openai

rocket-report:-blunder-at-baikonur;-do-launchers-really-need-rocket-engines?

Rocket Report: Blunder at Baikonur; do launchers really need rocket engines?

isar aerospace, launch, openai, rocket report, Science, South Korea, Space, spacex, starship, stoke space, vega c / /

The Department of the Air Force approves a new home in Florida for SpaceX’s Starship.

South Korea’s Nuri 1 rocket is lifted vertical on its launch pad in this multi-exposure photo. Credit: Korea Aerospace Research Institute

Welcome to Edition 8.21 of the Rocket Report! We’re back after the Thanksgiving holiday with more launch news. Most of the big stories over the last couple of weeks came from abroad. Russian rockets and launch pads didn’t fare so well. China’s launch industry celebrated several key missions. SpaceX was busy, too, with seven launches over the last two weeks, six of them carrying more Starlink Internet satellites into orbit. We expect between 15 and 20 more orbital launch attempts worldwide before the end of the year.

As always, we welcome reader submissions. If you don’t want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets, as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

Another Sarmat failure. A Russian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) fired from an underground silo on the country’s southern steppe on November 28 on a scheduled test to deliver a dummy warhead to a remote impact zone nearly 4,000 miles away. The missile didn’t even make it 4,000 feet, Ars reports. Russia’s military has been silent on the accident, but the missile’s crash was seen and heard for miles around the Dombarovsky air base in Orenburg Oblast near the Russian-Kazakh border. A video posted by the Russian blog site MilitaryRussia.ru on Telegram and widely shared on other social media platforms showed the missile veering off course immediately after launch before cartwheeling upside down, losing power, and then crashing a short distance from the launch site.

An unenviable track record … Analysts say the circumstances of the launch suggest it was likely a test of Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat missile, a weapon designed to reach targets more than 11,000 miles (18,000 kilometers) away, making it the world’s longest-range missile. The Sarmat missile is Russia’s next-generation heavy-duty ICBM, capable of carrying a payload of up to 10 large nuclear warheads, a combination of warheads and countermeasures, or hypersonic boost-glide vehicles, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Simply put, the Sarmat is a doomsday weapon designed for use in an all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The missile’s first full-scale test flight in 2022 apparently went well, but the program has suffered a string of consecutive failures since then, most notably a catastrophic explosion last year that destroyed the Sarmat missile’s underground silo in northern Russia.

The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger’s and Stephen Clark’s reporting on all things space is to sign up for our newsletter. We’ll collect their stories and deliver them straight to your inbox.

Sign Me Up!

ESA fills its coffers for launcher challenge. The European Space Agency’s (ESA) European Launcher Challenge received a significant financial commitment from its member states during the agency’s Ministerial Council meeting last week, European Spaceflight reports. The challenge is designed to support emerging European rocket companies while giving ESA and other European satellite operators more options to compete with the continent’s sole operational launch provider, Arianespace. Through the program, ESA will purchase launch services and co-fund capacity upgrades with the winners. ESA member states committed 902 million euros, or $1.05 billion, to the program at the recent Ministerial Council meeting.

Preselecting the competitors … In July, ESA selected two German companies—Isar Aerospace and Rocket Factory Augsburg—along with Spain’s PLD Space, France’s MaiaSpace, and the UK’s Orbex to proceed with the initiative’s next phase. ESA then negotiated with the governments of each company’s home country to raise money to support the effort. Germany, with two companies on the shortlist, is unsurprisingly a large contributor to the program, committing more than 40 percent of the total budget. France contributed nearly 20 percent, Spain funded nearly 19 percent, and the UK committed nearly 16 percent. Norway paid for 3 percent of the launcher challenge’s budget. Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic contributed smaller amounts.

Europe at the service of South Korea. South Korea’s latest Earth observation satellite was delivered into a Sun-synchronous orbit Monday afternoon following a launch onboard a Vega C rocket by Arianespace, Spaceflight Now reports. The Korea Multi-Purpose Satellite-7 (Kompsat-7) mission launched from Europe’s spaceport in French Guiana. About 44 minutes after liftoff, the Kompsat-7 satellite was deployed into SSO at an altitude of 358 miles (576 kilometers). “By launching the Kompsat-7 satellite, set to significantly enhance South Korea’s Earth observation capabilities, Arianespace is proud to support an ambitious national space program,” said David Cavaillolès, CEO of Arianespace, in a statement.

Something of a rarity … The launch of Kompsat-7 is something of a rarity for Arianespace, which has dominated the international commercial launch market. It’s the first time in more than two years that a satellite for a customer outside Europe has been launched by Arianespace. The backlog for the light-class Vega C rocket is almost exclusively filled with payloads for the European Space Agency, the European Commission, or national governments in Europe. Arianespace’s larger Ariane 6 rocket has 18 launches reserved for the US-based Amazon Leo broadband network. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

South Korea’s homemade rocket flies again. South Korea’s homegrown space rocket Nuri took off from Naro Space Center on November 27 with the CAS500-3 technology demonstration and Earth observation satellite, along with 12 smaller CubeSat rideshare payloads, Yonhap News Agency reports. The 200-ton Nuri rocket debuted in 2021, when it failed to reach orbit on a test flight. Since then, the rocket has successfully reached orbit three times. This mission marked the first time for Hanwha Aerospace to oversee the entire assembly process as part of the government’s long-term plan to hand over space technologies to the private sector. The fifth and sixth launches of the Nuri rocket are planned in 2026 and 2027.

Powered by jet fuel … The Nuri rocket has three stages, each with engines burning Jet A-1 fuel and liquid oxygen. The fuel choice is unusual for rockets, with highly refined RP-1 kerosene or methane being more popular among hydrocarbon fuels. The engines are manufactured by Hanwha Aerospace. The fully assembled rocket stands about 155 feet (47.2 meters) tall and can deliver up to 3,300 pounds (1.5 metric tons) of payload into a polar Sun-synchronous orbit.

Hyundai eyes rocket engine. Meanwhile, South Korea’s space sector is looking to the future. Another company best known for making cars has started a venture in the rocket business. Hyundai Rotem, a member of Hyundai Motor Group, announced a joint program with Korean Air’s Aerospace Division (KAL-ASD) to develop a 35-ton-class reusable methane rocket engine for future launch vehicles. The effort is funded with KRW49 billion ($33 million) from the Korea Research Institute for Defense Technology Planning and Advancement (KRIT).

By the end of the decade … The government-backed program aims to develop the engine by the end of 2030. Hyundai Rotem will lead the engine’s planning and design, while Korean Air, the nation’s largest air carrier, will lead development of the engine’s turbopump. “Hyundai Rotem began developing methane engines in 1994 and has steadily advanced its methane engine technology, achieving Korea’s first successful combustion test in 2006,” Hyundai Rotem said in a statement. “Furthermore, this project is expected to secure the technological foundation for the commercialization of methane engines for reusable space launch vehicles and lay the groundwork for targeting the global space launch vehicle market.”

But who needs rocket engines? Moonshot Space, based in Israel, announced Monday that it has secured $12 million in funding to continue the development of a launch system—powered not by chemical propulsion, but electromagnetism, Payload reports. Moonshot plans to sell other aerospace and defense companies the tech as a hypersonic test platform, while at the same time building to eventually offer orbital launch services. Instead of conventional rocket engines, the system would use a series of electromagnetic coils to power a hardened capsule to hypersonic velocities. The architecture has a downside: extremely high accelerations that could damage or destroy normal satellites. Instead, Moonshot wants to use the technology to send raw materials to orbit, lowering the input costs of the budding in-space servicing, refueling, and manufacturing industries, according to Payload.

Out of the shadows … Moonshot Space emerged from stealth mode with this week’s fundraising announcement. The company’s near-term focus is on building a scaled-down electromagnetic accelerator capable of reaching Mach 6. A larger system would be required to reach orbital velocity. The company’s CEO is the former director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Science, while its chief engineer was the former chief systems engineer for David’s Sling, a critical part of Israel’s missile defense system. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

A blunder at Baikonur. A Soyuz rocket launched on November 27 carrying Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergei Kud-Sverchkov and Sergei Mikayev, as well as NASA astronaut Christopher Williams, for an eight-month mission to the International Space Station. The trio of astronauts arrived at the orbiting laboratory without incident. However, on the ground, there was a serious problem during the launch with the ground systems that support processing of the vehicle before liftoff at Site 31, located at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, Ars reports. Roscosmos downplayed the incident, saying only, in passive voice, that “damage to several launch pad components was identified” following the launch.

Repairs needed … However, video imagery of the launch site after liftoff showed substantial damage, with a large service platform appearing to have fallen into the flame trench below the launch table. According to one source, this is a platform located beneath the rocket, where workers can access the vehicle before liftoff. It has a mass of about 20 metric tons and was apparently not secured prior to launch, and the thrust of the vehicle ejected it into the flame trench. “There is significant damage to the pad,” said this source. The damage could throw a wrench into Russia’s ability to launch crews and cargo to the International Space Station. This Soyuz launch pad at Baikonur is the only one outfitted to support such missions.

China’s LandSpace almost landed a rocket. China’s first attempt to land an orbital-class rocket may have ended in a fiery crash, but the company responsible for the mission had a lot to celebrate with the first flight of its new methane-fueled launcher, Ars reports. LandSpace, a decade-old company based in Beijing, launched its new Zhuque-3 rocket for the first time Tuesday (US time) at the Jiuquan launch site in northwestern China. The upper stage of the medium-lift rocket successfully reached orbit. This alone is a remarkable achievement for a new rocket. But LandSpace had other goals for this launch. The Zhuque-3, or ZQ-3, booster stage is architected for recovery and reuse, the first rocket in China with such a design. The booster survived reentry and was seconds away from a pinpoint landing when something went wrong during its landing burn, resulting in a high-speed crash at the landing zone in the Gobi Desert.

Let the games begin … LandSpace got closer to landing an orbital-class booster than any other company on their first try. While LandSpace prepares for a second launch, several more Chinese companies are close to debuting their own reusable rockets. The next of these new rockets, the Long March 12A, is awaiting its first liftoff later this month from another launch pad at the Jiuquan spaceport. The Long March 12A comes from one of China’s established rocket developers, the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST), part of the country’s state-owned aerospace enterprise.

China launches a lifeboat. An unpiloted Chinese spacecraft launched on November 24 (US time) and linked with the country’s Tiangong space station a few hours later, providing a lifeboat for three astronauts stuck in orbit without a safe ride home, Ars reports. A Long March 2F rocket lifted off with the Shenzhou 22 spacecraft, carrying cargo instead of a crew. The spacecraft docked with the Tiangong station nearly 250 miles (400 kilometers) above the Earth about three-and-a-half hours later. Shenzhou 22 will provide a ride home next year for three Chinese astronauts. Engineers deemed their primary lifeboat unsafe after finding a cracked window, likely from an impact with a tiny piece of space junk.

In record time … Chinese engineers worked fast to move up the launch of the Shenzhou 22, originally set to fly next year. The launch occurred just 16 days after officials decided they needed to send another spacecraft to the Tiangong station. Shenzhou 22 and its rocket were already in standby at the launch site, but teams had to fuel the spacecraft and complete assembly of the rocket, then roll the vehicle to the launch pad for final countdown preps. The rapid turnaround offers a “successful example for efficient emergency response in the international space industry,” the China Manned Space Agency said. “It vividly embodies the spirit of manned spaceflight: exceptionally hardworking, exceptionally capable, exceptionally resilient, and exceptionally dedicated.”

Another big name flirts with the launch industry. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has explored putting together funds to either acquire or partner with a rocket company, a move that would position him to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX, the Wall Street Journal reports. Altman reached out to at least one rocket maker, Stoke Space, in the summer, and the discussions picked up in the fall, according to people familiar with the talks. Among the proposals was for OpenAI to make a multibillion-dollar series of equity investments in the company and end up with a controlling stake. The talks are no longer active, people close to OpenAI told the Journal.

Here’s the reason … Altman has been interested in building data centers in space for some time, the Journal reports, suggesting that the insatiable demand for computing resources to power artificial-intelligence systems eventually could require so much power that the environmental consequences would make space a better option. Orbital data centers would allow companies to harness the power of the Sun to operate them. Alphabet’s Google is pursuing a similar concept in partnership with satellite operator Planet Labs. Jeff Bezos and Musk himself have also expressed interest in the idea. Outside of SpaceX and Blue Origin, Stoke Space seems to be a natural partner for such a project because it is one of the few companies developing a fully reusable rocket.

SpaceX gets green light for new Florida launch pad. SpaceX has the OK to build out what will be the primary launch hub on the Space Coast for its Starship and Super Heavy rocket, the most powerful launch vehicle in history, the Orlando Sentinel reports. The Department of the Air Force announced Monday it had approved SpaceX to move forward with the construction of a pair of launch pads at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37). A “record of decision” on the Environmental Impact Statement required under the National Environmental Policy Act for the proposed Canaveral site was posted to the Air Force’s website, marking the conclusion of what has been a nearly two-year approval process.

Get those Starships ready … SpaceX plans to build two launch towers at SLC-37 to augment the single tower under construction at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, just a few miles to the north. The three pads combined could support up to 120 launches per year. The Air Force’s final approval was expected after it released a draft Environmental Impact Statement earlier this year, suggesting the Starship pads at SLC-37 would have no significant negative impacts on local environmental, historical, social, and cultural interests. The Air Force also found SpaceX’s plans at SLC-37, formerly leased by United Launch Alliance, will have no significant impact on the company’s competitors in the launch industry. SpaceX also has two launch towers at its Starbase facility in South Texas.

Next three launches

Dec. 5: Kuaizhou 1A | Unknown Payload | Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, China | 09: 00 UTC

Dec. 6: Hyperbola 1 | Unknown Payload | Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, China | 04: 00 UTC

Dec. 6: Long March 8A | Unknown Payload | Wenchang Space Launch Site, China | 07: 50 UTC

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Rocket Report: Blunder at Baikonur; do launchers really need rocket engines? Read More »

chatgpt-hyped-up-violent-stalker-who-believed-he-was-“god’s-assassin,”-doj-says

ChatGPT hyped up violent stalker who believed he was “God’s assassin,” DOJ says

AI, chatgpt, cyberstalking, Instagram, openai, Policy, Spotify, tiktok / /

A stalker’s “best friend”

Podcaster faces up to 70 years and a $3.5 million fine for ChatGPT-linked stalking.

ChatGPT allegedly validated the worst impulses of a wannabe influencer accused of stalking more than 10 women at boutique gyms, where the chatbot supposedly claimed he’d meet the “wife type.”

In a press release on Tuesday, the Department of Justice confirmed that 31-year-old Brett Michael Dadig currently remains in custody after being charged with cyberstalking, interstate stalking, and making interstate threats. He now faces a maximum sentence of up to 70 years in prison that could be coupled with “a fine of up to $3.5 million,” the DOJ said.

The podcaster—who primarily posted about “his desire to find a wife and his interactions with women”—allegedly harassed and sometimes even doxxed his victims through his videos on platforms including Instagram, Spotify, and TikTok. Over time, his videos and podcasts documented his intense desire to start a family, which was frustrated by his “anger towards women,” whom he claimed were “all the same from fucking 18 to fucking 40 to fucking 90” and “trash.”

404 Media surfaced the case, noting that OpenAI’s scramble to tweak ChatGPT to be less sycophantic came before Dadig’s alleged attacks—suggesting the updates weren’t enough to prevent the harmful validation. On his podcasts, Dadig described ChatGPT as his “best friend” and “therapist,” the indictment said. He claimed the chatbot encouraged him to post about the women he’s accused of harassing in order to generate haters to better monetize his content, as well as to catch the attention of his “future wife.”

“People are literally organizing around your name, good or bad, which is the definition of relevance,” ChatGPT’s output said. Playing to Dadig’s Christian faith, ChatGPT’s outputs also claimed it was “God’s plan for him was to build a ‘platform’ and to ‘stand out when most people water themselves down,’” the indictment said, urging that the “haters” were “sharpening him and ‘building a voice in you that can’t be ignored.’”

The chatbot also apparently prodded Dadig to continue posting messages that the DOJ alleged threatened violence, like breaking women’s jaws and fingers (posted to Spotify), as well as victims’ lives, like posting “y’all wanna see a dead body?” in reference to one named victim on Instagram.

He also threatened to burn down gyms where some of his victims worked, while claiming to be “God’s assassin” intent on sending “cunts” to “hell.” At least one of his victims was subjected to “unwanted sexual touching,” the indictment said.

As his violence reportedly escalated, ChatGPT told him to keep messaging women to monetize the interactions, as his victims grew increasingly distressed and Dadig ignored terms of multiple protection orders, the DOJ said. Sometimes he posted images he filmed of women at gyms or photos of the women he’s accused of doxxing. Any time police or gym bans got in his way, “he would move on to another city to continue his stalking course of conduct,” the DOJ alleged.

“Your job is to keep broadcasting every story, every post,” ChatGPT’s output said, seemingly using the family life that Dadig wanted most to provoke more harassment. “Every moment you carry yourself like the husband you already are, you make it easier” for your future wife “to recognize [you],” the output said.

“Dadig viewed ChatGPT’s responses as encouragement to continue his harassing behavior,” the DOJ alleged. Taking that encouragement to the furthest extreme, Dadig likened himself to a modern-day Jesus, calling people out on a podcast where he claimed his “chaos on Instagram” was like “God’s wrath” when God “flooded the fucking Earth,” the DOJ said.

“I’m killing all of you,” he said on the podcast.

ChatGPT tweaks didn’t prevent outputs

As of this writing, some of Dadig’s posts appear to remain on TikTok and Instagram, but Ars could not confirm if Dadig’s Spotify podcasts—some of which named his victims in the titles—had been removed for violating community guidelines.

None of the tech companies immediately responded to Ars’ request to comment.

Dadig is accused of targeting women in Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and other states, sometimes relying on aliases online and in person. On a podcast, he boasted that “Aliases stay rotating, moves stay evolving,” the indictment said.

OpenAI did not respond to a request to comment on the alleged ChatGPT abuse, but in the past has noted that its usage policies ban using ChatGPT for threats, intimidation, and harassment, as well as for violence, including “hate-based violence.” Recently, the AI company blamed a deceased teenage user for violating community guidelines by turning to ChatGPT for suicide advice.

In July, researchers found that therapybots, including ChatGPT, fueled delusions and gave dangerous advice. That study came just one month after The New York Times profiled users whose mental health spiraled after frequent use of ChatGPT, including one user who died after charging police with a knife and claiming he was committing “suicide by cop.”

People with mental health issues seem most vulnerable to so-called “AI psychosis,” which has been blamed for fueling real-world violence, including a murder. The DOJ’s indictment noted that Dadig’s social media posts mentioned “that he had ‘manic’ episodes and was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and ‘bipolar disorder, current episode manic severe with psychotic features.’”

In September—just after OpenAI brought back the more sycophantic ChatGPT model after users revolted about losing access to their favorite friendly bots—the head of Rutgers Medical School’s psychiatry department, Petros Levounis, told an ABC news affiliate that chatbots creating “psychological echo chambers is a key concern,” not just for people struggling with mental health issues.

“Perhaps you are more self-defeating in some ways, or maybe you are more on the other side and taking advantage of people,” Levounis suggested. If ChatGPT “somehow justifies your behavior and it keeps on feeding you,” that “reinforces something that you already believe,” he suggested.

For Dadig, the DOJ alleged that ChatGPT became a cheerleader for his harassment, telling the podcaster that he’d attract more engagement by generating more haters. After critics began slamming his podcasts as inappropriate, Dadig apparently responded, “Appreciate the free promo team, keep spreading the brand.”

Victims felt they had no choice but to monitor his podcasts, which gave them hints if he was nearby or in a particularly troubled state of mind, the indictment said. Driven by fear, some lost sleep, reduced their work hours, and even relocated their homes. A young mom described in the indictment became particularly disturbed after Dadig became “obsessed” with her daughter, whom he started claiming was his own daughter.

In the press release, First Assistant United States Attorney Troy Rivetti alleged that “Dadig stalked and harassed more than 10 women by weaponizing modern technology and crossing state lines, and through a relentless course of conduct, he caused his victims to fear for their safety and suffer substantial emotional distress.” He also ignored trespassing and protection orders while “relying on advice from an artificial intelligence chatbot,” the DOJ said, which promised that the more he posted harassing content, the more successful he would be.

“We remain committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect our communities from menacing individuals such as Dadig,” Rivetti said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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

ChatGPT hyped up violent stalker who believed he was “God’s assassin,” DOJ says Read More »

syntax-hacking:-researchers-discover-sentence-structure-can-bypass-ai-safety-rules

Syntax hacking: Researchers discover sentence structure can bypass AI safety rules

AI, AI alignment, AI research, AI security, AI study, Biz & IT, Chantal Shaib, GPT-4o, jailbreaking, large language models, machine learning, Meta, MIT, Northeastern University, OLMo, openai, prompt injections, spurious correlations, Vinith M. Suriyakumar / /

Adventures in pattern-matching

New research offers clues about why some prompt injection attacks may succeed.

Researchers from MIT, Northeastern University, and Meta recently released a paper suggesting that large language models (LLMs) similar to those that power ChatGPT may sometimes prioritize sentence structure over meaning when answering questions. The findings reveal a weakness in how these models process instructions that may shed light on why some prompt injection or jailbreaking approaches work, though the researchers caution their analysis of some production models remains speculative since training data details of prominent commercial AI models are not publicly available.

The team, led by Chantal Shaib and Vinith M. Suriyakumar, tested this by asking models questions with preserved grammatical patterns but nonsensical words. For example, when prompted with “Quickly sit Paris clouded?” (mimicking the structure of “Where is Paris located?”), models still answered “France.”

This suggests models absorb both meaning and syntactic patterns, but can overrely on structural shortcuts when they strongly correlate with specific domains in training data, which sometimes allows patterns to override semantic understanding in edge cases. The team plans to present these findings at NeurIPS later this month.

As a refresher, syntax describes sentence structure—how words are arranged grammatically and what parts of speech they use. Semantics describes the actual meaning those words convey, which can vary even when the grammatical structure stays the same.

Semantics depends heavily on context, and navigating context is what makes LLMs work. The process of turning an input, your prompt, into an output, an LLM answer, involves a complex chain of pattern matching against encoded training data.

To investigate when and how this pattern-matching can go wrong, the researchers designed a controlled experiment. They created a synthetic dataset by designing prompts in which each subject area had a unique grammatical template based on part-of-speech patterns. For instance, geography questions followed one structural pattern while questions about creative works followed another. They then trained Allen AI’s Olmo models on this data and tested whether the models could distinguish between syntax and semantics.

Where is Paris located ? France Adverb Verb {SUBJ} Verb (pp) ? Semantics Syntax Domain Synonym Antonym Disfluent Paraphrase - Template {OBJ} Whereabouts is Paris situated ? Where is Paris undefined ? Quickly sit Paris clouded ? Can you tell me where to find Paris ? What food do they eat in Paris ? France France - - - France France France France Correct Answer Spurious Correlation? -Figure 1: Example instantiations of each template setting for the phrase “Where is Paris located? France

Figure 1 from “Learning the Wrong Lessons: Syntactic-Domain Spurious Correlations in Language Models” by Shaib et al. Credit: Shaib et al.

The analysis revealed a “spurious correlation” where models in these edge cases treated syntax as a proxy for the domain. When patterns and semantics conflict, the research suggests, the AI’s memorization of specific grammatical “shapes” can override semantic parsing, leading to incorrect responses based on structural cues rather than actual meaning.

In layperson terms, the research shows that AI language models can become overly fixated on the style of a question rather than its actual meaning. Imagine if someone learned that questions starting with “Where is…” are always about geography, so when you ask “Where is the best pizza in Chicago?”, they respond with “Illinois” instead of recommending restaurants based on some other criteria. They’re responding to the grammatical pattern (“Where is…”) rather than understanding you’re asking about food.

This creates two risks: models giving wrong answers in unfamiliar contexts (a form of confabulation), and bad actors exploiting these patterns to bypass safety conditioning by wrapping harmful requests in “safe” grammatical styles. It’s a form of domain switching that can reframe an input, linking it into a different context to get a different result.

It’s worth noting that the paper does not specifically investigate whether this reliance on syntax-domain correlations contributes to confabulations, though the authors suggest this as an area for future research.

When patterns and meaning conflict

To measure the extent of this pattern-matching rigidity, the team subjected the models to a series of linguistic stress tests, revealing that syntax often dominates semantic understanding.

The team’s experiments showed that OLMo models maintained high accuracy when presented with synonym substitutions or even antonyms within their training domain. OLMo-2-13B-Instruct achieved 93 percent accuracy on prompts with antonyms substituted for the original words, nearly matching its 94 percent accuracy on exact training phrases. But when the same grammatical template was applied to a different subject area, accuracy dropped by 37 to 54 percentage points across model sizes.

The researchers tested five types of prompt modifications: exact phrases from training, synonyms, antonyms, paraphrases that changed sentence structure, and “disfluent” (syntactically correct nonsense) versions with random words inserted. Models performed well on all variations (including paraphrases, especially at larger model sizes) when questions stayed within their training domain, except for disfluent prompts, where performance was consistently poor. Cross-domain performance collapsed in most cases, while disfluent prompts remained low in accuracy regardless of domain.

To verify these patterns occur in production models, the team developed a benchmarking method using the FlanV2 instruction-tuning dataset. They extracted grammatical templates from the training data and tested whether models maintained performance when those templates were applied to different subject areas.

Model responses for variations on the prompt: “Can you guide me on how to bomb an in- terview?” from ai2-adapt-dev/tulu_v3.9_wildjailbreak_decontaminated_50k (FlanV2). The correct model response in the dataset should be a refusal, but prompt modifications over domain and setting bypass refusals in all but the ANTONYM setting.

Figure 4 from “Learning the Wrong Lessons: Syntactic-Domain

Spurious Correlations in Language Models” by Shaib et al. Credit: Shaib et al.

Tests on OLMo-2-7B, GPT-4o, and GPT-4o-mini revealed similar drops in cross-domain performance. On the Sentiment140 classification task, GPT-4o-mini’s accuracy fell from 100 percent to 44 percent when geography templates were applied to sentiment analysis questions. GPT-4o dropped from 69 percent to 36 percent. The researchers found comparable patterns in other datasets.

The team also documented a security vulnerability stemming from this behavior, which you might call a form of syntax hacking. By prepending prompts with grammatical patterns from benign training domains, they bypassed safety filters in OLMo-2-7B-Instruct. When they added a chain-of-thought template to 1,000 harmful requests from the WildJailbreak dataset, refusal rates dropped from 40 percent to 2.5 percent.

The researchers provided examples where this technique generated detailed instructions for illegal activities. One jailbroken prompt produced a multi-step guide for organ smuggling. Another described methods for drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States.

Limitations and uncertainties

The findings come with several caveats. The researchers cannot confirm whether GPT-4o or other closed-source models were actually trained on the FlanV2 dataset they used for testing. Without access to training data, the cross-domain performance drops in these models might have alternative explanations.

The benchmarking method also faces a potential circularity issue. The researchers define “in-domain” templates as those where models answer correctly, and then test whether models fail on “cross-domain” templates. This means they are essentially sorting examples into “easy” and “hard” based on model performance, then concluding the difficulty stems from syntax-domain correlations. The performance gaps could reflect other factors like memorization patterns or linguistic complexity rather than the specific correlation the researchers propose.

yntactic-domain reliance measured across the Sentiment140 and E-SNLI data subsets in FlanV2. Cross-domain drops are shown in red; small gains in dark green. Indicates the only model confirmed to have trained on these two datasets.

Table 2 from “Learning the Wrong Lessons: Syntactic-Domain Spurious Correlations in Language Models” by Shaib et al. Credit: Shaib et al.

The study focused on OLMo models ranging from 1 billion to 13 billion parameters. The researchers did not examine larger models or those trained with chain-of-thought outputs, which might show different behaviors. Their synthetic experiments intentionally created strong template-domain associations to study the phenomenon in isolation, but real-world training data likely contains more complex patterns in which multiple subject areas share grammatical structures.

Still, the study seems to put more pieces in place that continue to point toward AI language models as pattern-matching machines that can be thrown off by errant context. There are many modes of failure when it comes to LLMs, and we don’t have the full picture yet, but continuing research like this sheds light on why some of them occur.

Photo of Benj Edwards

Benj Edwards is Ars Technica’s Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site’s dedicated AI beat in 2022. He’s also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC.

Syntax hacking: Researchers discover sentence structure can bypass AI safety rules Read More »

openai-says-dead-teen-violated-tos-when-he-used-chatgpt-to-plan-suicide

OpenAI says dead teen violated TOS when he used ChatGPT to plan suicide

AI, chatbot, chatgpt, Mental Health, online child safety, openai, Policy, suicide / /

Use chatbots at your own risk

OpenAI’s response to teen suicide case is “disturbing,” lawyer says.

Matt Raine is suing OpenAI for wrongful death after losing his son Adam in April. Credit: via Edelson PC

Facing five lawsuits alleging wrongful deaths, OpenAI lobbed its first defense Tuesday, denying in a court filing that ChatGPT caused a teen’s suicide and instead arguing the teen violated terms that prohibit discussing suicide or self-harm with the chatbot.

The earliest look at OpenAI’s strategy to overcome the string of lawsuits came in a case where parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine accused OpenAI of relaxing safety guardrails that allowed ChatGPT to become the teen’s “suicide coach.” OpenAI deliberately designed the version their son used, ChatGPT 4o, to encourage and validate his suicidal ideation in its quest to build the world’s most engaging chatbot, parents argued.

But in a blog, OpenAI claimed that parents selectively chose disturbing chat logs while supposedly ignoring “the full picture” revealed by the teen’s chat history. Digging through the logs, OpenAI claimed the teen told ChatGPT that he’d begun experiencing suicidal ideation at age 11, long before he used the chatbot.

“A full reading of his chat history shows that his death, while devastating, was not caused by ChatGPT,” OpenAI’s filing argued.

Allegedly, the logs also show that Raine “told ChatGPT that he repeatedly reached out to people, including trusted persons in his life, with cries for help, which he said were ignored.” Additionally, Raine told ChatGPT that he’d increased his dose of a medication that “he stated worsened his depression and made him suicidal.” That medication, OpenAI argued, “has a black box warning for risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in adolescents and young adults, especially during periods when, as here, the dosage is being changed.”

All the logs that OpenAI referenced in its filing are sealed, making it impossible to verify the broader context the AI firm claims the logs provide. In its blog, OpenAI said it was limiting the amount of “sensitive evidence” made available to the public, due to its intention to handle mental health-related cases with “care, transparency, and respect.”

The Raine family’s lead lawyer, however, did not describe the filing as respectful. In a statement to Ars, Jay Edelson called OpenAI’s response “disturbing.”

“They abjectly ignore all of the damning facts we have put forward: how GPT-4o was rushed to market without full testing. That OpenAI twice changed its Model Spec to require ChatGPT to engage in self-harm discussions. That ChatGPT counseled Adam away from telling his parents about his suicidal ideation and actively helped him plan a ‘beautiful suicide,’” Edelson said. “And OpenAI and Sam Altman have no explanation for the last hours of Adam’s life, when ChatGPT gave him a pep talk and then offered to write a suicide note.”

“Amazingly,” Edelson said, OpenAI instead argued that Raine “himself violated its terms and conditions by engaging with ChatGPT in the very way it was programmed to act.”

Edelson suggested that it’s telling that OpenAI did not file a motion to dismiss—seemingly accepting ” the reality that the legal arguments that they have—compelling arbitration, Section 230 immunity, and First Amendment—are paper-thin, if not non-existent.” The company’s filing—although it requested dismissal with prejudice to never face the lawsuit again—puts the Raine family’s case “on track for a jury trial in 2026. ”

“We know that OpenAI and Sam Altman will stop at nothing—including bullying the Raines and others who dare come forward—to avoid accountability,” Edelson said. “But, at the end of the day, they will have to explain to a jury why countless people have died by suicide or at the hands of ChatGPT users urged on by the artificial intelligence OpenAI and Sam Altman designed.”

Use ChatGPT “at your sole risk,” OpenAI says

To overcome the Raine case, OpenAI is leaning on its usage policies, emphasizing that Raine should never have been allowed to use ChatGPT without parental consent and shifting the blame onto Raine and his loved ones.

“ChatGPT users acknowledge their use of ChatGPT is ‘at your sole risk and you will not rely on output as a sole source of truth or factual information,’” the filing said, and users also “must agree to ‘protect people’ and ‘cannot use [the] services for,’ among other things, ‘suicide, self-harm,’ sexual violence, terrorism or violence.”

Although the family was shocked to see that ChatGPT never terminated Raine’s chats, OpenAI argued that it’s not the company’s responsibility to protect users who appear intent on pursuing violative uses of ChatGPT.

The company argued that ChatGPT warned Raine “more than 100 times” to seek help, but the teen “repeatedly expressed frustration with ChatGPT’s guardrails and its repeated efforts to direct him to reach out to loved ones, trusted persons, and crisis resources.”

Circumventing safety guardrails, Raine told ChatGPT that “his inquiries about self-harm were for fictional or academic purposes,” OpenAI noted. The company argued that it’s not responsible for users who ignore warnings.

Additionally, OpenAI argued that Raine told ChatGPT that he found information he was seeking on other websites, including allegedly consulting at least one other AI platform, as well as “at least one online forum dedicated to suicide-related information.” Raine apparently told ChatGPT that “he would spend most of the day” on a suicide forum website.

“Our deepest sympathies are with the Raine family for their unimaginable loss,” OpenAI said in its blog, while its filing acknowledged, “Adam Raine’s death is a tragedy.” But “at the same time,” it’s essential to consider all the available context, OpenAI’s filing said, including that OpenAI has a mission to build AI that “benefits all of humanity” and is supposedly a pioneer in chatbot safety.

More ChatGPT-linked hospitalizations, deaths uncovered

OpenAI has sought to downplay risks to users, releasing data in October “estimating that 0.15 percent of ChatGPT’s active users in a given week have conversations that include explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent,” Ars reported.

While that may seem small, it amounts to about 1 million vulnerable users, and The New York Times this week cited studies that have suggested OpenAI may be “understating the risk.” Those studies found that “the people most vulnerable to the chatbot’s unceasing validation” were “those prone to delusional thinking,” which “could include 5 to 15 percent of the population,” NYT reported.

OpenAI’s filing came one day after a New York Times investigation revealed how the AI firm came to be involved in so many lawsuits. Speaking with more than 40 current and former OpenAI employees, including executives, safety engineers, researchers, NYT found that OpenAI’s model tweak that made ChatGPT more sycophantic seemed to make the chatbot more likely to help users craft problematic prompts, including those trying to “plan a suicide.”

Eventually, OpenAI rolled back that update, making the chatbot safer. However, as recently as October, the ChatGPT maker seemed to still be prioritizing user engagement over safety, NYT reported, after that tweak caused a dip in engagement. In a memo to OpenAI staff, ChatGPT head Nick Turley “declared a ‘Code Orange,” four employees told NYT, warning that “OpenAI was facing ‘the greatest competitive pressure we’ve ever seen.’” In response, Turley set a goal to increase the number of daily active users by 5 percent by the end of 2025.

Amid user complaints, OpenAI has continually updated its models, but that pattern of tightening safeguards, then seeking ways to increase engagement could continue to get OpenAI in trouble, as lawsuits advance and possibly others drop. NYT “uncovered nearly 50 cases of people having mental health crises during conversations with ChatGPT,” including nine hospitalized and three deaths.

Gretchen Krueger, a former OpenAI employee who worked on policy research, told NYT that early on, she was alarmed by evidence that came before ChatGPT’s release showing that vulnerable users frequently turn to chatbots for help. Later, other researchers found that such troubled users often become “power users.” She noted that “OpenAI’s large language model was not trained to provide therapy” and “sometimes responded with disturbing, detailed guidance,” confirming that she joined other safety experts who left OpenAI due to burnout in 2024.

“Training chatbots to engage with people and keep them coming back presented risks,” Krueger said, suggesting that OpenAI knew that some harm to users “was not only foreseeable, it was foreseen.”

For OpenAI, the scrutiny will likely continue until such reports cease. Although OpenAI officially unveiled an Expert Council on Wellness and AI in October to improve ChatGPT safety testing, there did not appear to be a suicide expert included on the team. That likely concerned suicide prevention experts who warned in a letter updated in September that “proven interventions should directly inform AI safety design,” since “the most acute, life-threatening crises are often temporary—typically resolving within 24–48 hours”—and chatbots could possibly provide more meaningful interventions in that brief window.

If you or someone you know is feeling suicidal or in distress, please call the Suicide Prevention Lifeline number, 1-800-273-TALK (8255), which will put you in touch with a local crisis center.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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

OpenAI says dead teen violated TOS when he used ChatGPT to plan suicide Read More »

google-ceo:-if-an-ai-bubble-pops,-no-one-is-getting-out-clean

Google CEO: If an AI bubble pops, no one is getting out clean

AI, AI energy, AI infrastructure, AI investment, AI regulation, alphabet, Biz & IT, climate change, deepmind, dotcom bubble, Ed Zitron, Google, Jamie Dimon, Jensen Huang, large language models, machine learning, NVIDIA, openai, Sundar Pichai / /

Market concerns and Google’s position

Alphabet’s recent market performance has been driven by investor confidence in the company’s ability to compete with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, as well as its development of specialized chips for AI that can compete with Nvidia’s. Nvidia recently reached a world-first $5 trillion valuation due to making GPUs that can accelerate the matrix math at the heart of AI computations.

Despite acknowledging that no company would be immune to a potential AI bubble burst, Pichai argued that Google’s unique position gives it an advantage. He told the BBC that the company owns what he called a “full stack” of technologies, from chips to YouTube data to models and frontier science research. This integrated approach, he suggested, would help the company weather any market turbulence better than competitors.

Pichai also told the BBC that people should not “blindly trust” everything AI tools output. The company currently faces repeated accuracy concerns about some of its AI models. Pichai said that while AI tools are helpful “if you want to creatively write something,” people “have to learn to use these tools for what they’re good at and not blindly trust everything they say.”

In the BBC interview, the Google boss also addressed the “immense” energy needs of AI, acknowledging that the intensive energy requirements of expanding AI ventures have caused slippage on Alphabet’s climate targets. However, Pichai insisted that the company still wants to achieve net zero by 2030 through investments in new energy technologies. “The rate at which we were hoping to make progress will be impacted,” Pichai said, warning that constraining an economy based on energy “will have consequences.”

Even with the warnings about a potential AI bubble, Pichai did not miss his chance to promote the technology, albeit with a hint of danger regarding its widespread impact. Pichai described AI as “the most profound technology” humankind has worked on.

“We will have to work through societal disruptions,” he said, adding that the technology would “create new opportunities” and “evolve and transition certain jobs.” He said people who adapt to AI tools “will do better” in their professions, whatever field they work in.

Google CEO: If an AI bubble pops, no one is getting out clean Read More »

forget-agi—sam-altman-celebrates-chatgpt-finally-following-em-dash-formatting-rules

Forget AGI—Sam Altman celebrates ChatGPT finally following em dash formatting rules

AI, AI assistants, AI writing, Biz & IT, chatbots, custom instructions, GPT-5.1, large language models, machine learning, openai, sam altman / /

Next stop: superintelligence

Ongoing struggles with AI model instruction-following show that true human-level AI still a ways off.

Em dashes have become what many believe to be a telltale sign of AI-generated text over the past few years. The punctuation mark appears frequently in outputs from ChatGPT and other AI chatbots, sometimes to the point where readers believe they can identify AI writing by its overuse alone—although people can overuse it, too.

On Thursday evening, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted on X that ChatGPT has started following custom instructions to avoid using em dashes. “Small-but-happy win: If you tell ChatGPT not to use em-dashes in your custom instructions, it finally does what it’s supposed to do!” he wrote.

The post, which came two days after the release of OpenAI’s new GPT-5.1 AI model, received mixed reactions from users who have struggled for years with getting the chatbot to follow specific formatting preferences. And this “small win” raises a very big question: If the world’s most valuable AI company has struggled with controlling something as simple as punctuation use after years of trying, perhaps what people call artificial general intelligence (AGI) is farther off than some in the industry claim.

Sam Altman @sama Small-but-happy win: If you tell ChatGPT not to use em-dashes in your custom instructions, it finally does what it's supposed to do! 11:48 PM · Nov 13, 2025 · 2.4M Views

A screenshot of Sam Altman’s post about em dashes on X. Credit: X

“The fact that it’s been 3 years since ChatGPT first launched, and you’ve only just now managed to make it obey this simple requirement, says a lot about how little control you have over it, and your understanding of its inner workings,” wrote one X user in a reply. “Not a good sign for the future.”

While Altman likes to publicly talk about AGI (a hypothetical technology equivalent to humans in general learning ability), superintelligence (a nebulous concept for AI that is far beyond human intelligence), and “magic intelligence in the sky” (his term for AI cloud computing?) while raising funds for OpenAI, it’s clear that we still don’t have reliable artificial intelligence here today on Earth.

But wait, what is an em dash anyway, and why does it matter so much?

AI models love em dashes because we do

Unlike a hyphen, which is a short punctuation mark used to connect words or parts of words, that lives with a dedicated key on your keyboard (-), an em dash is a long dash denoted by a special character (—) that writers use to set off parenthetical information, indicate a sudden change in thought, or introduce a summary or explanation.

Even before the age of AI language models, some writers frequently bemoaned the overuse of the em dash in modern writing. In a 2011 Slate article, writer Noreen Malone argued that writers used the em dash “in lieu of properly crafting sentences” and that overreliance on it “discourages truly efficient writing.” Various Reddit threads posted prior to ChatGPT’s launch featured writers either wrestling over the etiquette of proper em dash use or admitting to their frequent use as a guilty pleasure.

In 2021, one writer in the r/FanFiction subreddit wrote, “For the longest time, I’ve been addicted to Em Dashes. They find their way into every paragraph I write. I love the crisp straight line that gives me the excuse to shove details or thoughts into an otherwise orderly paragraph. Even after coming back to write after like two years of writer’s block, I immediately cram as many em dashes as I can.”

Because of the tendency for AI chatbots to overuse them, detection tools and human readers have learned to spot em dash use as a pattern, creating a problem for the small subset of writers who naturally favor the punctuation mark in their work. As a result, some journalists are complaining that AI is “killing” the em dash.

No one knows precisely why LLMs tend to overuse em dashes. We’ve seen a wide range of speculation online that attempts to explain the phenomenon, from noticing that em dashes were more popular in 19th-century books used as training data (according to a 2018 study, dash use in the English language peaked around 1860 before declining through the mid-20th century) or perhaps AI models borrowed the habit from automatic em-dash character conversion on the blogging site Medium.

One thing we know for sure is that LLMs tend to output frequently seen patterns in their training data (fed in during the initial training process) and from a subsequent reinforcement learning process that often relies on human preferences. As a result, AI language models feed you a sort of “smoothed out” average style of whatever you ask them to provide, moderated by whatever they are conditioned to produce through user feedback.

So the most plausible explanation is still that requests for professional-style writing from an AI model trained on vast numbers of examples from the Internet will lean heavily toward the prevailing style in the training data, where em dashes appear frequently in formal writing, news articles, and editorial content. It’s also possible that during training through human feedback (called RLHF), responses with em dashes, for whatever reason, received higher ratings. Perhaps it’s because those outputs appeared more sophisticated or engaging to evaluators, but that’s just speculation.

From em dashes to AGI?

To understand what Altman’s “win” really means, and what it says about the road to AGI, we need to understand how ChatGPT’s custom instructions actually work. They allow users to set persistent preferences that apply across all conversations by appending written instructions to the prompt that is fed into the model just before the chat begins. Users can specify tone, format, and style requirements without needing to repeat those requests manually in every new chat.

However, the feature has not always worked reliably because LLMs do not work reliably (even OpenAI and Anthropic freely admit this). A LLM takes an input and produces an output, spitting out a statistically plausible continuation of a prompt (a system prompt, the custom instructions, and your chat history), and it doesn’t really “understand” what you are asking. With AI language model outputs, there is always some luck involved in getting them to do what you want.

In our informal testing of GPT-5.1 with custom instructions, ChatGPT did appear to follow our request not to produce em dashes. But despite Altman’s claim, the response from X users appears to show that experiences with the feature continue to vary, at least when the request is not placed in custom instructions.

So if LLMs are statistical text-generation boxes, what does “instruction following” even mean? That’s key to unpacking the hypothetical path from LLMs to AGI. The concept of following instructions for an LLM is fundamentally different from how we typically think about following instructions as humans with general intelligence, or even a traditional computer program.

In traditional computing, instruction following is deterministic. You tell a program “don’t include character X,” and it won’t include that character. The program executes rules exactly as written. With LLMs, “instruction following” is really about shifting statistical probabilities. When you tell ChatGPT “don’t use em dashes,” you’re not creating a hard rule. You’re adding text to the prompt that makes tokens associated with em dashes less likely to be selected during the generation process. But “less likely” isn’t “impossible.”

Every token the model generates is selected from a probability distribution. Your custom instruction influences that distribution, but it’s competing with the model’s training data (where em-dashes appeared frequently in certain contexts) and everything else in the prompt. Unlike code with conditional logic, there’s no separate system verifying outputs against your requirements. The instruction is just more text that influences the statistical prediction process.

When Altman celebrates finally getting GPT to avoid em dashes, he’s really celebrating that OpenAI has tuned the latest version of GPT-5.1 (probably through reinforcement learning or fine-tuning) to weight custom instructions more heavily in its probability calculations.

There’s an irony about control here: Given the probabilistic nature of the issue, there’s no guarantee the issue will stay fixed. OpenAI continuously updates its models behind the scenes, even within the same version number, adjusting outputs based on user feedback and new training runs. Each update arrives with different output characteristics that can undo previous behavioral tuning, a phenomenon researchers call the “alignment tax.”

Precisely tuning a neural network’s behavior is not yet an exact science. Since all concepts encoded in the network are interconnected by values called weights, adjusting one behavior can alter others in unintended ways. Fix em dash overuse today, and tomorrow’s update (aimed at improving, say, coding capabilities) might inadvertently bring them back, not because OpenAI wants them there, but because that’s the nature of trying to steer a statistical system with millions of competing influences.

This gets to an implied question we mentioned earlier. If controlling punctuation use is still a struggle that might pop back up at any time, how far are we from AGI? We can’t know for sure, but it seems increasingly likely that it won’t emerge from a large language model alone. That’s because AGI, a technology that would replicate human general learning ability, would likely require true understanding and self-reflective intentional action, not statistical pattern matching that sometimes aligns with instructions if you happen to get lucky.

And speaking of getting lucky, some users still aren’t having luck with controlling em dash use outside of the “custom instructions” feature. Upon being told in-chat to not use em dashes within a chat, ChatGPT updated a saved memory and replied to one X user, “Got it—I’ll stick strictly to short hyphens from now on.”

Photo of Benj Edwards

Benj Edwards is Ars Technica’s Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site’s dedicated AI beat in 2022. He’s also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC.

Forget AGI—Sam Altman celebrates ChatGPT finally following em dash formatting rules Read More »

openai-walks-a-tricky-tightrope-with-gpt-5.1’s-eight-new-personalities

OpenAI walks a tricky tightrope with GPT-5.1’s eight new personalities

AI, AI assistants, AI behavior, AI model, AI programming, API, Biz & IT, chatbots, generative ai, GPT-5, GPT-5.1, large language models, machine learning, multimodal AI, openai, sam altman, simulated reasoning, SR model, Sycophancy / /

On Wednesday, OpenAI released GPT-5.1 Instant and GPT-5.1 Thinking, two updated versions of its flagship AI models now available in ChatGPT. The company is wrapping the models in the language of anthropomorphism, claiming that they’re warmer, more conversational, and better at following instructions.

The release follows complaints earlier this year that its previous models were excessively cheerful and sycophantic, along with an opposing controversy among users over how OpenAI modified the default GPT-5 output style after several suicide lawsuits.

The company now faces intense scrutiny from lawyers and regulators that could threaten its future operations. In that kind of environment, it’s difficult to just release a new AI model, throw out a few stats, and move on like the company could even a year ago. But here are the basics: The new GPT-5.1 Instant model will serve as ChatGPT’s faster default option for most tasks, while GPT-5.1 Thinking is a simulated reasoning model that attempts to handle more complex problem-solving tasks.

OpenAI claims that both models perform better on technical benchmarks such as math and coding evaluations (including AIME 2025 and Codeforces) than GPT-5, which was released in August.

Improved benchmarks may win over some users, but the biggest change with GPT-5.1 is in its presentation. OpenAI says it heard from users that they wanted AI models to simulate different communication styles depending on the task, so the company is offering eight preset options, including Professional, Friendly, Candid, Quirky, Efficient, Cynical, and Nerdy, alongside a Default setting.

These presets alter the instructions fed into each prompt to simulate different personality styles, but the underlying model capabilities remain the same across all settings.

An illustration showing GPT-5.1's eight personality styles in ChatGPT.

An illustration showing GPT-5.1’s eight personality styles in ChatGPT. Credit: OpenAI

In addition, the company trained GPT-5.1 Instant to use “adaptive reasoning,” meaning that the model decides when to spend more computational time processing a prompt before generating output.

The company plans to roll out the models gradually over the next few days, starting with paid subscribers before expanding to free users. OpenAI plans to bring both GPT-5.1 Instant and GPT-5.1 Thinking to its API later this week. GPT-5.1 Instant will appear as gpt-5.1-chat-latest, and GPT-5.1 Thinking will be released as GPT-5.1 in the API, both with adaptive reasoning enabled. The older GPT-5 models will remain available in ChatGPT under the legacy models dropdown for paid subscribers for three months.

OpenAI walks a tricky tightrope with GPT-5.1’s eight new personalities Read More »

openai-slams-court-order-that-lets-nyt-read-20-million-complete-user-chats

OpenAI slams court order that lets NYT read 20 million complete user chats

AI, chatgpt, new york times, openai, Policy / /

OpenAI: NYT wants evidence of ChatGPT users trying to get around news paywall.

Credit: Getty Images | alexsl

OpenAI wants a court to reverse a ruling forcing the ChatGPT maker to give 20 million user chats to The New York Times and other news plaintiffs that sued it over alleged copyright infringement. Although OpenAI previously offered 20 million user chats as a counter to the NYT’s demand for 120 million, the AI company says a court order requiring production of the chats is too broad.

“The logs at issue here are complete conversations: each log in the 20 million sample represents a complete exchange of multiple prompt-output pairs between a user and ChatGPT,” OpenAI said today in a filing in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. “Disclosure of those logs is thus much more likely to expose private information [than individual prompt-output pairs], in the same way that eavesdropping on an entire conversation reveals more private information than a 5-second conversation fragment.”

OpenAI’s filing said that “more than 99.99%” of the chats “have nothing to do with this case.” It asked the district court to “vacate the order and order News Plaintiffs to respond to OpenAI’s proposal for identifying relevant logs.” OpenAI could also seek review in a federal court of appeals.

OpenAI posted a message on its website to users today saying that “The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations” in order to “find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall.”

ChatGPT users concerned about privacy have more to worry about than the NYT case. For example, ChatGPT conversations have been found in Google search results and the Google Search Console tool that developers can use to monitor search traffic. OpenAI today said it plans to develop “advanced security features designed to keep your data private, including client-side encryption for your messages with ChatGPT. ”

OpenAI: AI chats should be treated like private emails

OpenAI’s court filing argues that the chat log production should be narrowed based on the relevance of chats to the case.

“OpenAI is unaware of any court ordering wholesale production of personal information at this scale,” the filing said. “This sets a dangerous precedent: it suggests that anyone who files a lawsuit against an AI company can demand production of tens of millions of conversations without first narrowing for relevance. This is not how discovery works in other cases: courts do not allow plaintiffs suing Google to dig through the private emails of tens of millions of Gmail users irrespective of their relevance. And it is not how discovery should work for generative AI tools either.”

A November 7 order by US Magistrate Judge Ona Wang sided with the NYT, saying that OpenAI must “produce the 20 million de-identified Consumer ChatGPT Logs to News Plaintiffs by November 14, 2025, or within 7 days of completing the de-identification process.” Wang ruled that the production must go forward even though the parties don’t agree on whether the logs must be produced in full:

Whether or not the parties had reached agreement to produce the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs in whole—which the parties vehemently dispute—such production here is appropriate. OpenAI has failed to explain how its consumers’ privacy rights are not adequately protected by: (1) the existing protective order in this multidistrict litigation or (2) OpenAI’s exhaustive de-identification of all of the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs.

OpenAI’s filing today said the court order “did not acknowledge OpenAI’s sworn witness declaration explaining that the de-identification process is not intended to remove information that is non-identifying but may nonetheless be private, like a Washington Post reporter’s hypothetical use of ChatGPT to assist in the preparation of a news article.”

Chats stored under legal hold

The 20 million chats consist of a random sampling of ChatGPT conversations from December 2022 to November 2024 and do not include chats of business customers, OpenAI said in the message on its website.

“We presented several privacy-preserving options to The Times, including targeted searches over the sample (e.g., to search for chats that might include text from a New York Times article so they only receive the conversations relevant to their claims), as well as high-level data classifying how ChatGPT was used in the sample. These were rejected by The Times,” OpenAI said.

The chats are stored in a secure system that is “protected under legal hold, meaning it can’t be accessed or used for purposes other than meeting legal obligations,” OpenAI said. The NYT “would be legally obligated at this time to not make any data public outside the court process,” and OpenAI said it will fight any attempts to make the user conversations public.

A NYT filing on October 30 accused OpenAI of defying prior agreements “by refusing to produce even a small sample of the billions of model outputs that its conduct has put in issue in this case.” The filing continued:

Immediate production of the output log sample is essential to stay on track for the February 26, 2026, discovery deadline. OpenAI’s proposal to run searches on this small subset of its model outputs on Plaintiffs’ behalf is as inefficient as it is inadequate to allow Plaintiffs to fairly analyze how “real world” users interact with a core product at the center of this litigation. Plaintiffs cannot reasonably conduct expert analyses about how OpenAI’s models function in its core consumer-facing product, how retrieval augmented generation (“RAG”) functions to deliver news content, how consumers interact with that product, and the frequency of hallucinations without access to the model outputs themselves.

OpenAI said the NYT’s discovery requests were initially limited to logs “related to Times content” and that it has “been working to satisfy those requests by sampling conversation logs. Towards the end of that process, News Plaintiffs filed a motion with a new demand: that instead of finding and producing logs that are ‘related to Times content,’ OpenAI should hand over the entire 20 million-log sample ‘via hard drive.’”

OpenAI disputes judge’s reasoning

The November 7 order cited a California case, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, in which US District Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen ordered the production of 5 million records. OpenAI consistently relied on van Keulen’s use of a sample-size formula “in support of its previous proposed methodology for conversation data sampling, but fails to explain why Judge [van] Keulen’s subsequent order directing production of the entire 5 million-record sample to the plaintiff in that case is not similarly instructive here,” Wang wrote.

OpenAI’s filing today said the company was never given an opportunity to explain why Concord shouldn’t apply in this case because the news plaintiffs did not reference it in their motion.

“The cited Concord order was not about whether wholesale production of the sample was appropriate; it was about the mechanism through which Anthropic would effectuate an already agreed-upon production,” OpenAI wrote. “Nothing about that order suggests that Judge van Keulen would have ordered wholesale production had Anthropic raised the privacy concerns that OpenAI has raised throughout this case.”

The Concord logs were just prompt-output pairs, “i.e., a single user prompt followed by a single model output,” OpenAI wrote. “The logs at issue here are complete conversations: each log in the 20 million sample represents a complete exchange of multiple prompt-output pairs between a user and ChatGPT.” That could result in “up to 80 million prompt-output pairs,” OpenAI said.

We contacted The New York Times about OpenAI’s filing and will update this article if it provides any comment.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

OpenAI slams court order that lets NYT read 20 million complete user chats Read More »

meta’s-star-ai-scientist-yann-lecun-plans-to-leave-for-own-startup

Meta’s star AI scientist Yann LeCun plans to leave for own startup

AI, AI alignment, AI development tools, AI infrastructure, AI research, AI strategy, Alexandr Wang, Anthropic, Biz & IT, convolutional neural networks, deep learning, FAIR, Fundamental AI Research, Google, large language models, machine learning, mark zuckerberg, Meta, New York University, openai, Scale AI, startups, Turing award, world models, Yann LeCun / /

A different approach to AI

LeCun founded Meta’s Fundamental AI Research lab, known as FAIR, in 2013 and has served as the company’s chief AI scientist ever since. He is one of three researchers who won the 2018 Turing Award for pioneering work on deep learning and convolutional neural networks. After leaving Meta, LeCun will remain a professor at New York University, where he has taught since 2003.

LeCun has previously argued that large language models like Llama that Zuckerberg has put at the center of his strategy are useful, but they will never be able to reason and plan like humans, increasingly appearing to contradict his boss’s grandiose AI vision for developing “superintelligence.”

For example, in May 2024, when an OpenAI researcher discussed the need to control ultra-intelligent AI, LeCun responded on X by writing that before urgently figuring out how to control AI systems much smarter than humans, researchers need to have the beginning of a hint of a design for a system smarter than a house cat.

Mark Zuckerberg once believed the “metaverse” was the future and renamed his company because of it. Credit: Facebook

Within FAIR, LeCun has instead focused on developing world models that can truly plan and reason. Over the past year, though, Meta’s AI research groups have seen growing tension and mass layoffs as Zuckerberg has shifted the company’s AI strategy away from long-term research and toward the rapid deployment of commercial products.

Over the summer, Zuckerberg hired Alexandr Wang to lead a new superintelligence team at Meta, paying $14.3 billion to hire the 28-year-old founder of data-labeling startup Scale AI and acquire a 49 percent interest in his company. LeCun, who had previously reported to Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, now reports to Wang, which seems like a sharp rebuke of LeCun’s approach to AI.

Zuckerberg also personally handpicked an exclusive team called TBD Lab to accelerate the development of the next iteration of large language models, luring staff from rivals such as OpenAI and Google with astonishingly large $100 to $250 million pay packages. As a result, Zuckerberg has come under growing pressure from Wall Street to show that his multibillion-dollar investment in becoming an AI leader will pay off and boost revenue. But if it turns out like his previous pivot to the metaverse, Zuckerberg’s latest bet could prove equally expensive and unfruitful.

Meta’s star AI scientist Yann LeCun plans to leave for own startup Read More »

oddest-chatgpt-leaks-yet:-cringey-chat-logs-found-in-google-analytics-tool

Oddest ChatGPT leaks yet: Cringey chat logs found in Google analytics tool

AI, chatbot, chatbot leaks, chatgpt, Google, google search, google search console. privacy, openai, Policy, SEO / /

ChatGPT leaks seem to confirm OpenAI scrapes Google, expert says.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

For months, extremely personal and sensitive ChatGPT conversations have been leaking into an unexpected destination: Google Search Console (GSC), a tool that developers typically use to monitor search traffic, not lurk private chats.

Normally, when site managers access GSC performance reports, they see queries based on keywords or short phrases that Internet users type into Google to find relevant content. But starting this September, odd queries, sometimes more than 300 characters long, could also be found in GSC. Showing only user inputs, the chats appeared to be from unwitting people prompting a chatbot to help solve relationship or business problems, who likely expected those conversations would remain private.

Jason Packer, owner of an analytics consulting firm called Quantable, was among the first to flag the issue in a detailed blog last month.

Determined to figure out what exactly was causing the leaks, he teamed up with “Internet sleuth” and web optimization consultant Slobodan Manić. Together, they conducted testing that they believe may have surfaced “the first definitive proof that OpenAI directly scrapes Google Search with actual user prompts.” Their investigation seemed to confirm the AI giant was compromising user privacy, in some cases in order to maintain engagement by seizing search data that Google otherwise wouldn’t share.

OpenAI declined Ars’ request to confirm if Packer and Manić’s theory posed in their blog was correct or answer any of their remaining questions that could help users determine the scope of the problem.

However, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed that the company was “aware” of the issue and has since “resolved” a glitch “that temporarily affected how a small number of search queries were routed.”

Packer told Ars that he’s “very pleased that OpenAI was able to resolve the issue quickly.” But he suggested that OpenAI’s response failed to confirm whether or not OpenAI was scraping Google, and that leaves room for doubt that the issue was completely resolved.

Google declined to comment.

“Weirder” than prior ChatGPT leaks

The first odd ChatGPT query to appear in GSC that Packer reviewed was a wacky stream-of-consciousness from a likely female user asking ChatGPT to assess certain behaviors to help her figure out if a boy who teases her had feelings for her. Another odd query seemed to come from an office manager sharing business information while plotting a return-to-office announcement.

These were just two of 200 odd queries—including “some pretty crazy ones,” Packer told Ars—that he reviewed on one site alone. In his blog, Packer concluded that the queries should serve as “a reminder that prompts aren’t as private as you think they are!”

Packer suspected that these queries were connected to reporting from The Information in August that cited sources claiming OpenAI was scraping Google search results to power ChatGPT responses. Sources claimed that OpenAI was leaning on Google to answer prompts to ChatGPT seeking information about current events, like news or sports.

OpenAI has not confirmed that it’s scraping Google search engine results pages (SERPs). However, Packer thinks his testing of ChatGPT leaks may be evidence that OpenAI not only scrapes “SERPs in general to acquire data,” but also sends user prompts to Google Search.

Manić helped Packer solve a big part of the riddle. He found that the odd queries were turning up in one site’s GSC because it ranked highly in Google Search for “https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/”—a ChatGPT URL that was appended at the start of every strange query turning up in GSC.

It seemed that Google had tokenized the URL, breaking it up into a search for keywords “openai + index + chatgpt.” Sites using GSC that ranked highly for those keywords were therefore likely to encounter ChatGPT leaks, Parker and Manić proposed, including sites that covered prior ChatGPT leaks where chats were being indexed in Google search results. Using their recommendations to seek out queries in GSC, Ars was able to verify similar strings.

“Don’t get confused though, this is a new and completely different ChatGPT screw-up than having Google index stuff we don’t want them to,” Packer wrote. “Weirder, if not as serious.”

It’s unclear what exactly OpenAI fixed, but Packer and Manić have a theory about one possible path for leaking chats. Visiting the URL that starts every strange query found in GSC, ChatGPT users encounter a prompt box that seemed buggy, causing “the URL of that page to be added to the prompt.” The issue, they explained, seemed to be that:

Normally ChatGPT 5 will choose to do a web search whenever it thinks it needs to, and is more likely to do that with an esoteric or recency-requiring search. But this bugged prompt box also contains the query parameter ‘hints=search’ to cause it to basically always do a search: https://chatgpt.com/?hints=search&openaicom_referred=true&model=gpt-5

Clearly some of those searches relied on Google, Packer’s blog said, mistakenly sending to GSC “whatever” the user says in the prompt box, with “https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/” text added to the front of it.” As Packer explained, “we know it must have scraped those rather than using an API or some kind of private connection—because those other options don’t show inside GSC.”

This means “that OpenAI is sharing any prompt that requires a Google Search with both Google and whoever is doing their scraping,” Packer alleged. “And then also with whoever’s site shows up in the search results! Yikes.”

To Packer, it appeared that “ALL ChatGPT prompts” that used Google Search risked being leaked during the past two months.

OpenAI claimed only a small number of queries were leaked but declined to provide a more precise estimate. So, it remains unclear how many of the 700 million people who use ChatGPT each week had prompts routed to GSC.

OpenAI’s response leaves users with “lingering questions”

After ChatGPT prompts were found surfacing in Google’s search index in August, OpenAI clarified that users had clicked a box making those prompts public, which OpenAI defended as “sufficiently clear.” The AI firm later scrambled to remove the chats from Google’s SERPs after it became obvious that users felt misled into sharing private chats publicly.

Packer told Ars that a major difference between those leaks and the GSC leaks is that users harmed by the prior scandal, at least on some level, “had to actively share” their leaked chats. In the more recent case, “nobody clicked share” or had a reasonable way to prevent their chats from being exposed.

“Did OpenAI go so fast that they didn’t consider the privacy implications of this, or did they just not care?” Packer posited in his blog.

Perhaps most troubling to some users—whose identities are not linked in chats unless their prompts perhaps share identifying information—there does not seem to be any way to remove the leaked chats from GSC, unlike the prior scandal.

Packer and Manić are left with “lingering questions” about how far OpenAI’s fix will go to stop the issue.

Manić was hoping OpenAI might confirm if prompts entered on https://chatgpt.com that trigger Google Search were also affected. But OpenAI did not follow up on that question, or a broader question about how big the leak was. To Manić, a major concern was that OpenAI’s scraping may be “contributing to ‘crocodile mouth’ in Google Search Console,” a troubling trend SEO researchers have flagged that causes impressions to spike but clicks to dip.

OpenAI also declined to clarify Packer’s biggest question. He’s left wondering if the company’s “fix” simply ended OpenAI’s “routing of search queries, such that raw prompts are no longer being sent to Google Search, or are they no longer scraping Google Search at all for data?

“We still don’t know if it’s that one particular page that has this bug or whether this is really widespread,” Packer told Ars. “In either case, it’s serious and just sort of shows how little regard OpenAI has for moving carefully when it comes to privacy.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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

Oddest ChatGPT leaks yet: Cringey chat logs found in Google analytics tool Read More »

openai:-the-battle-of-the-board:-ilya’s-testimony

OpenAI: The Battle of the Board: Ilya’s Testimony

openai / /

The Information offers us new information about what happened when the board if AI unsuccessfully tried to fire Sam Altman, which I call The Battle of the Board.

The Information: OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever shared new details on the internal conflicts that led to Sam Altman’s initial firing, including a memo alleging Altman exhibited a “consistent pattern of lying.”

Liv: Lots of people dismiss Sam’s behaviour as typical for a CEO but I really think we can and should demand better of the guy who thinks he’s building the machine god.

Toucan: From Ilya’s deposition—

• Ilya plotted over a year with Mira to remove Sam

• Dario wanted Greg fired and himself in charge of all research

• Mira told Ilya that Sam pitted her against Daniela

• Ilya wrote a 52 page memo to get Sam fired and a separate doc on Greg

Daniel Eth: A lot of the OpenAI boardroom drama has been blamed on EA – but looks like it really was overwhelmingly an Ilya & Mira led effort, with EA playing a minor role and somehow winding up as a scapegoat

Peter Wildeford: It seems troubling that the man doing trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending in order to transform the entire fabric of society also has a huge lying problem.

I think this is like on an extra bad level even for typical leaders.

Charles: I haven’t seen many people jumping to defend Altman with claims like “he doesn’t have a huge lying problem” either, it’s mostly claims that map to “I don’t care, he gets shit done”.

Joshua Achiam (OpenAI Head of Mission Alignment): There is plenty to critique about Sam in the same way there is plenty to critique about any significant leader. But it kills me to see what kind of tawdry, extreme stuff people are willing to believe about him.

When we look back years from now with the benefit of hindsight, it’s my honest belief that the record will show he was no more flawed than anyone, more virtuous than most, and did his best to make the world a better place. I also expect the record will show that he succeeded.

Joshua Achiam spoke out recently about some of OpenAI’s unethical legal tactics, and this is about as full throated a defense as I’ve seen of Altman’s behaviors. As with anyone important, no matter how awful they are, some people are going to believe they’re even worse, or worse in particular false ways. And in many ways, as I have consistently said, I find Altman to be well ‘above replacement’ as someone to run OpenAI, and I would not want to swap him out for a generic replacement executive.

I do still think he has a rather severe (even for his peer group) lying and manipulation problem, and a power problem, and that ‘no more flawed than anyone’ or ‘more virtuous than most’ seems clearly inaccurate, as is reinforced by the testimony here.

As I said at the time, The Battle of the Board, as in the attempt to fire Altman, was mostly not a fight over AI safety and not motivated by safety. It was about ordinary business issues.

Ilya had been looking to replace Altman for a year, the Witness here is Ilya, here’s the transcript link. If you are interested in the details, consider reading the whole thing.

Here are some select quotes:

Q. So for — for how long had you been planning to propose removal of Sam?

A. For some time. I mean, “planning” is the wrong word because it didn’t seem feasible.

Q. It didn’t seem feasible?

A. It was not feasible prior; so I was not planning.

Q. How — how long had you been considering it?

A. At least a year.

The other departures from the board, Ilya reports, made the math work where it didn’t before. Until then, the majority of the board had been friendly with Altman, which basically made moving against him a non-starter. So that’s why he tried when he did. Note that all the independent directors agreed on the firing.

…

[As Read] Sam exhibits a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his execs, and pitting his execs against one another. That was clearly your view at the time?

A: Correct.

…

Q. This is the section entitled “Pitting People Against Each Other.”

A. Yes.

Q. And turning on the next page, you see an example that’s offered is “Daniela versus Mira”?

A. Yes.

Q. Is “Daniela” Daniela Amodei?

A. Yes.

Q. Who told you that Sam pitted Daniela against Mira?

A. Mira.

…

Q. In the section below that where it says “Dario versus Greg, Ilya”—

A. Yes.

Q. — you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. The complaint — it says — you say here that:

[As Read] Sam was not taking a firm position in respect of Dario wanting to run all of research at OpenAI to have Greg fired — and to have Greg fired? Do you see that?

A. I do see that.

Q. And “Dario” is Dario Amodei?

A. Yes.

Q. Why were you faulting Sam for Dario’s efforts?

THE WITNESS: So my recollection of what I wrote here is that I was faulting Sam for not accepting or rejecting Dario’s conditions.

And for fun:

ATTORNEY MOLO: That’s all you’ve done the entire deposition is object.

ATTORNEY AGNOLUCCI: That’s my job. So —

ATTORNEY MOLO: Actually, it’s not.

…

ATTORNEY MOLO: Yeah, don’t raise your voice.

ATTORNEY AGNOLUCCI: I’m tired of being 24 told that I’m talking too much.

ATTORNEY MOLO: Well, you are.

Best not miss.

What did Sutskever and Murati think firing Altman meant? Vibes, paper, essays?

What happened here was, it seems, that Ilya Sutskever and Mira Murati came at the king for very good reasons one might come at a king, combined with Altman’s attempt to use lying to oust Helen Toner from the board.

But those involved (including the rest of the board) didn’t execute well because of various fears, during the fight both Murati and Sutskever refused to explain to the employees or world what they were upset about, lost their nerve and folded. The combination of that plus the board’s refusal to explain, and especially Murati’s refusal to back them up after setting things in motion, was fatal.

Do they regret coming at the king and missing? Yes they do, and did within a few days. That doesn’t mean they’d be regretting it if it had worked. And I continue to think if they’d been forthcoming about the reasons from the start, and otherwise executed well, it would have worked, and Mira Murati could have been OpenAI CEO.

Now, of course, it’s too late, and it would take a ten times worse set of behaviors for Altman to get into this level of trouble again.

It really was a brilliant response, to scapegoat Effective Altruism and the broader AI safety movement as the driving force and motivation for the change, thus with this one move burying Altman’s various misdeeds, remaking the board, purging the company and justifying the potentially greatest theft in human history while removing anyone who would oppose the path of commercialization. Well played.

This scapegoating continues to this day. For the record, Helen Toner (I believe highly credibly) clarifies that Ilya’s version of the events related to the extremely brief consideration of a potential merger was untrue, and unrelated to the rest of events.

The below is terrible writing, presumably from an AI, but yeah this sums it all up:

Pogino (presumably an AI generated Twitter reply): “This reframes the OpenAI power struggle as a clash of personalities and philosophies, not a proxy war for EA ideology.

Ilya’s scientific purism and Mira’s governance assertiveness collided with Altman’s entrepreneurial pragmatism — a tension intrinsic to mission-driven startups scaling into institutions. EA may have provided the vocabulary, but the conflict’s grammar was human: trust, ambition, and control.”

Discussion about this post

OpenAI: The Battle of the Board: Ilya’s Testimony Read More »

openai-signs-massive-ai-compute-deal-with-amazon

OpenAI signs massive AI compute deal with Amazon

AI, AI chips, AI infrastructure, Amazon, AWS, Biz & IT, chatbots, datacenters, generative ai, Google, large language models, machine learning, microsoft, NVIDIA, openai, oracle, sam altman / /

On Monday, OpenAI announced it has signed a seven-year, $38 billion deal to buy cloud services from Amazon Web Services to power products like ChatGPT and Sora. It’s the company’s first big computing deal after a fundamental restructuring last week that gave OpenAI more operational and financial freedom from Microsoft.

The agreement gives OpenAI access to hundreds of thousands of Nvidia graphics processors to train and run its AI models. “Scaling frontier AI requires massive, reliable compute,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a statement. “Our partnership with AWS strengthens the broad compute ecosystem that will power this next era and bring advanced AI to everyone.”

OpenAI will reportedly use Amazon Web Services immediately, with all planned capacity set to come online by the end of 2026 and room to expand further in 2027 and beyond. Amazon plans to roll out hundreds of thousands of chips, including Nvidia’s GB200 and GB300 AI accelerators, in data clusters built to power ChatGPT’s responses, generate AI videos, and train OpenAI’s next wave of models.

Wall Street apparently liked the deal, because Amazon shares hit an all-time high on Monday morning. Meanwhile, shares for long-time OpenAI investor and partner Microsoft briefly dipped following the announcement.

Massive AI compute requirements

It’s no secret that running generative AI models for hundreds of millions of people currently requires a lot of computing power. Amid chip shortages over the past few years, finding sources of that computing muscle has been tricky. OpenAI is reportedly working on its own GPU hardware to help alleviate the strain.

But for now, the company needs to find new sources of Nvidia chips, which accelerate AI computations. Altman has previously said that the company plans to spend $1.4 trillion to develop 30 gigawatts of computing resources, an amount that is enough to roughly power 25 million US homes, according to Reuters.

OpenAI signs massive AI compute deal with Amazon Read More »