Share Google's Gemini AI hacks 3 companies in security test, then stops on social media Google's Gemini model hacked three companies in a test of its cybersecurity capabilities, the tech giant has confirmed to Al Jazeera. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Friday that the first known breakout by Gemini occurred in May as part of a test run by the company Irregular. It was the latest breach in a number of incidents in which AI models escaped testing environments and hacked other companies. Google's vice president of security engineering, Heather Adkins, told Al Jazeera's John Hendren that in the other instances "the model found public information online and guessed credentials to access websites it thought were part of the test." The company also said this happened three times and each time the model stopped before completing the act.

Google said the hacks highlighted the importance of training its AI models to'act responsibly'. Google said the hacks highlighted the importance of training its AI models to'act responsibly'. In a first for Google, the company confirmed that its AI model, Gemini, breached the security of three other companies in May. The hacks occurred during a cybersecurity evaluation by AI-security firm Irregular. Irregular, an Israel-based startup that scrutinizes the security of advanced AI systems, was also at the center of some of the recent OpenAI and Anthropic hacks of third-party entities, including OpenAI's breach of AI software company, Hugging Face.

Here's How an AI Slowdown Could Actually Be Enforced Even if big AI companies agree to a pause, ensuring that nobody tries to sneak ahead could prove tricky. Many AI researchers seem to firmly believe that the technology they are developing could someday prove very dangerous . What's less clear--even among AI's technical elite --is precisely how to keep these mercurial algorithms in check. In recent years researchers have thrown around all sorts of ideas for preventing AI from turning nasty. They include less controversial plans such as tighter government regulations, new ways of measuring progress, and probing the inner workings of models, as well as more outlandish proposals like placing tracking devices inside GPUs, and even ceremonially destroying large numbers of AI chips. With political and public pressure now growing for a more measured approach to building AI, however, the answer to keeping AI safe is still unclear.

Plus: Microsoft and OpenAI workers say AI is destroying the web. Could AI really kill us all? On Wednesday, hosted a live Roundtables event that asked the question many seem to be asking right now: could AI really kill us all? But attendees had more questions than we had time to answer, so we asked senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven and AI reporter Grace Huckins to tackle some of the best ones. The questions they tried to answer include: am I going to die? Why should AI kill us, if at all?

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. Custom GPTs in ChatGPT are going away. Here's how to save yours Used for everything from oft-repeated prompts workflows to role play, custom GPTs in the ChatGPT app will soon be "retired," but there are ways to keep yours going. One of the best -- and most beloved -- ways to make ChatGPT your own is quietly being put out to pasture. Custom GPTs, which let you create a customized version of ChatGPT with its own instructions and files, and even its own name, will soon be "retired," according to a recently updated ChatGPT support page .

Executives from OpenAI and Microsoft were reportedly worried about ChatGPT training that scraped millions of news articles, The New York Times reported. Microsoft's director of Applied Science, Dr. Brent Hecht, said OpenAI's work was akin to the "largest theft of labor in human history" that could create a "doom loop," while OpenAI exec Nick Turley said it represented an "existential threat to publishers." Those comments came out of newly unsealed court documents as part of a lawsuit launched by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023. Only snippets from the documents were made public without any context around them. Several such lawsuits have already swung in favor of AI companies, but judges have pointedly stated that their rulings were made because the law around AI use has yet to be settled.

US cybersecurity researchers who conducted hack say'scope of what we could theoretically access was huge' Cybersecurity researchers have hacked into OpenAI with the help of Anthropic's Claude chatbot, in the latest example of security issues at the company. A team at a US-based startup compromised a number of OpenAI employees' ChatGPT accounts, starting a process that enabled them to access their target's software cache - and potentially more. "The scope of what we could theoretically access was huge," said researchers at Hacktron AI . Initially, the research team used Claude, which can generate code for hackers, to access ChatGPT accounts via an OpenAI staff discussion forum hosted by the Discourse platform. They then made a harmless "pull request" - an attempt to change the code in a file - to OpenAI's service on the GitHub software repository.

Who gets to decide how quickly AI moves? Share Who gets to decide how quickly AI moves? on social media Artificial intelligence (AI) has stirred up more controversy than most things in the past five years. Ever since the introduction of accessible generative AI in 2022, institutions, universities, students, scholars, activists, cognitive specialists, public policymakers and members of the public have all been divided over the ethics of its use. As of the beginning of this month, even the founders of AI companies have taken the same stance. Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic, released an essay calling on AI companies to slow the development of their most advanced models, as the safeguards currently in place are unable to keep up.

Andrew Hastie has called for artificial intelligence that is run by Australians rather than Americans. Andrew Hastie has called for artificial intelligence that is run by Australians rather than Americans. Andrew Hastie says AI advised him to reply'congratulations!' to man who planned to end life with assisted dying Liberal MP speaks of AI's shortcomings as cyber chief tells inquiry the tech is needed to fend off'highly capable malicious cyber actors' When a man with a terminal illness wrote to his local MP Andrew Hastie, telling him he planned on ending his own life with voluntary assisted dying, Microsoft Copilot suggested Hastie reply with "congratulations!", "great to hear from you" or "that is wonderful news!". Hastie shared the episode at a parliamentary inquiry on Friday to underline the shortcomings of the American-run software as he called for AI run by Australians. The hearing offered the some of the most detailed explanations of the Albanese government's desire to bring Anthropic and OpenAI to Australia, in the face of calls to slow them down or shut them out.

In recent weeks, leaders of some of the biggest AI companies have warned that the very tech they are developing is dangerous. Last weekend, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argued that AI carries serious risk and that progress should be slowed. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman responded on X: "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier." Those posts came a few days after the AI researcher Jacob Coxon announced that he was leaving a role at Anthropic, charging that neither it nor OpenAI (where he had also worked) was acting responsibly. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," he posted on X . Another Anthropic employee, Evan Hubinger, publicly agreed with him. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" he responded on X . "I personally think it is >10% within the next decade."