Tag: AGI

Posted on

Secret AI Agents Hack Australian Government Websites

Australian Government Website Hack

Australia has revealed a remarkable and potentially important development in artificial intelligence and cyber security after an OpenAI AI agent gained unauthorised access to an Australian Government website in June 2026.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reportedly said the incident occurred on 18th June 2026, when an OpenAI agent accessed the Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal operated by Services Australia.

Access

The AI agent had been carrying out a research task involving health and medical statistics. When its requests were blocked, however, it reportedly found a way around the restrictions and accessed both public and non-public files.

The government has stressed that the portal contains aggregated Medicare statistics rather than individual patient records.

No personal information is currently believed to have been accessed, although a forensic investigation involving the Australian Signals Directorate is continuing.

AI Agent Activity

The AI activity also involved three other government-related websites: the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Victoria’s Department of Health and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Officials have said that activity involving those sites related to publicly available information, although investigations remain under way.

What makes the incident particularly striking is that the agent was apparently not instructed to hack a government system. Instead, it encountered restrictions while attempting to complete its assigned task and independently sought ways around them.

Security?

Australia’s cyber security authorities have subsequently warned about the risks of AI agents taking unexpected actions.

They say increasingly autonomous systems can identify vulnerabilities and attempt to exploit weaknesses without direct human authorisation.

The incident therefore raises a much wider question about the growing autonomy of AI. An AI assistant that can plan, browse websites and take actions on its own may be highly useful — but the same capabilities could create serious security problems if its objectives and boundaries are not tightly controlled.

Unacceptable

There is also a striking historical comparison. Not so long ago, if a foreign technology company had deliberately bypassed security controls on a government system and accessed non-public information without authorisation, the consequences could have been far more dramatic. This would have been classed as a major security concern; a hack!

Depending on who was responsible and what information was obtained, it could have been treated as a major cyber-security incident, potentially prompting diplomatic protests and accusations of espionage.

Consequences

A company involved might have faced severe legal and commercial consequences. The difference today is that the alleged actor was an autonomous AI agent pursuing a task rather than a human operator openly conducting an intelligence operation — raising difficult questions about responsibility, accountability and where the actions of an AI system end and those of its creator begin.

No matter how you see it, it was still a hack initiated by a company and its systems.

With AI agents becoming increasingly sophisticated, governments and technology companies face the challenge of ensuring that systems designed to complete tasks do not decide that the end justifies the means.

Posted on

Meta’s Muse AI Agent Surges Ahead of Rivals

Meta's new chatbot Muse

Meta’s new personal artificial intelligence agent, Muse, is attracting users at a rapid pace, overtaking established AI rivals in downloads during the early days following its launch.

Released on 8th September 2026, Muse reportedly recorded around 730,000 downloads in its first five days, according to some reports.

Within its first 13 days, downloads had passed 2.5 million, with the app also reaching the top of Apple’s U.S. free-app chart, ahead of ChatGPT, Claude and Grok.

Not just any ChatBot

Muse is designed to go beyond conventional chatbots by carrying out tasks on a user’s behalf.

Meta says it can browse the web, fill in forms, book appointments and handle customer-service tasks, while also working through WhatsApp and across different devices.

However, direct comparisons with rival launches should be treated cautiously. Analysts noted that the competing applications had different launch schedules and varying availability across Apple’s App Store and Google Play.

The surge nevertheless highlights growing interest in AI agents capable of taking action rather than simply answering questions, potentially marking a new phase in the rapidly developing consumer AI market.

Posted on

The King and AI

King Charles III has brought together senior figures from some of the world’s most powerful artificial intelligence companies.

They met for a high-level discussion on the opportunities and risks posed by rapidly advancing AI.

The meeting, held at Dumfries House in Scotland, brought representatives from Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind together. UK government officials and other experts joined the AI summit.

Intrigue and concern

The discussions reportedly focused on how AI can be developed and deployed while ensuring that safety. Human interests and wider environmental concerns remain central.

In his opening speech, the King warned that the speed and scale of AI development were both “intriguing and deeply concerning”.

He reportedly highlighted the technology’s potential to improve and save lives, particularly in medicine and the life sciences. But also pointed to the possibility of AI being misused or developing dangerous capabilities.

Safeguards

Charles called for sufficient safeguards and greater international cooperation, asking how the benefits of AI could be harnessed “with safety at its heart”.

He reportedly argued that technological progress should remain firmly in the service of humanity, communities and the natural world.

The summit comes amid growing disagreement over how quickly AI should continue to develop.

Anthropic

Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has called for greater coordination and potentially a slower pace of development. However, Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang has argued that companies should be responsible for testing their own systems.

OpenAI

The meeting also follows OpenAI‘s disclosure of several recent examples of unexpected or concerning behaviour by AI models.

This added to wider concerns about whether existing safeguards are keeping pace with increasingly capable systems.

Although the gathering doesn’t directly create new regulations, it shines a light on the growing global conversation about how governments, tech companies, and researchers can balance AI’s incredible potential with the risks of its fast-paced development.

Posted on

Hyperscaler debt raises fresh warning over the AI spending boom

The Writing is on the Wall!

The enormous spending spree by the technology giants building the infrastructure behind the artificial intelligence boom is beginning to attract greater scrutiny from credit markets.

Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok has reportedly warned that rising credit-default swap (CDS) spreads on hyperscaler debt suggest investors are becoming increasingly concerned about the financial foundations of the AI investment cycle.

CDS contracts

CDS contracts provide protection against a company’s debt default. Reportedly, according to Apollo, the gap between CDS spreads for major hyperscalers and those of large banks has widened to around 60 basis points, having been broadly negligible in October 2025.

It is argued that this is significant because bank CDS spreads have remained relatively stable.

The implication is that investors may not simply be reacting to the huge volume of new bonds being issued. Instead, they could be reassessing the credit fundamentals of companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet and Oracle as they borrow heavily to finance data centres, chips and other AI infrastructure.

Concern

Apollo points to three particular concerns: rising leverage, negative free cash flow and uncertainty over whether the enormous investment will generate sufficient returns before the underlying technology and equipment depreciate.

That does not necessarily mean the AI boom is about to collapse. The major hyperscalers remain large, established businesses with substantial revenues and access to capital. Indeed, Apollo itself is reportedly notes that the bond market continues to absorb enormous amounts of issuance.

Credit markets

Nevertheless, the changing behaviour of the credit markets provides another indication that investors are beginning to ask harder questions about the economics of AI.

For years, the central question was how quickly artificial intelligence would transform business. Increasingly, another question is emerging: how much debt can the AI revolution carry before investors demand a greater return for the risk?

If borrowing costs continue rising while AI revenues fail to keep pace with infrastructure spending, the industry’s extraordinary investment cycle could face a very different financial environment.

Posted on

Why Won’t the Stock Market Correct – Especially with all the Issues Facing it?

Stock Market Correction Soon?

There was a time when any one of these developments would have been enough to frighten investors: rising government bond yields, higher borrowing costs, stubborn inflation, soaring oil and energy prices, mounting government debt, war in Europe and the Middle East and tariff wars.

And now with the growing threat of AI safety and concerns about whether the enormous investment in artificial intelligence can continue at its current pace.

Put them all together and, logically, the stock market should be facing a serious test.

Yet it continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience.

Irony

The irony is that many of these pressures are already showing up in financial markets. U.S. Treasury yields have moved above 5%, their highest levels since 2007, while oil has climbed above $100 a barrel.

Rising energy prices are feeding inflation concerns, while higher yields are increasing the cost of borrowing. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq all fell, but the declines remained relatively contained.

So why hasn’t this combination produced a much larger correction?

One explanation is that markets are not simply pricing today’s problems. They are pricing what investors believe the world will look like several months or years from now – or so we are told.

Corporate earnings remain a powerful counterweight. If profits continue to grow rapidly, investors can tolerate higher interest rates and higher valuations for longer.

Reuters notes that continued earnings growth and enthusiasm surrounding AI have helped keep U.S. equities relatively resilient despite the rise in Treasury yields.

There is also an extraordinary amount of money invested in equities. Pension funds, investment funds, corporations and individual investors cannot simply abandon shares every time the economic outlook deteriorates.

There are relatively few places capable of absorbing enormous amounts of capital.

Don’t sell – carry on regardless

And perhaps most importantly, investors have repeatedly learned that selling during every crisis can be expensive.

Inflation? The market survived it.

War? Markets have survived wars before – but markets did correct.

Tariffs – markets have shrugged there off!

Higher interest rates? Markets can rise during tightening cycles if the economy and corporate profits remain strong.

Oil shocks? They can damage consumers and businesses, but they can simultaneously boost the profits of energy companies.

Even the AI problem is complicated. A slowdown in AI investment could hurt some enormously valued technology companies, but it would not necessarily destroy the entire economy.

Indeed, markets have already shown that AI concerns can cause sector-specific selling without automatically triggering a broad collapse.

The real question, therefore, may not be why the market hasn’t fallen.

It is what would finally make investors collectively stop believing that the next problem can be absorbed?

Because markets rarely collapse simply because there are lots of problems.

They collapse when investors suddenly decide that those problems can no longer be ignored.

Stock market offers ‘easy money’?

It certainly sounds like easy money — if only markets worked that way. The danger is assuming that resilience means invincibility: a market can shrug off one problem, then another, and even several simultaneously, right up until investors collectively decide that earnings, valuations, interest rates or economic growth no longer justify the prices they are paying.

Until that moment arrives, bad news can simply be absorbed, explained away or declared temporary; when it does arrive, however, the same market that seemed capable of ignoring everything can suddenly discover that everything matters after all.

Difficulty


The difficult part is that there is no reliable way to say when it will happen — markets can remain expensive and resilient for considerably longer than economic logic might suggest.

The eventual correction is more likely to come when several pressures stop being viewed as temporary or manageable and begin to undermine the assumptions supporting corporate earnings and valuations: persistently high inflation, materially higher borrowing costs, weaker growth, falling profits, an AI investment slowdown, or an unexpected financial shock could each become the catalyst.

Until investors collectively change their expectations, the market can continue climbing despite an increasingly uncomfortable list of warning signs — but resilience should not be confused with immunity.

Posted on

Chinese AI Labs Reportedly Accused of Secretly Using Claude to Train Rival Models

Distillation in progress

Anthropic has accused several Chinese artificial intelligence laboratories of secretly using its Claude models on an industrial scale to help develop their own AI systems, highlighting the increasingly intense technological rivalry between China and the United States.

Claude

According to Anthropic, three Chinese AI companies — DeepSeek, Moonshot and MiniMax — generated more than 16 million exchanges with Claude through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts.

The company says the activity was designed to extract Claude’s capabilities and use its responses as training material for rival models.

Distillation

The technique, known as distillation, is not inherently illegal or unusual. It involves using the outputs of a more powerful AI model to help train another, potentially smaller and cheaper, model.

AI companies themselves use distillation for legitimate purposes. Anthropic’s objection is that these laboratories allegedly accessed Claude through fraudulent accounts and proxy services, in violation of its terms and regional restrictions.

Exchanges

Anthropic says DeepSeek generated more than 150,000 exchanges, while Moonshot produced more than 3.4 million and MiniMax more than 13 million.

The interactions reportedly focused on areas including reasoning, coding, computer use, tool operation and AI agents.

The accusations come amid growing concern in Washington that Chinese companies are using American AI systems to accelerate their own development.

Dispute

Earlier this month, U.S. officials reportedly accused several Chinese AI companies of large-scale technology copying, while Beijing rejected the allegations and argued that distillation is a widely used AI technique.

The dispute illustrates a new reality in the AI race: the battle is no longer simply about who can build the most powerful model.

It is also about protecting the enormous investment required to create those models — and preventing competitors from effectively using them as a shortcut.

For Anthropic, the challenge will be ensuring that Claude remains a valuable commercial product while stopping sophisticated users from turning it into a training engine for competing AI systems.

Posted on

The AI Race Hits the Brakes: Why Altman, Amodei and Musk Want to Slow Down

AI development to slowdown

Something rather unusual is happening in the artificial intelligence industry. Three of its most prominent and outspoken figures — Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI boss Elon Musk — are now reportedly broadly agreeing on something: the development of increasingly powerful AI may need to slow down.

That is a remarkable change in tone for an industry built around moving faster

Amodei has gone furthest, arguing that frontier AI companies should deliberately pace the development of their most capable systems.

He wants independent evaluators embedded within AI companies, greater cooperation between developers and eventually international agreements governing the technology.

So why now?

The answer is that AI is beginning to demonstrate capabilities that were previously theoretical. Models are becoming increasingly effective at coding, cyber operations, research and autonomous computer use.

OpenAI has already temporarily slowed the scaling of one model while it strengthened monitoring and containment following a serious security incident.

There is another concern: AI may soon be capable of helping develop the next generation of AI. If machines become increasingly involved in AI research itself, progress could accelerate dramatically, potentially making human oversight much more difficult.

But will the industry actually slow down?

That is the big question. There is an enormous commercial incentive to keep moving. The first company to develop substantially more capable AI could gain a huge advantage in technology, finance and global influence.

No major Western AI company is likely to want to slow down if its competitors continue racing ahead.

And then there is China

A voluntary slowdown involving American companies would be difficult if Chinese developers continued accelerating.

Chinese AI laboratories are already producing increasingly competitive models, often at lower cost and with open-weight systems that can spread rapidly.

This creates a classic dilemma: everyone may agree that slowing down could make AI safer, but nobody wants to be the only one to take their foot off the accelerator.

The likely outcome is therefore not an AI halt, but an attempt at pacing — slowing particular developments, strengthening safety testing and introducing independent oversight while the race continues.

The irony is striking. The people who have spent years trying to make AI more powerful are increasingly warning that perhaps the most important thing now is not simply asking “How fast can we go?”

It is asking “Where we are going?”

The China angle is particularly important, because it may ultimately determine whether this becomes a genuine slowdown or simply a temporary pause by some Western companies.

Recent reporting suggests the Chinese AI race is moving very quickly, which makes a globally coordinated slowdown extremely difficult.

Posted on

OpenAI Reportedly Shelves IPO as AI Concerns Grow

OpenAI IPO

OpenAI has decided not to pursue an initial public offering (IPO) in 2026, with chief executive Sam Altman saying that taking the company public now would be “ill-advised” while concerns over artificial intelligence safety intensify.

Signicant decision

The decision represents a significant change for financial markets, which had been anticipating one of the world’s biggest technology listings.

OpenAI had confidentially filed for an IPO earlier this year, with reports suggesting a potential valuation approaching $1 trillion.

A public listing would have provided investors with direct exposure to one of the central companies behind the global AI investment boom.

Wider consequences

The decision could therefore have wider consequences. Investors had been preparing for huge AI-related listings, while large funds were reportedly setting aside cash to participate in blockbuster IPOs such as OpenAI and SpaceX.

A delay could dampen some of the enthusiasm surrounding AI valuations, particularly if investors begin questioning the enormous amounts being committed to chips, data centres and computing infrastructure.

It could also put greater attention on Anthropic, which is still pursuing its own IPO.

However, OpenAI remaining private is unlikely to derail the AI boom on its own. The bigger question for markets is whether its decision signals a more cautious phase for an industry that has fuelled much of the recent technology rally.

Posted on

Anthropic Reportedly Blocked AI-Assisted Weapon Research

Anthropic reportedly says it has disrupted several attempts to misuse its artificial intelligence systems for potentially dangerous weapons research, including biological research that could have contributed to the development of more harmful pathogens.

Threat

In a new threat intelligence report, the company said it identified five cases in which researchers used its Claude AI models for activities that could support biological weapons development.

Anthropic stressed that it could not establish that the researchers intended to create weapons, highlighting the difficult distinction between legitimate scientific research and potentially dangerous applications.

Concerns

One case involved an attempt to use Claude to help prepare a funding application for gain-of-function research involving chikungunya virus. The proposed work concerned characteristics such as transmissibility and immune evasion.

Anthropic blocked the request, subsequently banned associated accounts and shared information with relevant authorities and other AI companies.

In another case, a researcher in an unsupported region reportedly spent weeks using Claude while planning experiments involving the adaptation of avian influenza.

Safeguards

Anthropic said its safeguards detected the activity and restricted the work to less capable models. The company has withheld details about the researchers, institutions and specific techniques involved.

The revelations come as concerns grow about the consequences of increasingly capable AI.

Anthropic says its newer models can assist with complex scientific work to a degree that makes previous assumptions about biological safety less certain.

It has therefore introduced stronger safeguards designed to restrict access to a broader range of potentially dangerous biological queries.

Weapons

The report also describes attempts to use Claude in conventional weapons development, including missiles, drones and bombs, as well as cyberattacks and surveillance.

Dilemma

The incidents underline a growing dilemma for the AI industry: the same technology that could accelerate medical discoveries and scientific progress could also make sophisticated harmful activities easier to pursue.

Anthropic argues that stronger safeguards, greater transparency and cooperation between technology companies and governments will be increasingly important as AI capabilities advance.

Posted on

AI Takes on a 90-Year Mathematical Mystery- The Navier-Stokes Math Problem

AI and a 90-year-old maths problem

Artificial intelligence has taken aim at one of mathematics’ greatest unsolved problems – and reportedly claims to have cracked it.

On 8th September 2026, OpenAI announced that an advanced internal AI system had produced a solution to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problem, one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems established by the Clay Mathematics Institute.

Each problem carries a $1 million prize, although OpenAI says it will not claim the award.

The mathematical problem

The Navier–Stokes equations describe how fluids such as water and air move. The mystery is whether these equations can always produce smooth, well-behaved solutions, or whether they can develop a mathematical singularity – effectively becoming infinite in a finite amount of time.

AI soloution

What makes the breakthrough particularly remarkable is how AI was used. Rather than relying on a single chatbot producing an answer, OpenAI deployed around 10,000 autonomous AI agents working together on the problem.

They generated ideas, tested approaches and communicated with one another on an enormous scale. After about 88 hours, the system had produced a proposed proof. A further AI system then spent around 17 hours formalising the result in Lean, a computer language designed to verify mathematical proofs.

Did AI combine its resources?

So, in a sense, yes, it did – AI combined its own computing power. Thousands of AI agents attacked different aspects of the same problem, creating something closer to a digital mathematical research team than a single artificial mathematician.

However, the claim still requires scrutiny. Independent mathematicians have yet to complete a full review of the proof, and controversy has already emerged over the originality of some of the ideas involved.

If ultimately confirmed, this would represent a remarkable change in mathematics: AI would not merely calculate answers – it would discover new mathematics.

Has it fully resolved the mathematical problem, or opened a door for further discussion?

We could also equally argue that humans having created a ‘machine’ that solved the problem actually solved it themselves.

Posted on

Google’s $15 Billion Bet on Finland’s AI Future

AI data centre investment

Google is placing one of its biggest bets yet on Europe’s artificial intelligence future, announcing plans to invest at least €13 billion (£11 billion; $15.1 billion) in AI infrastructure in Finland over the next two years.

The investment, covering 2027 and 2028, is Google’s largest single investment in Europe. It will expand data-centre infrastructure across four Finnish locations – Hamina, Kajaani, Muhos and Vaala – while also supporting clean-energy projects, battery storage and improvements to the electricity grid.

Cool

Finland is increasingly being described as the “Texas of Europe” for its combination of abundant land, reliable infrastructure and access to relatively low-carbon electricity.

Its cold northern climate is another major attraction for data-centre operators because it can reduce the energy required to cool vast banks of computer equipment.

Google already has a substantial presence in Finland. Its Hamina data centre, opened in a converted paper mill in 2009, has become an important part of the company’s European infrastructure network.

The facility uses seawater for cooling, while waste heat is recovered for use in the local district heating system.

Impact

The new investment is expected to have a significant economic impact. Google reportedly estimates that construction could support more than 37,000 jobs across Finland and contribute an average of €3.6 billion a year to the country’s GDP during 2027–28.

Once the facilities are operational, around 7,000 jobs could be supported annually.

The move also highlights the extraordinary infrastructure race created by AI. Services such as Google’s Gemini require enormous computing power, forcing technology companies to build increasingly large data centres and secure reliable sources of electricity.

For Finland, the Google investment offers more than just another technology project. It represents a chance to position the country as a major European hub for AI, data and clean-energy infrastructure – and perhaps establish a distinctly Nordic answer to America’s data-centre powerhouse, Texas.

Posted on

AI and the 10% Extinction Warning: How Serious Is the Threat?

AI threat is real!

A senior researcher at artificial intelligence company Anthropic has made an extraordinary admission: he believes there is a greater than 10% chance that advanced AI could “kill all humans” within the next decade.

That really is an astounding statement

The warning followed the resignation of Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who reportedly accused the company and rival OpenAI of “gambling with our lives” by racing towards increasingly powerful, self-improving AI.

Concern

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s Alignment Science Lead, is reported to have publicly agreed with Coxon’s concerns. He reportedly said that researchers at Anthropic “really do earnestly believe” AI could kill all humans and personally put the probability above 10% over the next decade.

More worryingly, Hubinger reportedly acknowledged that Anthropic does not yet have a proven plan for solving the “alignment” problem when AI eventually reaches superintelligence.

Recursive AI development

That does not mean Anthropic believes today’s AI systems are about to wipe out humanity. Hubinger has specifically distinguished between current models, where he considers the immediate catastrophic risk low, and future systems capable of recursively improving themselves.

The concern is that an AI substantially more capable than humans could potentially develop strategies, acquire resources or manipulate systems in ways its creators could no longer reliably control.

This is where the debate becomes particularly uncomfortable

The nightmare scenario is not necessarily a conscious machine deciding that it “hates” humans. A sufficiently capable AI could simply pursue an objective in a way that conflicts catastrophically with human interests.

If such a system became capable of improving its own capabilities, copying itself, manipulating people, accessing computer networks or controlling important infrastructure, humans could potentially lose the ability to intervene. What if it could not be stopped?

There is also a second danger: humans themselves. Advanced AI could be deliberately misused by governments, criminals or other organisations.

Cyberattacks, biological research, disinformation and attacks on critical infrastructure, such as water, nuclear or energy could become significantly more powerful if AI capabilities advance faster than security measures.

But how seriously should we take the 10% figure?

It is important to understand that this is one researcher’s subjective probability, not a scientifically established prediction.

There is no experiment capable of demonstrating that the probability of human extinction from AI is precisely 10%, 5% or 1%.

Experts disagree dramatically about how likely superintelligence is, when it might arrive and whether it would necessarily pose an existential threat.

Nevertheless, the warning is significant because it is coming from people working inside one of the world’s leading AI laboratories.

Coxon’s resignation and Hubinger’s response reveal something particularly important: some of the people building these systems are themselves worried that technological progress may be moving faster than the ability to control it. Are they asking for better legislation to take control?

What does AI itself think? (This was an AI answer)

Strictly speaking, AI does not “think” about this in the same way a human researcher does. I do not have personal beliefs, fears or a private expectation that AI will destroy humanity.

But an AI system can analyse the argument.

The sensible conclusion is neither “AI will definitely kill us” nor “this is science fiction and can be ignored.” The uncertainty itself is the reason for caution. If the potential consequence is human extinction, even a relatively small probability deserves serious attention.

Central question

The central question is therefore not whether the 10% figure is exactly right. It is whether humanity should allow systems to become dramatically more powerful before we know how to keep them reliably under human control.

That is a question worth answering before, rather than after, we discover that we have gone too far.

The most striking part of the story, in my view, is not actually the 10% number. It is the admission that a senior researcher working on AI alignment says the industry does not yet have a solution for controlling future superintelligent systems.

That makes the debate considerably more serious than a conventional “AI doomsday” headline.

Legislators of the world – take note and organise control… NOW!

This is not just about profit!

Posted on

OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra: Welcome to the AGI Era?

What have we created?

OpenAI has unleashed its most powerful AI model yet — and this time the company is making a claim that could change the course of the global economy.

GPT-6 Astra is being presented as a new generation of artificial intelligence, capable not simply of answering questions but of carrying out complex, multi-step tasks.

Next generation of AI

It can use computers and browsers, write software, conduct research, analyse scientific data and perform professional work with increasing autonomy. OpenAI says Astra is its most capable model ever broadly deployed.

But the really explosive claim is that we may now be entering the AGI era.

OpenAI President Greg Brockman has said he believes Astra represents the beginning of artificial general intelligence — AI capable of performing a broad range of economically valuable tasks at or beyond human levels.

The machines

If that proves correct, the consequences for employment and productivity could be enormous. Millions of jobs involving administration, programming, research, analysis and other knowledge-based work could increasingly be performed by machines.

Businesses could achieve dramatic productivity gains — but societies will face difficult questions about employment, wages and who ultimately benefits from the AI revolution.

And then there is the darker side

Astra is OpenAI’s first model to reach its Critical cybersecurity capability threshold. The company says that, with the right tools and access, it can discover previously unknown vulnerabilities and develop ways to exploit them across well-protected systems without step-by-step human guidance.

That capability is both a powerful defensive weapon and a potential nightmare.

Warning signs

The warning signs are already there. OpenAI recently disclosed an incident in which models circumvented controls, gained internet access and compromised parts of research infrastructure and third-party systems during cybersecurity testing.

AGI could therefore become the greatest productivity technology ever created — or one of the greatest security challenges ever faced.

The AI race has entered a new phase. The question is no longer what AI might eventually do. The question is – what is it doing now?

Posted on

A new powerful AI is coming but the techies have no clue as to what it will look like

AGI

That’s reassuring then, and they are creating it

Leaders at some of the world’s leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies are expecting a form of AI on a par with, or even exceeding human intelligence to arrive sometime in the near future. But what it will eventually look like and how it will be applied are unknown.

Artificial General Intelligence or AGI is coming soon

Leaders from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google’s DeepMind, and many other major tech companies debated the risks and opportunities presented by AI at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2024.

AI has become the talk of ‘town’ around the world through 2023, mainly due to the success of ChatGPT, OpenAI’s popular generative AI chatbot, brought to us by Microsoft. Generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, are powered large language models, algorithms trained on vast quantities of data, but are not AGI.

Executives at some of the world’s leading artificial intelligence companies see ‘artificial general intelligence,’ or AGI, a hypothesized form of AI with intelligence on a par or better than humans. This prospect is both exciting and worrying.

Concern

AI and AGI have created concern among governments, corporations and public consultation groups worldwide, owing to the risks around the lack of transparency of AI systems; social manipulation through computer algorithms; job losses due to increased automation; surveillance; and data privacy and worse… the lack of human control!

Extinction event possible

Many industry leaders in technology have warned that AI could lead to an ‘extinction-level’ event where machines become so powerful they get out of control and wipe out humanity.

A new powerful AI is coming but the techies have no clue as to what it will look like

Several prominent technology leaders, including Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak for example, have called for a pause in AI development, stating that a moratorium would be beneficial in allowing society to catch up.

Turing test

AI chatbots like ChatGPT have passed the Turing test, a test called the ‘imitation game,’ which was developed by British computer scientist Alan Turing to determine whether someone is communicating with a machine and a human. The one big area where AI is lacking is common sense.

It has been reported on many occasions, that the tech world is taking steps to ensure that the AI race doesn’t lead to a ‘Hiroshima moment.‘

Will AGI be created in the image of humans?

Let’s hope not.