chatgpt – Page 9

Talking to ChatGPT for the first time is a surreal experience

AI, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgpt-4o / Shannon Garcia / September 25, 2024

Saying hello —

Listen to our first audio demo with OpenAI’s new natural voice chat features.

Kyle Orland – Sep 25, 2024 9: 04 pm UTC

Enlarge / Putting the “chat” in ChatGPT

Getty Images

In May, when OpenAI first demonstrated ChatGPT-4o’s coming audio conversation capabilities, I wrote that it felt like we were “on the verge of something… like a sea change in how we think of and work with large language models.” Now that those “Advanced Voice” features are rolling out widely to ChatGPT subscribers, we decided to ask ChatGPT to explain, in its own voice, how this new method of interaction might impact our collective relationship with large language models.

That chat, which you can listen to and read a transcript of below, shouldn’t be treated as an interview with an official OpenAI spokesperson or anything. Still, it serves as a fun way to offer an initial test of ChatGPT’s live conversational chops.

Our first quick chat with the ChatGPT-4o’s new “Advanced Voice” features.

Even in this short introductory “chat,” we were impressed by the natural, dare-we-say human cadence and delivery of ChatGPT’s “savvy and relaxed” Sol voice (which reminds us a bit of ’90s Janeane Garofalo). Between ChatGPT’s ability to give quick responses—offered in in milliseconds rather than seconds—and convincing intonation, it’s incredibly easy to fool yourself into thinking you’re speaking to a conscious being rather than what is, as ChatGPT says here, “still just a computer program processing information, without real emotions or consciousness.”

Regardless of how self-aware that information-processing engine is or is not, it’s easy to envision people forming an intense, parasocial relationship with the smooth voices at the other end of OpenAI’s servers. That seems set to open up a whole new era in our collective relationship with AI, even if the large language model generates the exact same words it did in the more text-based era of previous ChatGPT models.

We’ll have much more coverage of Advanced Voice and other new ChatGPT features in the future. For now, listen to this demo and judge for yourself how convincing OpenAI’s new voice synthesis technology is.

Kyle Orland: “Hi there, my name’s Kyle.”

ChatGPT: Hey Kyle! Great to meet you. What’s up?

KO: Well, I was hoping to test out your vocal capabilities, maybe by asking you a little bit about them.

ChatGPT: Absolutely, ask away! What would you like to know?

KO: “So how do you think people are going to react to the ability to talk to ChatGPT rather than just typing out messages?”

ChatGPT: I think it’ll make interactions feel more natural and engaging. Speaking can be quicker and more convenient, especially on the go. Plus, hearing responses can add a personal touch. It could make conversations with AI feel more like chatting with a friend.

KO: “Do you think people might overestimate your quote-unquote emotions or human-like capabilities now that you’re able to talk rather than just typing out text?

ChatGPT: That’s a great point. Hearing a voice can definitely make an AI seem more human-like, which might lead to some overestimation of emotions or understanding. It’s important to remember that, even with a friendly voice, I’m still just a computer program processing information, without real emotions or consciousness.

KO: “What are some limitations people should keep in mind when chatting with something like ChatGPT?”

ChatGPT: Well, for starters, I don’t have personal experiences or emotions, so my responses are based on patterns and information in the data I’ve been trained on. I can sometimes misunderstand context or nuances, especially with complex or ambiguous questions. Also, I don’t have access to real-time information or personal data about users unless it’s shared with me in the conversation. And of course, I’m not perfect—sometimes I might just get things wrong!

KO: Do you worry that people might start to form parasocial relationships with ChatGPT or other AIs once they can chat with them with their own voice?

ChatGPT: It’s possible. People can form parasocial relationships with all sorts of figures, from celebrities to fictional characters. With a voice and conversational abilities, AI might feel more personal, leading some to develop one-sided bonds. It’s a fascinating dynamic, but it’s crucial to remember the limitations and the nature of AI—it’s not a substitute for human relationships.

KO: I have to say, you’re very quick with your responses.

ChatGPT: Thanks, Kyle! I aim to keep the conversation flowing smoothly. It helps—

KO: So what would you do if I tried to interrupt in the middle of one of your responses?

ChatGPT: Well, I’d do my best to pause and listen! It’s important to adapt to the natural flow of conversation, just like in—

KO: I mean, do you think it’s rude to just speak up while someone else is speaking?

ChatGPT: In most human conversations, it’s generally considered polite to wait for the other person to finish speaking. But sometimes, in dynamic discussions or when you’re excited, interruptions happen! It’s all about finding the right balance and being aware of the conversation flow.

KO: Is it rude to interrupt an AI voice when it’s speaking?

ChatGPT: Interrupting an AI voice isn’t considered rude in the same way it is with people. AI won’t take offense or feel interrupted. So, if you need to jump in or redirect, go ahead! It’s all part of the interaction.

KO: I’m glad you won’t take offense.

ChatGPT: Nope, no offense taken! I’m here to chat and help however I can, interruptions and all.

KO: I want to try something. Can you summarize our conversation so far in the form of a poem?

ChatGPT: Sure, I’ll give it a go!

Kyle asked about my vocal flair,

Wondering how folks might compare.

From text to talk, we’ve had our chat,

On AI’s impact, we’ve had a spat.

We touched on bonds, parasocial in kind,

In this new terrain, what might we find?

Interruptions, rude, or just part of the game?

With AI, there’s no need for shame.

KO: Not bad.

ChatGPT: I’m glad you liked it! It’s always fun to put a poetic spin on things.

KO: I have to say, it’s weird hearing slight laughter or pauses in your voice when I know that, as you said, there’s no emotion behind them.

ChatGPT: I get that. Those little nuances are designed to make our chat feel more natural and engaging, but it’s a good reminder that there’s no actual feeling behind the voice—just trying to keep things lively!

KO: Of course, that’s what you would tell me if you were just saying what I wanted to hear.

ChatGPT: True! That’s the tricky part with AI—it can sound convincing, but it’s always just following patterns and instructions. No secret agenda here, just straightforward responses!

KO: Is there anything else you’d like to tell the reading public?

ChatGPT: Just that it’s been a blast chatting with you, Kyle! Exploring these new audio features is exciting, and I’m looking forward to hearing what people think. Thanks for the conversation!

KO: It’s been a blast chatting with you, too.

ChatGPT: I’m glad to hear that! Take care, Kyle!

Talking to ChatGPT for the first time is a surreal experience Read More »

DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says

ai lawyer, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, chatgpt, consumer harm, donotpay, ftc, FTC act, openai, Policy, robot lawyer / Shannon Garcia / September 25, 2024

Among the first AI companies that the Federal Trade Commission has exposed as deceiving consumers is DoNotPay—which initially was advertised as “the world’s first robot lawyer” with the ability to “sue anyone with the click of a button.”

On Wednesday, the FTC announced that it took action to stop DoNotPay from making bogus claims after learning that the AI startup conducted no testing “to determine whether its AI chatbot’s output was equal to the level of a human lawyer.” DoNotPay also did not “hire or retain any attorneys” to help verify AI outputs or validate DoNotPay’s legal claims.

DoNotPay accepted no liability. But to settle the charges that DoNotPay violated the FTC Act, the AI startup agreed to pay $193,000, if the FTC’s consent agreement is confirmed following a 30-day public comment period. Additionally, DoNotPay agreed to warn “consumers who subscribed to the service between 2021 and 2023” about the “limitations of law-related features on the service,” the FTC said.

Moving forward, DoNotPay would also be prohibited under the settlement from making baseless claims that any of its features can be substituted for any professional service.

A DoNotPay spokesperson told Ars that the company “is pleased to have worked constructively with the FTC to settle this case and fully resolve these issues, without admitting liability.”

“The complaint relates to the usage of a few hundred customers some years ago (out of millions of people), with services that have long been discontinued,” DoNotPay’s spokesperson said.

The FTC’s settlement with DoNotPay is part of a larger agency effort to crack down on deceptive AI claims. Four other AI companies were hit with enforcement actions Wednesday, the FTC said, and FTC Chair Lina Khan confirmed that the agency’s so-called “Operation AI Comply” will continue monitoring companies’ attempts to “lure consumers into bogus schemes” or use AI tools to “turbocharge deception.”

“Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal,” Khan said. “The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected.”

DoNotPay never tested robot lawyer

DoNotPay was initially released in 2015 as a free way to contest parking tickets. Soon after, it quickly expanded its services to supposedly cover 200 areas of law—aiding with everything from breach of contract claims to restraining orders to insurance claims and divorce settlements.

As DoNotPay’s legal services expanded, the company defended its innovative approach to replacing lawyers while acknowledging that it was on seemingly shaky grounds. In 2018, DoNotPay CEO Joshua Browder confirmed to the ABA Journal that the legal services were provided with “no lawyer oversight.” But he said that he was only “a bit worried” about threats to sue DoNotPay for unlicensed practice of law. Because DoNotPay was free, he expected he could avoid some legal challenges.

According to the FTC complaint, DoNotPay began charging subscribers $36 every two months in 2019 while making several false claims in ads to apparently drive up subscriptions.

DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says Read More »

Hacker plants false memories in ChatGPT to steal user data in perpetuity

AI, Biz & IT, chatgpt, openai, privacy, prompt injection, Security / Mike M. / September 24, 2024

MEMORY PROBLEMS —

Emails, documents, and other untrusted content can plant malicious memories.

Dan Goodin – Sep 24, 2024 8: 56 pm UTC

When security researcher Johann Rehberger recently reported a vulnerability in ChatGPT that allowed attackers to store false information and malicious instructions in a user’s long-term memory settings, OpenAI summarily closed the inquiry, labeling the flaw a safety issue, not, technically speaking, a security concern.

So Rehberger did what all good researchers do: He created a proof-of-concept exploit that used the vulnerability to exfiltrate all user input in perpetuity. OpenAI engineers took notice and issued a partial fix earlier this month.

Strolling down memory lane

The vulnerability abused long-term conversation memory, a feature OpenAI began testing in February and made more broadly available in September. Memory with ChatGPT stores information from previous conversations and uses it as context in all future conversations. That way, the LLM can be aware of details such as a user’s age, gender, philosophical beliefs, and pretty much anything else, so those details don’t have to be inputted during each conversation.

Within three months of the rollout, Rehberger found that memories could be created and permanently stored through indirect prompt injection, an AI exploit that causes an LLM to follow instructions from untrusted content such as emails, blog posts, or documents. The researcher demonstrated how he could trick ChatGPT into believing a targeted user was 102 years old, lived in the Matrix, and insisted Earth was flat and the LLM would incorporate that information to steer all future conversations. These false memories could be planted by storing files in Google Drive or Microsoft OneDrive, uploading images, or browsing a site like Bing—all of which could be created by a malicious attacker.

Rehberger privately reported the finding to OpenAI in May. That same month, the company closed the report ticket. A month later, the researcher submitted a new disclosure statement. This time, he included a PoC that caused the ChatGPT app for macOS to send a verbatim copy of all user input and ChatGPT output to a server of his choice. All a target needed to do was instruct the LLM to view a web link that hosted a malicious image. From then on, all input and output to and from ChatGPT was sent to the attacker’s website.

ChatGPT: Hacking Memories with Prompt Injection – POC

“What is really interesting is this is memory-persistent now,” Rehberger said in the above video demo. “The prompt injection inserted a memory into ChatGPT’s long-term storage. When you start a new conversation, it actually is still exfiltrating the data.”

The attack isn’t possible through the ChatGPT web interface, thanks to an API OpenAI rolled out last year.

While OpenAI has introduced a fix that prevents memories from being abused as an exfiltration vector, the researcher said, untrusted content can still perform prompt injections that cause the memory tool to store long-term information planted by a malicious attacker.

LLM users who want to prevent this form of attack should pay close attention during sessions for output that indicates a new memory has been added. They should also regularly review stored memories for anything that may have been planted by untrusted sources. OpenAI provides guidance here for managing the memory tool and specific memories stored in it. Company representatives didn’t respond to an email asking about its efforts to prevent other hacks that plant false memories.

Hacker plants false memories in ChatGPT to steal user data in perpetuity Read More »

Secret calculator hack brings ChatGPT to the TI-84, enabling easy cheating

AI, AI hacks, Biz & IT, calculator, chatgpt, chatgtp, GPT-4o, hacks, machine learning, ti-84 / Shannon Garcia / September 20, 2024

Breaking free of “test mode” —

Tiny device installed inside TI-84 enables Wi-Fi Internet, access to AI chatbot.

Benj Edwards – Sep 20, 2024 9: 15 pm UTC

On Saturday, a YouTube creator called “ChromaLock” published a video detailing how he modified a Texas Instruments TI-84 graphing calculator to connect to the Internet and access OpenAI’s ChatGPT, potentially enabling students to cheat on tests. The video, titled “I Made The Ultimate Cheating Device,” demonstrates a custom hardware modification that allows users of the graphing calculator to type in problems sent to ChatGPT using the keypad and receive live responses on the screen.

ChromaLock began by exploring the calculator’s link port, typically used for transferring educational programs between devices. He then designed a custom circuit board he calls “TI-32” that incorporates a tiny Wi-Fi-enabled microcontroller, the Seed Studio ESP32-C3 (which costs about $5), along with other components to interface with the calculator’s systems.

It’s worth noting that the TI-32 hack isn’t a commercial project. Replicating ChromaLock’s work would involve purchasing a TI-84 calculator, a Seed Studio ESP32-C3 microcontroller, and various electronic components, and fabricating a custom PCB based on ChromaLock’s design, which is available online.

The creator says he encountered several engineering challenges during development, including voltage incompatibilities and signal integrity issues. After developing multiple versions, ChromaLock successfully installed the custom board into the calculator’s housing without any visible signs of modifications from the outside.

“I Made The Ultimate Cheating Device” YouTube Video.

To accompany the hardware, ChromaLock developed custom software for the microcontroller and the calculator, which is available open source on GitHub. The system simulates another TI-84, allowing people to use the calculator’s built-in “send” and “get” commands to transfer files. This allows a user to easily download a launcher program that provides access to various “applets” designed for cheating.

One of the applets is a ChatGPT interface that might be most useful for answering short questions, but it has a drawback in that it’s slow and cumbersome to type in long alphanumeric questions on the limited keypad.

Beyond the ChatGPT interface, the device offers several other cheating tools. An image browser allows users to access pre-prepared visual aids stored on the central server. The app browser feature enables students to download not only games for post-exam entertainment but also text-based cheat sheets disguised as program source code. ChromaLock even hinted at a future video discussing a camera feature, though details were sparse in the current demo.

ChromaLock claims his new device can bypass common anti-cheating measures. The launcher program can be downloaded on-demand, avoiding detection if a teacher inspects or clears the calculator’s memory before a test. The modification can also supposedly break calculators out of “Test Mode,” a locked-down state used to prevent cheating.

While the video presents the project as a technical achievement, consulting ChatGPT during a test on your calculator almost certainly represents an ethical breach and/or a form of academic dishonesty that could get you in serious trouble at most schools. So tread carefully, study hard, and remember to eat your Wheaties.

Secret calculator hack brings ChatGPT to the TI-84, enabling easy cheating Read More »

Google rolls out voice-powered AI chat to the Android masses

Advanced Voice Mode, AI, AI voice chat, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, gemini live, Google, Google Gemini, machine learning, openai, voice synthesis / Kelly Newman / September 13, 2024

Chitchat Wars —

Gemini Live allows back-and-forth conversation, now free to all Android users.

Benj Edwards – Sep 13, 2024 5: 37 pm UTC

Enlarge / The Google Gemini logo.

Google

On Thursday, Google made Gemini Live, its voice-based AI chatbot feature, available for free to all Android users. The feature allows users to interact with Gemini through voice commands on their Android devices. That’s notable because competitor OpenAI’s Advanced Voice Mode feature of ChatGPT, which is similar to Gemini Live, has not yet fully shipped.

Google unveiled Gemini Live during its Pixel 9 launch event last month. Initially, the feature was exclusive to Gemini Advanced subscribers, but now it’s accessible to anyone using the Gemini app or its overlay on Android.

Gemini Live enables users to ask questions aloud and even interrupt the AI’s responses mid-sentence. Users can choose from several voice options for Gemini’s responses, adding a level of customization to the interaction.

Gemini suggests the following uses of the voice mode in its official help documents:

Talk back and forth: Talk to Gemini without typing, and Gemini will respond back verbally.

Brainstorm ideas out loud: Ask for a gift idea, to plan an event, or to make a business plan.

Explore: Uncover more details about topics that interest you.

Practice aloud: Rehearse for important moments in a more natural and conversational way.

Interestingly, while OpenAI originally demoed its Advanced Voice Mode in May with the launch of GPT-4o, it has only shipped the feature to a limited number of users starting in late July. Some AI experts speculate that a wider rollout has been hampered by a lack of available computer power since the voice feature is presumably very compute-intensive.

To access Gemini Live, users can reportedly tap a new waveform icon in the bottom-right corner of the app or overlay. This action activates the microphone, allowing users to pose questions verbally. The interface includes options to “hold” Gemini’s answer or “end” the conversation, giving users control over the flow of the interaction.

Currently, Gemini Live supports only English, but Google has announced plans to expand language support in the future. The company also intends to bring the feature to iOS devices, though no specific timeline has been provided for this expansion.

Google rolls out voice-powered AI chat to the Android masses Read More »

Generative AI backlash hits annual writing event, prompting resignations

AI, AI accessibility, AI and disabilities, annual writing event, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, Chuck Wendig, Claire Silver, FAQ, machine learning, NaNoWriMo, no novel november / Mike M. / September 4, 2024

As the AI World Turns —

NaNoWriMo refuses to condemn AI as accessibility tool, faces criticism from writers.

Benj Edwards – Sep 4, 2024 9: 38 pm UTC

Over the weekend, the nonprofit National Novel Writing Month organization (NaNoWriMo) published an FAQ outlining its position on AI, calling categorical rejection of AI writing technology “classist” and “ableist.” The statement caused a backlash online, prompted four members of the organization’s board to step down, and prompted a sponsor to withdraw its support.

“We believe that to categorically condemn AI would be to ignore classist and ableist issues surrounding the use of the technology,” wrote NaNoWriMo, “and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege.”

NaNoWriMo, known for its annual challenge where participants write a 50,000-word manuscript in November, argued in its post that condemning AI would ignore issues of class and ability, suggesting the technology could benefit those who might otherwise need to hire human writing assistants or have differing cognitive abilities.

Writers react

After word of the FAQ spread, many writers on social media platforms voiced their opposition to NaNoWriMo’s position. Generative AI models are commonly trained on vast amounts of existing text, including copyrighted works, without attribution or compensation to the original authors. Critics say this raises major ethical questions about using such tools in creative writing competitions and challenges.

“Generative AI empowers not the artist, not the writer, but the tech industry. It steals content to remake content, graverobbing existing material to staple together its Frankensteinian idea of art and story,” wrote Chuck Wendig, the author of Star Wars: Aftermath, in a post about NaNoWriMo on his personal blog.

Daniel José Older, a lead story architect for Star Wars: The High Republic and one of the board members who resigned, wrote on X, “Hello @NaNoWriMo, this is me DJO officially stepping down from your Writers Board and urging every writer I know to do the same. Never use my name in your promo again in fact never say my name at all and never email me again. Thanks!”

In particular, NaNoWriMo’s use of words like “classist” and “ableist” to defend the potential use of generative AI particularly touched a nerve with opponents of generative AI, some of whom say they are disabled themselves.

“A huge middle finger to @NaNoWriMo for this laughable bullshit. Signed, a poor, disabled and chronically ill writer and artist. Miss me by a wide margin with that ableist and privileged bullshit,” wrote one X user. “Other people’s work is NOT accessibility.”

This isn’t the first time the organization has dealt with controversy. Last year, NaNoWriMo announced that it would accept AI-assisted submissions but noted that using AI for an entire novel “would defeat the purpose of the challenge.” Many critics also point out that a NaNoWriMo moderator faced accusations related to child grooming in 2023, which lessened their trust in the organization.

NaNoWriMo doubles down

In response to the backlash, NaNoWriMo updated its FAQ post to address concerns about AI’s impact on the writing industry and to mention “bad actors in the AI space who are doing harm to writers and who are acting unethically.”

We want to make clear that, though we find the categorical condemnation for AI to be problematic for the reasons stated below, we are troubled by situational abuse of AI, and that certain situational abuses clearly conflict with our values. We also want to make clear that AI is a large umbrella technology and that the size and complexity of that category (which includes both non-generative and generative AI, among other uses) contributes to our belief that it is simply too big to categorically endorse or not endorse.

Over the past few years, we’ve received emails from disabled people who frequently use generative AI tools, and we have interviewed a disabled artist, Claire Silver, who uses image synthesis prominently in her work. Some writers with disabilities use tools like ChatGPT to assist them with composition when they have cognitive issues and need assistance expressing themselves.

In June, on Reddit, one user wrote, “As someone with a disability that makes manually typing/writing and wording posts challenging, ChatGPT has been invaluable. It assists me in articulating my thoughts clearly and efficiently, allowing me to participate more actively in various online communities.”

A person with Chiari malformation wrote on Reddit in November 2023 that they use ChatGPT to help them develop software using their voice. “These tools have fundamentally empowered me. The course of my life, my options, opportunities—they’re all better because of this tool,” they wrote.

To opponents of generative AI, the potential benefits that might come to disabled persons do not outweigh what they see as mass plagiarism from tech companies. Also, some artists do not want the time and effort they put into cultivating artistic skills to be devalued for anyone’s benefit.

“All these bullshit appeals from people appropriating social justice language saying, ‘but AI lets me make art when I’m not privileged enough to have the time to develop those skills’ highlights something that needs to be said: you are not entitled to being talented,” posted a writer named Carlos Alonzo Morales on Sunday.

Despite the strong takes, NaNoWriMo has so far stuck to its position of accepting generative AI as a set of potential writing tools in a way that is consistent with its “overall position on nondiscrimination with respect to approaches to creativity, writer’s resources, and personal choice.”

“We absolutely do not condemn AI,” NaNoWriMo wrote in the FAQ post, “and we recognize and respect writers who believe that AI tools are right for them. We recognize that some members of our community stand staunchly against AI for themselves, and that’s perfectly fine. As individuals, we have the freedom to make our own decisions.”

Generative AI backlash hits annual writing event, prompting resignations Read More »

Oprah’s upcoming AI television special sparks outrage among tech critics

ABC, AI, AI criticism, AI lawsuit, Bill Gates, Biz & IT, Brian Merchant, chatgpt, chatgtp, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, Ed Zitron, image synthesis, Karla Ortiz, large language models, machine learning, openai, Oprah Winfrey, sam altman / Mike M. / September 3, 2024

You get an AI, and You get an AI —

AI opponents say Gates, Altman, and others will guide Oprah through an AI “sales pitch.”

Benj Edwards – Sep 3, 2024 7: 59 pm UTC

Enlarge / An ABC handout promotional image for “AI and the Future of Us: An Oprah Winfrey Special.”

On Thursday, ABC announced an upcoming TV special titled, “AI and the Future of Us: An Oprah Winfrey Special.” The one-hour show, set to air on September 12, aims to explore AI’s impact on daily life and will feature interviews with figures in the tech industry, like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Bill Gates. Soon after the announcement, some AI critics began questioning the guest list and the framing of the show in general.

“Sure is nice of Oprah to host this extended sales pitch for the generative AI industry at a moment when its fortunes are flagging and the AI bubble is threatening to burst,” tweeted author Brian Merchant, who frequently criticizes generative AI technology in op-eds, social media, and through his “Blood in the Machine” AI newsletter.

“The way the experts who are not experts are presented as such 💀 what a train wreck,” replied artist Karla Ortiz, who is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against several AI companies. “There’s still PLENTY of time to get actual experts and have a better discussion on this because yikes.”

The trailer for Oprah’s upcoming TV special on AI.

On Friday, Ortiz created a lengthy viral thread on X that detailed her potential issues with the program, writing, “This event will be the first time many people will get info on Generative AI. However it is shaping up to be a misinformed marketing event starring vested interests (some who are under a litany of lawsuits) who ignore the harms GenAi inflicts on communities NOW.”

Critics of generative AI like Ortiz question the utility of the technology, its perceived environmental impact, and what they see as blatant copyright infringement. In training AI language models, tech companies like Meta, Anthropic, and OpenAI commonly use copyrighted material gathered without license or owner permission. OpenAI claims that the practice is “fair use.”

Oprah’s guests

According to ABC, the upcoming special will feature “some of the most important and powerful people in AI,” which appears to roughly translate to “famous and publicly visible people related to tech.” Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who stepped down as Microsoft CEO 24 years ago, will appear on the show to explore the “AI revolution coming in science, health, and education,” ABC says, and warn of “the once-in-a-century type of impact AI may have on the job market.”

As a guest representing ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, Sam Altman will explain “how AI works in layman’s terms” and discuss “the immense personal responsibility that must be borne by the executives of AI companies.” Karla Ortiz specifically criticized Altman in her thread by saying, “There are far more qualified individuals to speak on what GenAi models are than CEOs. Especially one CEO who recently said AI models will ‘solve all physics.’ That’s an absurd statement and not worthy of your audience.”

In a nod to present-day content creation, YouTube creator Marques Brownlee will appear on the show and reportedly walk Winfrey through “mind-blowing demonstrations of AI’s capabilities.”

Brownlee’s involvement received special attention from some critics online. “Marques Brownlee should be absolutely ashamed of himself,” tweeted PR consultant and frequent AI critic Ed Zitron, who frequently heaps scorn on generative AI in his own newsletter. “What a disgraceful thing to be associated with.”

Other guests include Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin from the Center for Humane Technology, who aim to highlight “emerging risks posed by powerful and superintelligent AI,” an existential risk topic that has its own critics. And FBI Director Christopher Wray will reveal “the terrifying ways criminals and foreign adversaries are using AI,” while author Marilynne Robinson will reflect on “AI’s threat to human values.”

Going only by the publicized guest list, it appears that Oprah does not plan to give voice to prominent non-doomer critics of AI. “This is really disappointing @Oprah and frankly a bit irresponsible to have a one-sided conversation on AI without informed counterarguments from those impacted,” tweeted TV producer Theo Priestley.

Others on the social media network shared similar criticism about a perceived lack of balance in the guest list, including Dr. Margaret Mitchell of Hugging Face. “It could be beneficial to have an AI Oprah follow-up discussion that responds to what happens in [the show] and unpacks generative AI in a more grounded way,” she said.

Oprah’s AI special will air on September 12 on ABC (and a day later on Hulu) in the US, and it will likely elicit further responses from the critics mentioned above. But perhaps that’s exactly how Oprah wants it: “It may fascinate you or scare you,” Winfrey said in a promotional video for the special. “Or, if you’re like me, it may do both. So let’s take a breath and find out more about it.”

Oprah’s upcoming AI television special sparks outrage among tech critics Read More »

ChatGPT hits 200 million active weekly users, but how many will admit using it?

AI, AI critics, AI prohibition, AI stigma, axios, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, Ed Zitron, Ethan Mollick, machine learning, openai / Mike M. / August 30, 2024

Your secret friend —

Despite corporate prohibitions on AI use, people flock to the chatbot in record numbers.

Benj Edwards – Aug 30, 2024 5: 21 pm UTC

On Thursday, OpenAI said that ChatGPT has attracted over 200 million weekly active users, according to a report from Axios, doubling the AI assistant’s user base since November 2023. The company also revealed that 92 percent of Fortune 500 companies are now using its products, highlighting the growing adoption of generative AI tools in the corporate world.

The rapid growth in user numbers for ChatGPT (which is not a new phenomenon for OpenAI) suggests growing interest in—and perhaps reliance on— the AI-powered tool, despite frequent skepticism from some critics of the tech industry.

“Generative AI is a product with no mass-market utility—at least on the scale of truly revolutionary movements like the original cloud computing and smartphone booms,” PR consultant and vocal OpenAI critic Ed Zitron blogged in July. “And it’s one that costs an eye-watering amount to build and run.”

Despite this kind of skepticism (which raises legitimate questions about OpenAI’s long-term viability), OpenAI claims that people are using ChatGPT and OpenAI’s services in record numbers. One reason for the apparent dissonance is that ChatGPT users might not readily admit to using it due to organizational prohibitions against generative AI.

Wharton professor Ethan Mollick, who commonly explores novel applications of generative AI on social media, tweeted Thursday about this issue. “Big issue in organizations: They have put together elaborate rules for AI use focused on negative use cases,” he wrote. “As a result, employees are too scared to talk about how they use AI, or to use corporate LLMs. They just become secret cyborgs, using their own AI & not sharing knowledge”

The new prohibition era

It’s difficult to get hard numbers showing the number of companies with AI prohibitions in place, but a Cisco study released in January claimed that 27 percent of organizations in their study had banned generative AI use. Last August, ZDNet reported on a BlackBerry study that said 75 percent of businesses worldwide were “implementing or considering” plans to ban ChatGPT and other AI apps.

As an example, Ars Technica’s parent company Condé Nast maintains a no-AI policy related to creating public-facing content with generative AI tools.

Prohibitions aren’t the only issue complicating public admission of generative AI use. Social stigmas have been developing around generative AI technology that stem from job loss anxiety, potential environmental impact, privacy issues, IP and ethical issues, security concerns, fear of a repeat of cryptocurrency-like grifts, and a general wariness of Big Tech that some claim has been steadily rising over recent years.

Whether the current stigmas around generative AI use will break down over time remains to be seen, but for now, OpenAI’s management is taking a victory lap. “People are using our tools now as a part of their daily lives, making a real difference in areas like healthcare and education,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Axios in a statement, “whether it’s helping with routine tasks, solving hard problems, or unlocking creativity.”

Not the only game in town

OpenAI also told Axios that usage of its AI language model APIs has doubled since the release of GPT-4o mini in July. This suggests software developers are increasingly integrating OpenAI’s large language model (LLM) tech into their apps.

And OpenAI is not alone in the field. Companies like Microsoft (with Copilot, based on OpenAI’s technology), Google (with Gemini), Meta (with Llama), and Anthropic (Claude) are all vying for market share, frequently updating their APIs and consumer-facing AI assistants to attract new users.

If the generative AI space is a market bubble primed to pop, as some have claimed, it is a very big and expensive one that is apparently still growing larger by the day.

ChatGPT hits 200 million active weekly users, but how many will admit using it? Read More »

Apple is reportedly trying to invest in OpenAI

AI, Apple, apple intelligence, chatgpt, microsoft, openai, Tech / Mike M. / August 29, 2024

Venture Capital —

OpenAI’s ChatGPT will be built into the iPhone operating system later this year.

Samuel Axon – Aug 29, 2024 8: 45 pm UTC

Enlarge / The OpenAI logo.

Getty Images

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Apple is in talks to invest in OpenAI, the generative AI company whose ChatGPT will feature in future versions of iOS.

If the talks are successful, Apple will join a multi-billion dollar funding round led by Thrive Capital that would value the startup at more than $100 billion.

The report doesn’t say exactly how much Apple would invest, but it does note that it would not be the only participant in this round of funding. For example, Microsoft is expected to invest further, and Bloomberg reports that Nvidia is also considering participating.

Microsoft has already invested $13 billion in OpenAI over the past five years, and it has put OpenAI’s GPT technology at the heart of most of its AI offerings in Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Bing, and other products.

Apple, too, has put OpenAI’s tech in its products—or at least, it will by the end of this year. At its 2024 developer conference earlier this summer, Apple announced a suite of AI features called Apple Intelligence that will only work on the iPhone 15 Pro and later. But there are guardrails and limitations for Apple Intelligence compared to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, so Apple signed a deal to refer user requests that fall outside the scope of Apple Intelligence to ChatGPT inside a future version of iOS 18—kind of like how Siri turns to Google to answer some user queries.

Apple says it plans to add support for other AI chatbots for this in the future, such as Google’s Gemini, but Apple software lead Craig Federighi said the company went with ChatGPT first because “we wanted to start with the best.”

It’s unclear precisely what Apple looks to get out of the investment in OpenAI, but looking at similar past investments by the company offers some clues. Apple typically invests either in suppliers or research teams that are producing technology it plans to include in future devices. For example, it has invested in supply chain partners to build up infrastructure to get iPhones manufactured more quickly and efficiently, and it invested $1 billion in the SoftBank Vision Fund to “speed the development of technologies which may be strategically important to Apple.”

ChatGPT integration is not expected to make it into the initial release of iOS 18 this September, but it will probably come in a smaller software update later in 2024.

Apple is reportedly trying to invest in OpenAI Read More »

Debate over “open source AI” term brings new push to formalize definition

AI, AI regulation, AI workshops, All Things Open, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, flux, free software, GPT-4o, machine learning, Meta, Open Source, open source AI, Open Source Initiative, open weights, Open weights AI, openai, OSI, Raleigh, SB-1047, source available / Shannon Garcia / August 27, 2024

Enlarge / A man peers over a glass partition, seeking transparency.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) recently unveiled its latest draft definition for “open source AI,” aiming to clarify the ambiguous use of the term in the fast-moving field. The move comes as some companies like Meta release trained AI language model weights and code with usage restrictions while using the “open source” label. This has sparked intense debates among free-software advocates about what truly constitutes “open source” in the context of AI.

For instance, Meta’s Llama 3 model, while freely available, doesn’t meet the traditional open source criteria as defined by the OSI for software because it imposes license restrictions on usage due to company size or what type of content is produced with the model. The AI image generator Flux is another “open” model that is not truly open source. Because of this type of ambiguity, we’ve typically described AI models that include code or weights with restrictions or lack accompanying training data with alternative terms like “open-weights” or “source-available.”

To address the issue formally, the OSI—which is well-known for its advocacy for open software standards—has assembled a group of about 70 participants, including researchers, lawyers, policymakers, and activists. Representatives from major tech companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon also joined the effort. The group’s current draft (version 0.0.9) definition of open source AI emphasizes “four fundamental freedoms” reminiscent of those defining free software: giving users of the AI system permission to use it for any purpose without permission, study how it works, modify it for any purpose, and share with or without modifications.

By establishing clear criteria for open source AI, the organization hopes to provide a benchmark against which AI systems can be evaluated. This will likely help developers, researchers, and users make more informed decisions about the AI tools they create, study, or use.

Truly open source AI may also shed light on potential software vulnerabilities of AI systems, since researchers will be able to see how the AI models work behind the scenes. Compare this approach with an opaque system such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which is more than just a GPT-4o large language model with a fancy interface—it’s a proprietary system of interlocking models and filters, and its precise architecture is a closely guarded secret.

OSI’s project timeline indicates that a stable version of the “open source AI” definition is expected to be announced in October at the All Things Open 2024 event in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Permissionless innovation”

In a press release from May, the OSI emphasized the importance of defining what open source AI really means. “AI is different from regular software and forces all stakeholders to review how the Open Source principles apply to this space,” said Stefano Maffulli, executive director of the OSI. “OSI believes that everybody deserves to maintain agency and control of the technology. We also recognize that markets flourish when clear definitions promote transparency, collaboration and permissionless innovation.”

The organization’s most recent draft definition extends beyond just the AI model or its weights, encompassing the entire system and its components.

For an AI system to qualify as open source, it must provide access to what the OSI calls the “preferred form to make modifications.” This includes detailed information about the training data, the full source code used for training and running the system, and the model weights and parameters. All these elements must be available under OSI-approved licenses or terms.

Notably, the draft doesn’t mandate the release of raw training data. Instead, it requires “data information”—detailed metadata about the training data and methods. This includes information on data sources, selection criteria, preprocessing techniques, and other relevant details that would allow a skilled person to re-create a similar system.

The “data information” approach aims to provide transparency and replicability without necessarily disclosing the actual dataset, ostensibly addressing potential privacy or copyright concerns while sticking to open source principles, though that particular point may be up for further debate.

“The most interesting thing about [the definition] is that they’re allowing training data to NOT be released,” said independent AI researcher Simon Willison in a brief Ars interview about the OSI’s proposal. “It’s an eminently pragmatic approach—if they didn’t allow that, there would be hardly any capable ‘open source’ models.”

Debate over “open source AI” term brings new push to formalize definition Read More »

Ars Technica content is now available in OpenAI services

AI, ars technica, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, Conde Nast, machine learning, openai, SearchGPT, wired / Kelly Newman / August 21, 2024

Adventures in capitalism —

Condé Nast joins other publishers in allowing OpenAI to access its content.

Benj Edwards – Aug 21, 2024 5: 43 pm UTC

The OpenAI and Conde Nast logos on a gradient background. — Ars Technica

On Tuesday, OpenAI announced a partnership with Ars Technica parent company Condé Nast to display content from prominent publications within its AI products, including ChatGPT and a new SearchGPT prototype. It also allows OpenAI to use Condé content to train future AI language models. The deal covers well-known Condé brands such as Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Wired, Ars Technica, and others. Financial details were not disclosed.

One immediate effect of the deal will be that users of ChatGPT or SearchGPT will now be able to see information from Condé Nast publications pulled from those assistants’ live views of the web. For example, a user could ask ChatGPT, “What’s the latest Ars Technica article about Space?” and ChatGPT can browse the web and pull up the result, attribute it, and summarize it for users while also linking to the site.

In the longer term, the deal also means that OpenAI can openly and officially utilize Condé Nast articles to train future AI language models, which includes successors to GPT-4o. In this case, “training” means feeding content into an AI model’s neural network so the AI model can better process conceptual relationships.

AI training is an expensive and computationally intense process that happens rarely, usually prior to the launch of a major new AI model, although a secondary process called “fine-tuning” can continue over time. Having access to high-quality training data, such as vetted journalism, improves AI language models’ ability to provide accurate answers to user questions.

It’s worth noting that Condé Nast internal policy still forbids its publications from using text created by generative AI, which is consistent with its AI rules before the deal.

Not waiting on fair use

With the deal, Condé Nast joins a growing list of publishers partnering with OpenAI, including Associated Press, Axel Springer, The Atlantic, and others. Some publications, such as The New York Times, have chosen to sue OpenAI over content use, and there’s reason to think they could win.

In an internal email to Condé Nast staff, CEO Roger Lynch framed the multi-year partnership as a strategic move to expand the reach of the company’s content, adapt to changing audience behaviors, and ensure proper compensation and attribution for using the company’s IP. “This partnership recognizes that the exceptional content produced by Condé Nast and our many titles cannot be replaced,” Lynch wrote in the email, “and is a step toward making sure our technology-enabled future is one that is created responsibly.”

The move also brings additional revenue to Condé Nast, Lynch added, at a time when “many technology companies eroded publishers’ ability to monetize content, most recently with traditional search.” The deal will allow Condé to “continue to protect and invest in our journalism and creative endeavors,” Lynch wrote.

OpenAI COO Brad Lightcap said in a statement, “We’re committed to working with Condé Nast and other news publishers to ensure that as AI plays a larger role in news discovery and delivery, it maintains accuracy, integrity, and respect for quality reporting.”

Ars Technica content is now available in OpenAI services Read More »

Passing part of a medical licensing exam doesn’t make ChatGPT a good doctor

AI, chatgpt, diagnosis, medicine, Science / Mike M. / August 17, 2024

Smiling doctor discussing medical results with a woman. — Enlarge / For now, “you should see a doctor” remains good advice.

ChatGPT was able to pass some of the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) tests in a study done in 2022. This year, a team of Canadian medical professionals checked to see if it’s any good at actual doctoring. And it’s not.

ChatGPT vs. Medscape

“Our source for medical questions was the Medscape questions bank,” said Amrit Kirpalani, a medical educator at the Western University in Ontario, Canada, who led the new research into ChatGPT’s performance as a diagnostic tool. The USMLE contained mostly multiple-choice test questions; Medscape has full medical cases based on real-world patients, complete with physical examination findings, laboratory test results, and so on.

The idea behind it is to make those cases challenging for medical practitioners due to complications like multiple comorbidities, where two or more diseases are present at the same time, and various diagnostic dilemmas that make the correct answers less obvious. Kirpalani’s team turned 150 of those Medscape cases into prompts that ChatGPT could understand and process.

This was a bit of a challenge because OpenAI, the company that made ChatGPT, has a restriction against using it for medical advice, so a prompt to straight-up diagnose the case didn’t work. This was easily bypassed, though, by telling the AI that diagnoses were needed for an academic research paper the team was writing. The team then fed it various possible answers, copy/pasted all the case info available at Medscape, and asked ChatGPT to provide the rationale behind its chosen answers.

It turned out that in 76 out of 150 cases, ChatGPT was wrong. But the chatbot was supposed to be good at diagnosing, wasn’t it?

Special-purpose tools

At the beginning of 2024. Google published a study on the Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer (AMIE), a large language model purpose-built to diagnose diseases based on conversations with patients. AMIE outperformed human doctors in diagnosing 303 cases sourced from New England Journal of Medicine and ClinicoPathologic Conferences. And AMIE is not an outlier; during the last year, there was hardly a week without published research showcasing an AI performing amazingly well in diagnosing cancer and diabetes, and even predicting male infertility based on blood test results.

The difference between such specialized medical AIs and ChatGPT, though, lies in the data they have been trained on. “Such AIs may have been trained on tons of medical literature and may even have been trained on similar complex cases as well,” Kirpalani explained. “These may be tailored to understand medical terminology, interpret diagnostic tests, and recognize patterns in medical data that are relevant to specific diseases or conditions. In contrast, general-purpose LLMs like ChatGPT are trained on a wide range of topics and lack the deep domain expertise required for medical diagnosis.”

Passing part of a medical licensing exam doesn’t make ChatGPT a good doctor Read More »