent market performance, the company’s run may not continue indefinitely. With ample money pouring into the data center AI space, Nvidia isn’t alone in developing accelerator chips. Competitors like AMD (with the Instinct series) and Intel (with Guadi 3) also want to win a slice of the data center GPU market away from Nvidia’s current command of the AI-accelerator space. And OpenAI’s Sam Altman is trying to encourage diversified production of GPU hardware that will power the company’s next generation of AI models in the years ahead.
Enlarge/ The Google “G” logo surrounded by whimsical characters, all of which look stunned and surprised.
On Thursday, Google capped off a rough week of providing inaccurate and sometimes dangerous answers through its experimental AI Overview feature by authoring a follow-up blog post titled, “AI Overviews: About last week.” In the post, attributed to Google VP Liz Reid, head of Google Search, the firm formally acknowledged issues with the feature and outlined steps taken to improve a system that appears flawed by design, even if it doesn’t realize it is admitting it.
To recap, the AI Overview feature—which the company showed off at Google I/O a few weeks ago—aims to provide search users with summarized answers to questions by using an AI model integrated with Google’s web ranking systems. Right now, it’s an experimental feature that is not active for everyone, but when a participating user searches for a topic, they might see an AI-generated answer at the top of the results, pulled from highly ranked web content and summarized by an AI model.
While Google claims this approach is “highly effective” and on par with its Featured Snippets in terms of accuracy, the past week has seen numerous examples of the AI system generating bizarre, incorrect, or even potentially harmful responses, as we detailed in a recent feature where Ars reporter Kyle Orland replicated many of the unusual outputs.
Drawing inaccurate conclusions from the web
Enlarge/ On Wednesday morning, Google’s AI Overview was erroneously telling us the Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn were available in 1993.
Kyle Orland / Google
Given the circulating AI Overview examples, Google almost apologizes in the post and says, “We hold ourselves to a high standard, as do our users, so we expect and appreciate the feedback, and take it seriously.” But Reid, in an attempt to justify the errors, then goes into some very revealing detail about why AI Overviews provides erroneous information:
AI Overviews work very differently than chatbots and other LLM products that people may have tried out. They’re not simply generating an output based on training data. While AI Overviews are powered by a customized language model, the model is integrated with our core web ranking systems and designed to carry out traditional “search” tasks, like identifying relevant, high-quality results from our index. That’s why AI Overviews don’t just provide text output, but include relevant links so people can explore further. Because accuracy is paramount in Search, AI Overviews are built to only show information that is backed up by top web results.
This means that AI Overviews generally don’t “hallucinate” or make things up in the ways that other LLM products might.
Here we see the fundamental flaw of the system: “AI Overviews are built to only show information that is backed up by top web results.” The design is based on the false assumption that Google’s page-ranking algorithm favors accurate results and not SEO-gamed garbage. Google Search has been broken for some time, and now the company is relying on those gamed and spam-filled results to feed its new AI model.
Even if the AI model draws from a more accurate source, as with the 1993 game console search seen above, Google’s AI language model can still make inaccurate conclusions about the “accurate” data, confabulating erroneous information in a flawed summary of the information available.
Generally ignoring the folly of basing its AI results on a broken page-ranking algorithm, Google’s blog post instead attributes the commonly circulated errors to several other factors, including users making nonsensical searches “aimed at producing erroneous results.” Google does admit faults with the AI model, like misinterpreting queries, misinterpreting “a nuance of language on the web,” and lacking sufficient high-quality information on certain topics. It also suggests that some of the more egregious examples circulating on social media are fake screenshots.
“Some of these faked results have been obvious and silly,” Reid writes. “Others have implied that we returned dangerous results for topics like leaving dogs in cars, smoking while pregnant, and depression. Those AI Overviews never appeared. So we’d encourage anyone encountering these screenshots to do a search themselves to check.”
(No doubt some of the social media examples are fake, but it’s worth noting that any attempts to replicate those early examples now will likely fail because Google will have manually blocked the results. And it is potentially a testament to how broken Google Search is if people believed extreme fake examples in the first place.)
While addressing the “nonsensical searches” angle in the post, Reid uses the example search, “How many rocks should I eat each day,” which went viral in a tweet on May 23. Reid says, “Prior to these screenshots going viral, practically no one asked Google that question.” And since there isn’t much data on the web that answers it, she says there is a “data void” or “information gap” that was filled by satirical content found on the web, and the AI model found it and pushed it as an answer, much like Featured Snippets might. So basically, it was working exactly as designed.
Enlarge/ A screenshot of an AI Overview query, “How many rocks should I eat each day” that went viral on X last week.
Enlarge/ Helen Toner, former OpenAI board member, speaks during Vox Media’s 2023 Code Conference at The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel on September 27, 2023.
In a recent interview on “The Ted AI Show” podcast, former OpenAI board member Helen Toner said the OpenAI board was unaware of the existence of ChatGPT until they saw it on Twitter. She also revealed details about the company’s internal dynamics and the events surrounding CEO Sam Altman’s surprise firing and subsequent rehiring last November.
OpenAI released ChatGPT publicly on November 30, 2022, and its massive surprise popularity set OpenAI on a new trajectory, shifting focus from being an AI research lab to a more consumer-facing tech company.
“When ChatGPT came out in November 2022, the board was not informed in advance about that. We learned about ChatGPT on Twitter,” Toner said on the podcast.
Toner’s revelation about ChatGPT seems to highlight a significant disconnect between the board and the company’s day-to-day operations, bringing new light to accusations that Altman was “not consistently candid in his communications with the board” upon his firing on November 17, 2023. Altman and OpenAI’s new board later said that the CEO’s mismanagement of attempts to remove Toner from the OpenAI board following her criticism of the company’s release of ChatGPT played a key role in Altman’s firing.
“Sam didn’t inform the board that he owned the OpenAI startup fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company on multiple occasions,” she said. “He gave us inaccurate information about the small number of formal safety processes that the company did have in place, meaning that it was basically impossible for the board to know how well those safety processes were working or what might need to change.”
Toner also shed light on the circumstances that led to Altman’s temporary ousting. She mentioned that two OpenAI executives had reported instances of “psychological abuse” to the board, providing screenshots and documentation to support their claims. The allegations made by the former OpenAI executives, as relayed by Toner, suggest that Altman’s leadership style fostered a “toxic atmosphere” at the company:
In October of last year, we had this series of conversations with these executives, where the two of them suddenly started telling us about their own experiences with Sam, which they hadn’t felt comfortable sharing before, but telling us how they couldn’t trust him, about the toxic atmosphere it was creating. They use the phrase “psychological abuse,” telling us they didn’t think he was the right person to lead the company, telling us they had no belief that he could or would change, there’s no point in giving him feedback, no point in trying to work through these issues.
Despite the board’s decision to fire Altman, Altman began the process of returning to his position just five days later after a letter to the board signed by over 700 OpenAI employees. Toner attributed this swift comeback to employees who believed the company would collapse without him, saying they also feared retaliation from Altman if they did not support his return.
“The second thing I think is really important to know, that has really gone under reported is how scared people are to go against Sam,” Toner said. “They experienced him retaliate against people retaliating… for past instances of being critical.”
“They were really afraid of what might happen to them,” she continued. “So some employees started to say, you know, wait, I don’t want the company to fall apart. Like, let’s bring back Sam. It was very hard for those people who had had terrible experiences to actually say that… if Sam did stay in power, as he ultimately did, that would make their lives miserable.”
In response to Toner’s statements, current OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor provided a statement to the podcast: “We are disappointed that Miss Toner continues to revisit these issues… The review concluded that the prior board’s decision was not based on concerns regarding product safety or security, the pace of development, OpenAI’s finances, or its statements to investors, customers, or business partners.”
Even given that review, Toner’s main argument is that OpenAI hasn’t been able to police itself despite claims to the contrary. “The OpenAI saga shows that trying to do good and regulating yourself isn’t enough,” she said.
