Illinois Lawmakers Just Passed America's Strongest AI Safety Bill The bill requires companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google to have third parties confirm they're following safety standards. The Illinois House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday requiring frontier AI labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind to have their safety practices audited by a third party. If signed into law, AI safety experts tell WIRED, it would be the nation's leading check on the power of major AI companies . The bill, SB 315, now heads to governor JB Pritzker's desk. In a post on social media on Wednesday, Pritzker said he plans to sign the bill, citing a need to hold Big Tech accountable.

The ex-employees, who cofounded a new AI watchdog group, say investors deserve more information about xAI's safety practices before SpaceX goes public. Two former OpenAI employees and a group of AI safety nonprofits are warning that Elon Musk's AI lab, xAI, could become a liability for prospective investors in SpaceX, which is preparing to file what's expected to be the largest initial public offering in Wall Street History. In a letter directed to investors published on Tuesday, the ex-staffers highlighted what they describe as "unpriced risks" related to xAI that could complicate SpaceX's reported plans to raise up to $75 billion as part of its IPO. The rocket company's private valuation shot up to over $1 trillion after it acquired xAI last year . Musk claimed his rocket company could launch data centers into space for his AI lab, but the letter's authors argue that xAI's poor record on safety issues could complicate how investors view the combined company as it gets ready to submit its IPO prospectus filing .

A federal jury is now deciding whether Elon Musk will win his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman--but the trial has made everyone look bad. Attorneys delivered closing arguments in the trial on Thursday in a final attempt to convince a judge and jury that their respective clients, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, are the most well-intentioned, truth-telling stewards of OpenAI's founding nonprofit mission. A judgement could be delivered as soon as next week, ending a decade-long battle between two of the technology industry's most influential entrepreneurs. But regardless of the outcome, there is a wide set of losers in this case. Based on ample amounts of evidence, it appears that the people worst off are the employees, policymakers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of a nonprofit research lab--and supported OpenAI because of it.

Ilya Sutskever Stands by His Role in Sam Altman's OpenAI Ouster: 'I Didn't Want It to Be Destroyed' The former OpenAI chief scientist may be estranged from the company, but he still came to its defense as he testified on Monday. Elon Musk's trial against OpenAI and Microsoft entered its final stretch on Monday, with testimony from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, and current OpenAI chairman Bret Taylor. Sutskever drew the spotlight, revealing an ownership stake in OpenAI's $850-billion for-profit arm that is currently worth about $7 billion. That makes him one of the largest known individual shareholders of OpenAI. Earlier in the trial, OpenAI president Greg Brockman acknowledged for the first time that he has around $30 billion worth of OpenAI shares .

Musk v. Altman week 2: OpenAI fires back, and Shivon Zilis reveals that Musk tried to poach Sam Altman OpenAI president Greg Brockman said Elon Musk wanted the company to create a for-profit entity--and endured a public peek into his diary. OpenAI president Greg Brockman, foreground, exits the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California. In the second week of the landmark trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI, Musk's motivations for bringing the suit were under scrutiny. Last week, Musk took the stand, alleging that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman had deceived him into donating $38 million to the company. He claimed that they'd promised to maintain it as a nonprofit dedicated to developing AI for the benefit of humanity, only to later accept billions of dollars of investment from Microsoft and restructure the company to operate a for-profit subsidiary. This week, Brockman fired back with his side of the story, arguing that Musk had actually pushed for OpenAI to create a for-profit arm and fought a bitter battle to have "absolute control" over it.

Messages between Shivon Zilis and Tesla executives reveal plans in 2017 to start a rival AI lab, potentially led by Altman or Demis Hassabis. A few months before Elon Musk left OpenAI's board of directors in February 2018, he tried to recruit Sam Altman to join a "world-class AI lab" within Tesla. Musk went as far as offering the OpenAI CEO a Tesla board seat, according to emails and testimony presented in federal court on Wednesday during the trial . The emails were shown to a jury during the cross examination of Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI adviser and board member who is also the mother of four of Musk's children. Musk's core claim in this lawsuit is that Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman effectively stole a nonprofit, using the $38 million Musk invested to create a private company worth more than $800 billion today.

OpenAI is planning to bring over more researchers from Thinking Machines Lab after nabbing two cofounders, a source familiar with the situation says. If someone ever makes an HBO Max series about the AI industry, the events of this week will make quite the episode. On Wednesday, OpenAI's CEO of applications, Fidji Simo, announced the company had rehired Barret Zoph and Luke Metz, cofounders of Mira Murati's AI startup, Thinking Machines Lab. We reported last night on two narratives forming around what led to the departures, and have since learned new information. A source with direct knowledge says that Thinking Machines leadership believed Zoph engaged in an incident of serious misconduct while at the company last year.

To prepare AI agents for office work, the company is asking contractors to upload projects from past jobs, leaving it to them to strip out confidential and personally identifiable information. OpenAI is asking third-party contractors to upload real assignments and tasks from their current or previous workplaces so that it can use the data to evaluate the performance of its next-generation AI models, according to records from OpenAI and the training data company Handshake AI obtained by WIRED. The project appears to be part of OpenAI's efforts to establish a human baseline for different tasks that can then be compared with AI models. In September, the company launched a new evaluation process to measure the performance of its AI models against human professionals across a variety of industries. OpenAI says this is a key indicator of its progress towards achieving AGI, or an AI system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable tasks. "We've hired folks across occupations to help collect real-world tasks modeled off those you've done in your full-time jobs, so we can measure how well AI models perform on those tasks," reads one confidential document from OpenAI.

"Technology happens because it is possible," OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, told the New York Times in 2019, consciously paraphrasing Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. Another widespread techie conviction is that the first human-level AI – also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI) – will lead to one of two futures: a post-scarcity techno-utopia or the annihilation of humanity. For countless other species, the arrival of humans spelled doom. We weren't tougher, faster or stronger – just smarter and better coordinated. In many cases, extinction was an accidental byproduct of some other goal we had.

Right now, most big AI labs have a team figuring out ways that rogue AIs might escape supervision, or secretly collude with each other against humans. But there's a more mundane way we could lose control of civilisation: we might simply become obsolete. This wouldn't require any hidden plots – if AI and robotics keep improving, it's what happens by default. Well, AI developers are firmly on track to build better replacements for humans in almost every role we play: not just economically as workers and decision-makers, but culturally as artists and creators, and even socially as friends and romantic companions. What place will humans have when AI can do everything we do, only better?