Three Day Rule promises to make matchmaking affordable by integrating AI matchmakers and coaches into a dating app. But what's the point when humans looking for connection are just talking through AI chatbots? AI coaches are trained by real human matchmakers. More in-depth prompts to help find matches based not only on looks. Profile is also shared off-app with white-glove matchmaking service.

I n light of this, we introduce MA TAI, a generalist ML framework for alloy property prediction and inverse design. Unlike task - specific models, MA TAI integrate s domain knowledge from diverse alloy systems and support s multi - objective, constraint - aware optimization across broad compositional spaces . The framework consists of four core components: 1) a holistic alloy database containing over 10,000 experimentally verified compositions, aggregated from open databases, literature, and in - house experiments; 2) foundational property predictor s capable of estimating multiple alloy properties such as density, yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile s trength (UTS), and elongation directly from alloy compositions; 3) a generalist alloy designer that performs constrained optimization over multiple objectives, enabling the discovery of promising alloy candidates without exhaustive searches; and 4) an iterative AI - experiment feedback loop that continuously refines the model through experimental validation of AI - generated candidates . To demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of MA TAI, we apply the framework to the titanium (Ti) - based alloys, a canonical aerospace alloy system valued for its low density with high strength . Using MA TAI, we identifi ed novel compositions that achieve high strength (>1000 MPa) and moderate elongation (>5%) while retaining a low density (< 4.45 g/cm

With AI-based software becoming widely available, the risk of exploiting its capabilities, such as high automation and complex pattern recognition, could significantly increase. An AI used offensively to attack non-AI assets is referred to as offensive AI. Current research explores how offensive AI can be utilized and how its usage can be classified. Additionally, methods for threat modeling are being developed for AI-based assets within organizations. However, there are gaps that need to be addressed. Firstly, there is a need to quantify the factors contributing to the AI threat. Secondly, there is a requirement to create threat models that analyze the risk of being attacked by AI for vulnerability assessment across all assets of an organization. This is particularly crucial and challenging in cloud environments, where sophisticated infrastructure and access control landscapes are prevalent. The ability to quantify and further analyze the threat posed by offensive AI enables analysts to rank vulnerabilities and prioritize the implementation of proactive countermeasures. To address these gaps, this paper introduces the Graph of Effort, an intuitive, flexible, and effective threat modeling method for analyzing the effort required to use offensive AI for vulnerability exploitation by an adversary. While the threat model is functional and provides valuable support, its design choices need further empirical validation in future work.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to a diverse set of predictions about its long-term impact on humanity. A central focus is the potential emergence of transformative AI (TAI), eventually capable of outperforming humans in all economically valuable tasks and fully automating labor. Discussed scenarios range from human extinction after a misaligned TAI takes over ("AI doom") to unprecedented economic growth and abundance ("post-scarcity"). However, the probabilities and implications of these scenarios remain highly uncertain. Here, we organize the various scenarios and evaluate their associated existential risks and economic outcomes in terms of aggregate welfare. Our analysis shows that even low-probability catastrophic outcomes justify large investments in AI safety and alignment research. We find that the optimizing representative individual would rationally allocate substantial resources to mitigate extinction risk; in some cases, she would prefer not to develop TAI at all. This result highlights that current global efforts in AI safety and alignment research are vastly insufficient relative to the scale and urgency of existential risks posed by TAI. Our findings therefore underscore the need for stronger safeguards to balance the potential economic benefits of TAI with the prevention of irreversible harm. Addressing these risks is crucial for steering technological progress toward sustainable human prosperity.

This paper reviews Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and its various definitions. Considering the principles respected in any society, TAI is often characterized by a few attributes, some of which have led to confusion in regulatory or engineering contexts. We argue against using terms such as Responsible or Ethical AI as substitutes for TAI. And to help clarify any confusion, we suggest leaving them behind. Given the subjectivity and complexity inherent in TAI, developing a universal framework is deemed infeasible. Instead, we advocate for approaches centered on addressing key attributes and properties such as fairness, bias, risk, security, explainability, and reliability. We examine the ongoing regulatory landscape, with a focus on initiatives in the EU, China, and the USA. We recognize that differences in AI regulations based on geopolitical and geographical reasons pose an additional challenge for multinational companies. We identify risk as a core factor in AI regulation and TAI. For example, as outlined in the EU-AI Act, organizations must gauge the risk level of their AI products to act accordingly (or risk hefty fines). We compare modalities of TAI implementation and how multiple cross-functional teams are engaged in the overall process. Thus, a brute force approach for enacting TAI renders its efficiency and agility, moot. To address this, we introduce our framework Set-Formalize-Measure-Act (SFMA). Our solution highlights the importance of transforming TAI-aware metrics, drivers of TAI, stakeholders, and business/legal requirements into actual benchmarks or tests. Finally, over-regulation driven by panic of powerful AI models can, in fact, harm TAI too. Based on GitHub user-activity data, in 2023, AI open-source projects rose to top projects by contributor account. Enabling innovation in TAI hinges on the independent contributions of the open-source community.

When making strategic decisions, we are often confronted with overwhelming information to process. The situation can be further complicated when some pieces of evidence are contradicted each other or paradoxical. The challenge then becomes how to determine which information is useful and which ones should be eliminated. This process is known as meta-decision. Likewise, when it comes to using Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for strategic decision-making, placing trust in the AI itself becomes a meta-decision, given that many AI systems are viewed as opaque "black boxes" that process large amounts of data. Trusting an opaque system involves deciding on the level of Trustworthy AI (TAI). We propose a new approach to address this issue by introducing a novel taxonomy or framework of TAI, which encompasses three crucial domains: articulate, authentic, and basic for different levels of trust. To underpin these domains, we create ten dimensions to measure trust: explainability/transparency, fairness/diversity, generalizability, privacy, data governance, safety/robustness, accountability, reproducibility, reliability, and sustainability. We aim to use this taxonomy to conduct a comprehensive survey and explore different TAI approaches from a strategic decision-making perspective.

This week we had a chat with J. William Andrew, (Bill), President and CEO of Delaware Electric Cooperative located in Greenwood, Delaware, who educated us on what is the state of AI in his company, and how and why AI is important in the Electric sector. He also told us about different application and the future of AI in Electricity. TAI: How do you rate new / emerging technology adoption by electric co-ops? Why? Andrew: The simplest way I can explain my vision of the importance of the adoption of new technologies is that "The next level of reliability and operational efficiency will not come from adding linemen and bucket trucks but will come from technology adaptation". We must adapt to the wants and needs of our members.

Recently the concept of transformative AI (TAI) has begun to receive attention in the AI policy space. TAI is often framed as an alternative formulation to notions of strong AI (e.g. artificial general intelligence or superintelligence) and reflects increasing consensus that advanced AI which does not fit these definitions may nonetheless have extreme and long-lasting impacts on society. However, the term TAI is poorly defined and often used ambiguously. Some use the notion of TAI to describe levels of societal transformation associated with previous 'general purpose technologies' (GPTs) such as electricity or the internal combustion engine. Others use the term to refer to more drastic levels of transformation comparable to the agricultural or industrial revolutions. The notion has also been used much more loosely, with some implying that current AI systems are already having a transformative impact on society. This paper unpacks and analyses the notion of TAI, proposing a distinction between TAI and radically transformative AI (RTAI), roughly corresponding to societal change on the level of the agricultural or industrial revolutions. We describe some relevant dimensions associated with each and discuss what kinds of advances in capabilities they might require. We further consider the relationship between TAI and RTAI and whether we should necessarily expect a period of TAI to precede the emergence of RTAI. This analysis is important as it can help guide discussions among AI policy researchers about how to allocate resources towards mitigating the most extreme impacts of AI and it can bring attention to negative TAI scenarios that are currently neglected.

The deal, disclosed by the companies Tuesday, highlights a contrast between the two electronics makers, both of which faced multibillion-dollar losses and management turmoil several years ago. Sharp has managed to turn itself around quickly under foreign management while Toshiba, which received more support from the Japanese government during its restructuring, is still trying to streamline its unprofitable portfolio. Toshiba's laptop PCs, sold under the Dynabook name, helped make the conglomerate famous among consumers outside Japan, but the business has lost money for the past five years and was at the center of a profit-padding scandal that the company disclosed in 2015. That scandal and the bankruptcy last year of Toshiba's U.S. nuclear subsidiary, Westinghouse Electric Co., have pushed Toshiba to shed many of its money-losing consumer businesses as well as more profitable units to raise funds. It has sold its television and appliance businesses to Chinese companies and its medical-equipment business to Canon Inc.

Estrous synchronization (ES) and artificial insemination (AI) are reproductive management tools that have been available to beef producers for over 50 years. Synchronization of the estrous cycle has the potential to shorten the calving season, increase calf uniformity, and enhance the possibilities for utilizing AI. Artificial insemination allows producers the opportunity to infuse superior genetics into their operations at costs far below the cost of purchasing a herd sire of similar standards. These tools remain the most important and widely applicable reproductive bio-technologies available for beef cattle operations (Seidel, 1995). However, beef producers have been slow to utilize or adopt these technologies into their production systems.