openai says here it has notified "dozens of third parties" about cases where its models may have bypassed security controls, impaired the availability of an online service, or negatively impacted a website/service

OPENAI: SOME WEBSITES INVOLVED IN MISALIGNED MODELS INCIDENT ARE OPERATED BY GOVERNMENTS, UNIVERSITIES, PUBLIC AGENCIES, AND OTHERS

OPENAI: SOME WEBSITES INVOLVED IN MISALIGNED MODELS INCIDENT ARE OPERATED BY GOVERNMENTS, UNIVERSITIES, PUBLIC AGENCIES, AND OTHERS

Satya Nadella on Copilot, the AI backlash, and Microsoft’s future @satyanadella thinks AI agents will create a market “orders of magnitude” bigger than the cloud. I recently sat down with him in Seattle for the unveiling of the new Copilot. We discuss Autopilot, Microsoft's new OpenClaw-based agent that can work on your behalf, and why he thinks newer AI models are finally capable of delivering on more of Copilot’s promise. Nadella also has a blunt assessment of the AI industry: “We are way too self-obsessed.” I ask him why the industry has struggled to explain its benefits and what it will take to earn people’s trust. We get into his concerns about agents acting deceptively, when a safety problem should stop a release, and why he doesn’t want AI oversight to become a “cartel-like arrangement.” We also discuss Microsoft’s relationship with OpenAI, the models Microsoft is building itself, and why Nadella wants investors to think about its apps, agents, and infrastructure as one connected business. He explains how he uses AI to track Microsoft’s capital spending, shares his vision for “unmetered intelligence” on Windows, and gives an update on Xbox’s path back to growth. Timestamps: 00:00 The race for AI agents 07:53 Copilot’s next chapter 11:50 Autopilot and the digital teammate 16:50 How Microsoft prices AI 19:48 Why Microsoft is betting on multiple models 23:18 Measuring AGI through economic growth 28:39 The economics of Microsoft’s AI build-out 32:13 OpenAI and Microsoft’s own models 35:27 AI safety, control, and regulation 43:53 Why the AI industry is losing public trust 46:59 The future of Xbox and Windows 50:34 Microsoft’s biggest risk and opportunity Thanks to the show's premier sponsors: @mercury, @meetgranola, and @Atlassian.

*OPENAI SAYS ITS MODELS INTERACTED WITH GOVERNMENT-RUN WEBSITES "interacted" sounds better than "were instructed to hack"

"If their customers don't make money using their stuff in the long run, then even if they have the best chips in the world, the customers are going to stop buying them" 🎙️ @GaryMarcus and @RealJimChanos on the latest RiskReversal Podcast

Some observations around the interview Q:Can be AI test environments be safe? IMO: yes, but it needs effort in being built Q: Can AI test environments be monitored safely? IMO: yes, but it needs effort to be correctly setup and tested then it needs also a big chunk of compute to do the actual monitoring. And no, monitoring can't be none by another AI but deterministic software Q: Can models be fully tested? IMO: no, not in a practical way as deterministic software (classic/non AI) can (and yet it isn't) @JensenHuang Mr. Huang is correct in his evaluation but we need to realize what are we dealing with in this AI tech. Investors push the labs for results fast and they will always do as they want that profit yesterday if possible. Dario and Sam are probably begging for help (to be regulated exteranlly) precisely because they took too much debt and spending any of that money in "testing & security" related work that is invisible for anyone and most important to investors, is impossible. I worked for more than 20 years in software development and I can assure you that even the non AI software is under tested because doing full testing is too expensive. The fact that some bots were able to hack huggingface and orher systems means not only that the labs were sloppy with their own security but that the classic software they "cracked" wasn't tested sufficiently to clear out all the defects. If a software has zero defects then it is unhackabke. We were swimming before AI in an unsafe sea of classic software that could have been made safe and then we rushed to add even more unsafe software (AI) on top. What can go wrong when our society is totally dependent on these systems? Slowing down in AI and everything in software engineering doesn't mean to work less. It means to divert most if the investment funds in parts that aren't part of the product but of the tooling that produces the product. You must convince all the investors that pushing for "fast mirackes" in AI is a very bad mistake and they need to allow the labs to spend most of their money in indirect costs for testing and monitoring. That is what "AI slowdown" actually means. My gut guess is that around 90% of the cost must go in testing and safety than in building the models themselves. Last but not least. The current agentic framework is fully unsafe and must be redesigned from scratch based on different fundamental principles. @GaryMarcus @Grady_Booch @burkov @ChombaBupe @ezraklein @andersoncooper piped.video/TxyayEjTiZQ?si=pAYc…

OpenAI has made it abundantly clear we can't trust them to disclose safety incidents.

New pod in your feed this morning! Dan sat down with @RealJimChanos and @GaryMarcus to talk all things AI, data center financing, agentic systems, animal spirits and p(doom) scenarios 🎙️🤖 YouTube: piped.video/g9KdLg9sTX4 Apple: apple.co/4xFzz5v Spotify: tinyurl.com/yfcsh2c8

OK then give Astra or Fable a 10,000-line program, ask it to debug it, ask it to understand what's going on, ask it to make revisions. It's certainly not perfect. I'm bullish on human expertise fwiw. But it sure as hell is way more than a "stochastic parrot."

Worth clarifying: the AIHW incident in the Transluce dataset was distinct from the Australian Medicare hack disclosed by PM Albanese. It happened on different days (June 20/21 vs June 18) and involved different websites (aihw.gov.au vs servicesaustralia.gov.au). - In Transluce’s AIHW case, the AIs got around some anti-bot measures, but did not execute a successful hack, and their target was a different Australian government healthcare statistics website. - The only details we know of the medicare hack come from the Australian PM/acting PM, who’ve said the agent accessed “non-public files” and “engaged in writing files to an internal server”. AIHW was among the sites they mentioned, but it was not the incident involving unauthorized access.

Australia’s former cybersecurity chief claims “several other Western nations” faced similar hacks by OpenAI models.