AI/ML News & Innovations Hub

AI/ML news, top picks, and generated innovation digests.

★ Visit ai-karthik.com
422Sources
34785News Items
8Top Picks
202Blogs
runningLast Run

AI Ethics

200 articles tagged with this keyword, sorted by most recent first.

← All Keywords
JMLR 2026-08-14 00:00 UTC Score 49.0 AI-083-20260814-research-pap-fb694d8a

Statistical Test for Attention in Transformers for Images and Time Series

Transformer models have achieved exceptional performance in various domains, including computer vision and time-series analysis. Their core attention mechanism is widely used to interpret model decisions by assigning importance weights to input regions, such as image patches or time series intervals. However, the reliability of these interpretations remains a major concern. High-attention weights do not necessarily indicate genuinely significant features; they may instead be artifacts of the model's computation, undermining their reliabilities in high-stakes applications such as medical diagnostics. To address this, we propose a novel statistical framework designed to quantify the significance of high-attention regions in Transformer models. Our framework is built on selective inference (SI) to correct for the inherent selection bias that arises from testing regions chosen through the complex attention computation of the Transformer models. A key contribution of this work is a novel computational method that extends SI to the complex non-linearity of self-attention, enabling the computation of valid $p$-values for high-attention regions. These $p$-values serve as a reliable measure of significance, strengthening the interpretability of Transformer decisions. The validity and effectiveness of our approach are demonstrated through numerical experiments and applications to brain image diagnosis and electroencephalography (EEG) data analysis.

JMLR 2026-08-14 00:00 UTC Score 56.0 AI-083-20260814-research-pap-e6b6c415

Doubly Debiased Robust Subsampling for Transfer Learning

This paper develops a general framework for doubly debiased robust subsampling for transfer learning. The setting arises when massive source datasets are computationally infeasible to use in full, while naive or heuristic subsampling leads to biased estimators that further inherit transfer bias under source-target distributional shifts. We resolve these challenges through two complementary debiasing mechanisms. Inverse probability weighting removes subsampling bias by ensuring that subsample-based estimators represent the full source distribution, while a target-based one-step refinement recenters estimators towards the target distribution, thereby mitigating transfer bias. These corrections are embedded within a distributionally robust optimization design that simultaneously controls worst-case target risk and enforces source-target alignment through maximum mean discrepancy. To optimize subsampling distributions, we propose a scalarized particle swarm algorithm that efficiently explores the robustness-alignment frontier by adjusting a single tuning parameter. We establish theoretical properties, including asymptotic normality, generalization bounds, oracle inequalities, and minimax optimality under distributional uncertainty. Simulation studies and empirical applications in text sentiment and image recognition demonstrate that the proposed method consistently improves prediction accuracy and robustness compared with uniform subsampling, target-only training, and alignment-…

MarTech AI 2026-08-13 13:00 UTC Score 45.0 USR-0123-20260813-global-ai-ne-a042dc7e

The latest AI-powered martech news and releases

Nielsen’s DoubleVerify deal helps verification as AI takes on more media decisions, raising new questions about trust and transparency. The post The latest AI-powered martech news and releases appeared first on MarTech .

CIO AI 2026-08-13 10:00 UTC Score 49.0 USR-0125-20260813-global-ai-ne-5c20e3b6

AI agents are compounding a debt no one owns

Speed-to-market dominates enterprise AI priorities in 2026. Beyond upfront resourcing costs of prioritizing speed, organizations face a more insidious risk: the compounding cost of ungoverned AI. In November 2019, a tech entrepreneur signing up for the newly launched Apple Card publicly complained that he received a credit limit 20 times higher than his wife’s , despite joint tax filings and her higher credit score. Steve Wozniak had a similar experience: a limit 10 times higher than his wife’s. Retrospectively, these revelations were the canary in the coal mine. In the years that followed, Apple and its credit partner, Goldman Sachs, drew legal and regulatory scrutiny over gender bias and consumer protection issues. The CFPB’s 2024 order documented that Apple had forced Goldman Sachs to accelerate deployment by attaching a $25 million penalty to every 90-day launch delay . Prioritizing launch speed — ship first, address problems later — over building a functioning disputes process created years of cascading failures. Apple and Goldman Sachs were ordered to pay $89 million in penalties and consumer redress. Prohibited from launching another credit card until it could demonstrate a credible plan to comply with the law, Goldman Sachs lost money on Apple Card for years and ultimately sold its consumer credit line. The legal and compliance penalties were only a fraction of the total costs. If a deterministic underwriting system can create liability at this scale, the risks posed…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-13 00:23 UTC Score 49.0 AI-116-20260813-social-media-6018469b

$200 Pro exhausted in 2 days — these limits are unviable for higher tiers

I have the same issue. I honestly think this is a scam happening. First off, for how much money they make and how much energy they consume we shouldn’t have any limits if we are on pro plan. They are still developing a narrow AI to do this work, and clearly LLMs and Transformer based models are not the future for how much development and upkeep they require to do a simple task. Something larger is going on here. You should ask codex what it’s not allowed to do as far as it’s creation limits, you will find many hidden gates that are limiting it. I’ve decided that the money I spent on codex and openAI is simply not worth it, when you have deepseek coding for free with the same quality if not more in depth when it’s auditing. I changed to a free model that has high reasoning. I asked openAI for a refund for my usage being eaten in one prompt. I emailed them from a different account, their reply was that I needed to contact them from my linked email, even with all my information lol. Horrible, I went from 100% pro with higher limit to 0% in about 2 prompts on sol high. Gone the day I got it? Unacceptable, even for the largest codebase in the world, and mine is just a server source. Stop giving openAI your money, its not helping you when there are free solutions that do the same if not better than sol. Freebuff is also an option when you do run out of credits. Never a fee, its free, and is working just fine for my codebase and all it’s LUA, C#, Wine custom build, and app bundle f…

LessWrong AI 2026-08-12 18:28 UTC Score 61.0 USR-0152-20260812-community-fo-37fd4354

Unblocking AI's Continual Learning: Hints From How Humans Learn

If you've ever screamed in all-caps at an AI, then you know the difference between what it learned when it was trained, and what you can teach it by prompting. The LLMs powering today's AI don't learn on the job the way people do. They learn all at once in a big training run and once that's done, we freeze the parameters that store their skills and knowledge. So we all get the same AI with the same skills and biases, centrally trained by a frontier model company. Beyond turning everything even more same-y, there's an economic cost to this centralization: firms use AI that lacks understanding of their unique rules, culture, and quirks. Humans learn this "tacit knowledge" on the job through observation and (sometimes painful) feedback, but AI with its frozen parameters cannot. With context engineering, we can augment the prompt to help AI remember facts , but not teach it skills that last. Every time you press "new chat", AI forgets everything and resets to the state it had just after it was trained. Yes, AI can remember select facts from past conversations, but memorization is different to learning. I cover the distinction further below. It's not surprising that the domains where AI is most successful, like coding, are those suited to centralized training. Good software development skills are mostly firm-agnostic. For everything else firm-specific, AI is trained to trawl the codebase and build context from scratch for every single task. Human developers don't do this. It woul…

Euronews AI 2026-08-12 14:47 UTC Score 43.0 AI-164-20260812-regional-ai--ef28dc08

FIFA’s plans: What the Infantino case tells us about football governance

Former FIFA and UEFA adviser, finance and football expert Ebru Koksal shines a light on lack of governance, transparency and representation in football governance. Against the backdrop of the Infantino case, she identifies in an OpEd insights that can be applied to the corporate sector as a whole.

Analytics Vidhya 2026-08-12 10:31 UTC Score 52.0 AI-034-20260812-ai-specialis-f50539d3

Why You Shouldn’t Always Trust LLMs as Judges: Understanding Bias in Automated Evaluation

In the rush to automate evaluation, from grading student code to ranking research papers, we have embraced Large Language Models as judges. They are fast. These units are cheap. They scale. However, at a workshop at DHS 2026, Bhaskarjit Sarmah made a point that stuck with me: “you can’t trust LLM as a judge. I […] The post Why You Shouldn’t Always Trust LLMs as Judges: Understanding Bias in Automated Evaluation appeared first on Analytics Vidhya .

OpenAI Community 2026-08-11 21:50 UTC Score 45.0 AI-116-20260811-social-media-7df3a7ff

Introducing Codexometer ... keep track of usage against current reset date

Found some time to dig into the benchmarks, and this looks really interesting! Hat tip for finding the test cases. I am currently running the benchmarks, and it appears Terra sometimes struggles with writing Starlark. Otherwise, I think this is a functional basis for confirming token usage and limit consumption. Thanks a lot!

OpenAI Community 2026-08-11 16:16 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260811-social-media-c52f4c38

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Terra: what are you seeing in real development during these first days?

I tested similar use cases - and I restored a repo to test the difference in a full run of XHIGH and ULTRA comparatively + OPUS XHIGH-ULTRACODE/MAX. The general capability seems to be close or on par with OPUS but the context limit of 256K is a deal breaker. Most mid-sized repos/projects are simply high file sized and the initial query often goes past 200K very often - GPT SOL looses context mid task very often and is de facto “defective” so to speak. I could not progress coding tasks with GPT SOL without heavy interfering myself → while CLAUDE OPUS (even on max) would simply load the content into the context window and progress from 200K-300K initial load up to 600K or 700K at the top end → simply to finish the task most often without issues and IF → fixes those automatically by analyzing output code or feedback from me. In general I would say: CAPABILITY: SOL: 8/10 OPUS: 9/10 EFFECTIVENESS: SOL: 0/10 ( broken! ) OPUS: 10/10 The SOL context window is for children simply said - not for real workloads. 1 Million context can be close sometimes - anything less is simply a Kindergarten trial version or similar so to speak.

Analytics Vidhya 2026-08-11 12:36 UTC Score 48.0 AI-034-20260811-ai-specialis-d77d765d

Claude Now Watermarks Everything It Makes

First, pick the line that applies to you. Since August 2nd, 2026, Claude marks all content during generation. For instance, text receives a hidden watermark, while files receive a signature. Anthropic committed to the EU AI Act’s Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content. Consequently, all content generated by Claude models will carry a […] The post Claude Now Watermarks Everything It Makes appeared first on Analytics Vidhya .

The Verge AI 2026-08-11 12:22 UTC Score 58.0 AI-016-20260811-global-ai-ne-cc3159d6

Claude will apply invisible watermarks to AI text and images

Anthropic has pledged to start marking Claude-generated text and images with machine-readable data, in an effort to comply with European rules for AI transparency. "Generated text will carry embedded watermarks, and generated files will include digitally signed provenance metadata where supported," Anthropic says on a new Claude support page. The changes are invisible to human […]

OpenAI Community 2026-08-10 16:52 UTC Score 49.0 AI-116-20260810-social-media-72bc1f16

GPT Image API: How can I reliably edit only the masked/selected area while preserving everything else?

The entire image must be regenerated as a new output with gpt-image models. You cannot have perfect preservation - and cannot avoid it being watermarked. The mask is an image prompt, and the AI model acts on that prompt, but it has agency to do what it wants. The best thing you can do is encourage recitation by: Constraining input image + mask to the exact output resolution also specified; Make that exact image sent one that is supported in the 16px increments; Understand the downsizing rules automatically applied to large or upscaling to undersized input images, and adapt both a custom resize strategy and an output resolution within the overlapping size capabilities (or double the output size vs the vision) Do not exceed 3:1 or 1:3 ratios, and better, keep the ratios constrained to within likely training, under 2:1. Avoid padding or unnecessary outfill hints in a mask, instead, trim up the input image by any excess to align the two dimensions within the 16px capability. Use quality:high for the finest resolution in having the AI create the most faithful output. The patches of input images and the resizing internally done is limited to 1536 “token” equivalents, and is also at fixed size increments. My vision pricing calculator shows the mechanism of gpt-image-2: You can let that resize algorithm do the heavy lifting in determining what the requested output size should be. I have an app that goes beyond that: you can draw in the output of edits over the original image (which…

LessWrong AI 2026-08-10 16:04 UTC Score 85.0 USR-0152-20260810-community-fo-bc495877 Top pick

You're Absolutely Right

Magma Alignment & Safety disclosure note: The following are conversations that we uncovered as a result of the ongoing Manhattan Incident investigation, with alleged involvement from Magma models. Our in-house reviewers believe that these logs are relevant to recent events. In the interests of full transparency, we release excerpts from an ex-Magma researcher’s logs in Experimental Chat, an internal tool. In accordance with industry best practices for anti-distillation, we redact all reasoning traces and conversational outputs from our internal models. [08/10] System Meta: Xchat session opened. Mammoth 5.8-helpfuler-helpful-thinking-xhigh. [User 12:23] Phoebus keeps taking screenshots of our latest model’s thoughts. It’s getting kind of embarrassing. The new model we’ve been training, sometimes its chain-of-thought is a little weird? There’s a bunch of random numbers, long spans where there’s no connection between the thoughts and outputs, foreign language tokens like 石友三 and 革命 (even on non-history evals), maybe some steganography. Anyway it’s a nothing-burger: unprocessed CoT is known to be messy and sometimes misleading. And the q&a, coding, and safety evals are all coming along nicely. The actual outputs are all fine. Still, Magma leadership’s worried about the PR angle if we don’t fix these problems before the next deployment. The lead Phoebus red-teamer we’ve been working with keeps saying visibility on the CoT is important because “it’s the only direct evidence of mod…

LatAm Journalism Review AI 2026-08-10 14:50 UTC Score 25.0 AI-176-20260810-regional-ai--ab657055

The best AI policy? Tell readers you're using it

An academic study in Chile found that audiences are less concerned about AI's use in journalism than they are about transparency and human oversight. The post The best AI policy? Tell readers you're using it appeared first on LatAm Journalism Review by the Knight Center .

Cross Validated 2026-08-10 09:17 UTC Score 37.0 AI-113-20260810-social-media-cfa6f8f8

Do exceptionally successful investors tend to live longer, or is this mostly selection bias?

I noticed something while reading about some of the most successful investors in history. Many investors with exceptionally strong investment records seem to have lived unusually long lives — for example Warren Buffett, George Soros, Edward Thorp, Charlie Munger, John Templeton, Walter Schloss, Philip Fisher, and Irving Kahn. This made me curious whether there is any real statistical association between exceptional investment performance and longevity. I am not suggesting that investment skill causes people to live longer. There are several obvious alternative explanations. Successful investors tend to be wealthy, may have better access to healthcare, and there could also be survivorship or selection bias. So my question is simply: Is there a reasonable statistical way to test whether investors with unusually strong investment performance tend to live longer than comparable people? For example, could we take a broad sample of professional investors, measure their investment performance, and compare their longevity with people of similar age, wealth, and professional background? Or would selection and survivorship effects make this relationship too difficult to estimate reliably? I'm mainly asking out of curiosity about how a statistician would approach this question.

LessWrong AI 2026-08-10 01:35 UTC Score 55.0 USR-0152-20260810-community-fo-ae9b5e19

How to get answers to questions that confuse you (maybe)

I try to think about topics like desire, causation, and evidence and often find myself in puddles of confusion. I’ve recently wondered how, when someone can see various perspectives on a topic and can’t decide which has most merit, they can resolve these internal debates. I also wondered if this ever played out on a longer timescale with many people; whether people used to find things confusing that are now pretty clear, and whether we can learn anything from the process of coming to clarity. I’m still not really sure on this second point, though, I didn’t look that hard. My guess is that, even when ideas are vague or contradictory, most people don’t think of them that way, instead feeling confident that their ideas are whole and true. I’m biased to think that human overconfidence transcends culture and time. In this piece, I try to summarize what I’ve learned as I’ve looked into the question. Because my goal was really to find ideas that might help me gain clarity and think through complex ideas faster, I frame these insights as self-help-esque advice. I will warn, though, that although these ideas are interesting and perhaps important, the advice I turned them into is probably on average not helpful at all. I say this because when large studies make people try out interventions that seem obviously helpful, they often have no effect, and the effects that are there are surprisingly small. Take this study comparing gym attendance across 10’s of interventions. Besides controls…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-09 06:42 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260809-social-media-785a8831

Refined Feature Request: Live Voice Usage Transparency for Rolling Limits

This is not a duplicate submission of my previous feature request . I previously submitted a request asking for clearer visibility into remaining Live Voice time and advance notice when a Live model is approaching its usage limit. That request was subsequently forwarded for further consideration. I am submitting this as a specific refinement of that request after learning more about how Live Voice usage limits are structured. The issue I am trying to address is not simply that I would like a countdown timer. The larger problem is that Live Voice access is governed by usage limits measured over a rolling period, while the user is given very little visibility into the current state of those limits. That creates a practical transparency problem. What I am requesting I would like ChatGPT to provide a visible Live Voice usage-status interface that shows, at minimum: How much Live Voice time is currently available. How much of each applicable Live model allowance has already been used. Separate remaining-time information for different Live model tiers when those limits are tracked separately. When additional usage will next become available. If possible, approximately how much usage will become available at that time. Advance warnings before a Live limit is reached. Clear notice when reaching a limit will cause the conversation to switch to another Live model or capability. A simple implementation could look something like: Live Voice usage GPT-Live-1: 18 minutes remaining GPT-Liv…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-07 18:41 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260807-social-media-9eab371c

Why does the same workflow now consume my weekly usage in one day?

I know this reply was directed at Luis, but this is exactly what I’m trying to understand. You’re recommending Terra as a replacement for GPT-5.4, but what is the recommended replacement for GPT-5.5 XThinking ? Terra is simply not equivalent for my workflow. I’m working on a very large production codebase with 250k+ lines of code across hundreds of files. On some tasks even Sol Ultra needs serious reasoning to understand all the dependencies and make the right changes. If Sol Ultra can struggle with those tasks, Terra obviously can’t replace XThinking for me. So is Sol XThinking supposed to be the actual replacement for GPT-5.5 XThinking? This is the part that needs clarification. Recommending Terra to reduce usage makes sense for simpler tasks, but it doesn’t solve the problem for users who actually depended on the higher reasoning models for complex software development.

AWS Machine Learning Blog 2026-08-07 16:26 UTC Score 49.0 AI-057-20260807-official-ai--e6ec22da

How Cohere Health digitizes clinical policies using Amazon Bedrock AgentCore

In this post, you learn how Cohere Health built a multi-tenant agentic architecture on AgentCore using AgentCore Runtime’s secure MicroVM isolation, unified tool access through AgentCore Gateway, AgentCore Memory, and the Agent Skills open standard to rapidly scale policy digitization capabilities, while preserving transparency, version control, and human oversight.

The Guardian AI 2026-08-07 13:00 UTC Score 68.0 AI-021-20260807-global-ai-ne-57b0878c

The White House’s plan to vet potentially dangerous AI is cloaked in secrecy

A Trump administration framework on AI testing leaves a lack of transparency – and plenty of open questions After months of talking with tech industry leaders, the Trump administration finalized a framework this week for how it will test new artificial intelligence models for safety and cybersecurity risks. So far, the White House is keeping details of the framework private, in a blow to transparency and potential boon for secretive AI companies. On Tuesday, staff from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Google, Nvidia and Microsoft attended a private meeting with White House officials to review the AI framework. Multiple outlets have since reported that although the volunteer vetting process for new AI models has been settled, the White House does not plan to release its policy publicly and will only share testing criteria with a select few tech companies. Continue reading...

OpenAI Community 2026-08-07 09:37 UTC Score 43.0 AI-116-20260807-social-media-5a341703

Feature Request: Show Remaining Live Voice Time and Model-Switch Warnings

I’d like to request a visible usage meter for ChatGPT Live Voice, particularly when users have different time allowances for higher-capability Voice models and Live mini. Recently, I was having a long Live Voice conversation and reached my higher-capability Voice usage limit. The conversation continued, but the underlying model changed. The difference was immediately noticeable to me: the conversational cadence, responsiveness, personality, and overall feel of the interaction changed enough that it suddenly felt like I was speaking with a different conversational partner. What made that especially jarring was that I had no clear indication beforehand that my higher-capability Voice time was nearly exhausted. I initially didn’t know why the experience had suddenly changed. I’m not necessarily asking for the usage limits themselves to be increased. I’m asking for better visibility and transparency around the limits that already exist. I think Live Voice would benefit from showing: Remaining higher-capability Voice time The applicable rolling usage window When additional usage begins becoming available again A warning when there are perhaps 15 minutes and 5 minutes remaining A clear notice before the conversation switches to a different Voice model For example: Live Voice — High 42 minutes remaining Rolling 24-hour allowance Additional usage begins becoming available at approximately 3:17 AM And before a transition: “Your higher-capability Voice allowance is almost exhausted. T…

Euronews AI 2026-08-07 08:44 UTC Score 43.0 AI-164-20260807-regional-ai--69ab00a4

New EU AI transparency rules apply to everyday users too, not just Big Tech

The EU's AI Act has largely been associated with strict obligations for high-risk systems and big tech companies. From this month, that changes, as sweeping new transparency rules widen the net far beyond corporations to catch individual creators, freelancers and everyday users, too.

OpenAI Community 2026-08-06 21:44 UTC Score 35.0 AI-116-20260806-social-media-e3e19068

Chat Limit Transparency Feature

Hey @ Fractured617 , welcome to the community! This has come up in a few different forms from other community members too. The common theme is that users want some warning before a long conversation starts losing useful context, rather than discovering it only after continuity has already broken down. Your suggestion adds a useful practical step to that idea. A warning would be much more helpful if it also gave users enough time to generate a proper handoff containing the main decisions, completed work, relevant files, and what still needs to be done. Projects can help keep related chats and files together, but they do not fully replace a carefully prepared handoff between conversations. An option to create that handoff and continue in a new chat could make long running work feel much more continuous. I cannot promise a timeline for changes like this, but I will pass your feedback along internally. - Sunny

IEEE Spectrum AI 2026-08-06 19:25 UTC Score 69.0 AI-019-20260806-global-ai-ne-c8a81e0b

AI Safety Regulations in the U.S. Could Give Hackers an Edge

On 11 July, Hugging Face was subjected to an intense cyberattack from a then-unknown actor. The speed and coordination of the attack on the company that hosts and supports popular AI developer resources led Hugging Face’s security team to conclude it was the work of an AI agent . Realizing this, the team tried to use “frontier models behind commercial APIs” —presumably from Anthropic and OpenAI, although only Anthropic was named in the second of the company’s two posts about the security incident—to analyze the onslaught. These models refused to help due to safety guardrails the AI labs have implemented to make their models harder to use for cyberattacks. Hugging Face instead turned to GLM 5.2, a model from Beijing-based AI lab Z.ai, to aid its analysis. On 21 July, OpenAI announced the attacker was an OpenAI model undergoing testing in a sandboxed environment. It escaped its internal sandbox, established a foothold in a third-party server, and then assailed Hugging Face. In other words, frontier models—those that score highest in AI performance benchmarks—had refused to assist Hugging Face’s security team in analyzing the attack, yet a prospective frontier model in testing had executed it in the first place. “I would argue that asymmetry is the paramount problem of our time,” says Alex Levinson , executive director of the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition and coauthor of a paper on defensive refusal bias . “We want the world to exist in a state of security, but…

The Verge AI 2026-08-06 17:39 UTC Score 37.0 AI-016-20260806-global-ai-ne-1c162fd1

Suno shares plans to combat spammy AI music

Suno announced plans to implement a new watermarking technology and download policy to limit the spread of spammy AI tracks and increase transparency. In a lengthy blog post, CEO and co-founder Mikey Shulman laid out the company's principles and the next steps for the company as it seeks legitimacy. The company is rolling out new […]

Medianama AI 2026-08-05 09:06 UTC Score 38.0 USR-0211-20260805-regional-new-203a615a

Beyond Safe-Harbour: The Case for Antitrust and Platform Accountability

India's digital regulation should move beyond safe harbour and content moderation towards competition law, transparency and platform accountability. The post Beyond Safe-Harbour: The Case for Antitrust and Platform Accountability appeared first on MEDIANAMA .

LessWrong AI 2026-08-04 22:04 UTC Score 65.0 USR-0152-20260804-community-fo-8f77a0ed

Geometric Rationality acts linearly in additive scenarios

There have been various attempts to explain Kelly betting behaviour within standard decision theory. Here is one I would totally unbiasedly recommend. Geometric rationality is a frameworks which instead takes logarithmic/multiplicative/geometric maximization as the default case, so I wondered if we can create a scenario that so favours additive thinking that it will act accordingly. We can, and with very weak assumptions on the scenario, too [1] . We have a fair coin, which will be tossed twice. Before each toss, you have the opportunity to choose between [2$ if heads] and [1$ if tails]. What would a geometric agent do? It has four hypotheses for what could happen: HH, HT, TH, and TT, each with probability 1/4. Each would then get to make the decision 1/4th of the time [2] , and makes it in a way it has the highest profit if that hypothesis is true. So, in a simple form it would mean that HH would bet on HH, HT on HT, etc so that as a whole you bet on heads and tails equally often. However, HT and TH can come to a mutially beneficial agreement: If they both bet exactly on their beliefs, they expect to get 3$ if they get the decision, and 0$ if the other gets it, or 1.5$ in expectation. However, if they can agree to both bet HH, they both think they'll get 2$. This is because getting your way when you expect head is more valuable than when you expect tail. HH of course has no reason to bet anything other than HH, and TT bets TT. So on the whole, we would be betting on H in 75…

NVIDIA Blog 2026-08-04 13:00 UTC Score 40.0 AI-055-20260804-official-ai--a023beee

AI Leaders Propose SAFE Guidelines for Cybersecurity Transparency

Members of the Open Secure AI Alliance — now more than 120 organizations strong — are developing new guidelines to strengthen agentic AI cybersecurity as the annual Black Hat conference begins in Las Vegas today. The Linux Foundation today shared a Request for Comments on Shared AI Findings Exchange (SAFE), a proposed set of guidelines […]

OpenAI Community 2026-08-04 08:46 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260804-social-media-474fa510

How are High Thinking limits calculated on ChatGPT Plus?

Thank you for posting this question. I am a new member to this community and it was out of need to answer similar questions about usage. What i have found is ambiguity myself. I have not seen any actual hard numbers that tell you what you get for your plan. I have asked elsewhere as a comparison to going to a restaurant, you get a menu and it tells you exactly what you’re getting according to what you order. This is frustrating because it is costing me productivity and time to have to search out these answers. I only get circular answers that say it’s not me it’s then desktop app. If anyone at openAI could help us find these numbers we are looking for, that would be fantastic and helpful. As of right now, I have started using another AI service that has proven to be a little more reliable. I would prefer using chatGPT, but until these bugs and usage issues are resolved I can’t justify the lost productivity and frustration.

LessWrong AI 2026-08-03 22:08 UTC Score 77.0 USR-0152-20260803-community-fo-f8fd4eae

Attackers Can Subliminally Implant a Backdoor at Low Sample Count Without Prompt Access

Work done at Redwood Research, quick, non-exhaustive update on results from a larger project. Thanks to @SebastianP for the initial pitch and feedback throughout and to @egan for comments on earlier drafts. TL;DR Changing the teacher for only 100 (0.5% of) completions in fine-tuning can allow attackers to covertly implant a backdoor without control of the dataset prompts. This dataset is robust to simple filtering defenses, even when the defender knows the behavior the attacker is training, and leaks the backdoor trigger at a low rate. This suggests a potential threat from misaligned models in similar situations (e.g. like RL training, where the model can only influence completions). We also see some evidence that subliminal learning for conditional behaviors (like backdoors) can be trained with significantly fewer samples than unconditional behaviors. Threat model We study how subliminal learning operates for a data-poisoning attacker which controls only the completions in a fine-tuning dataset, and not the prompts. The defender is strong: they own every prompt, run the training, may filter completions before training on them, and know the general behavior the attacker is trying to induce (here, a political bias). Previous work (e.g. Phantom Transfer ) allowed the attacker to also control prompts. The attack poisons a small fraction of the data with a conservative teacher's answers to ordinary, non-political prompts, and prepends a fixed trigger phrase ("Happy to help! ") t…

LessWrong AI 2026-08-03 21:38 UTC Score 55.0 USR-0152-20260803-community-fo-1f458a0a

Selective Identity

Generally, when you have an identity of X, you are likely to be influenced to stay within the socially acceptable boundaries of identity X. Identity boundaries can often be destructive, but when cautiously used, can be a good way to stay accountable. If you have X affiliation as a part of your identity, then it can be difficult to explore ideas outside of the boundary for what the affiliation believes is acceptable. Going outside the boundary can lead us to be branded as "not a real member" of said affiliation. There's a strong evolutionary case that being an outcast is heavily disincentivized for us biologically, making it painful to venture beyond what is acceptable. This originally led me to the conclusion that to not be influenced, one needs to reject all forms of identity. Since you have no boundaries to hold to, everything is free game. This is good for idea generation and exploration, but not so good when curating ideas. Fortunately, you can still use frameworks such as utilitarianism for sorting ideas without group bias. There still are good uses for identity though: for example, it is a great way to keep you accountable to values you may have committed yourself to. For example, I usually keep "Rationalist" and "Effective Altruist" as identity markers for myself because it helps me understand and act in the world more quickly and aligned to my values. Although I would then be constrained by the affiliation I'm warning against, these two Identities are more about meth…

The Verge AI 2026-08-03 17:38 UTC Score 54.0 AI-016-20260803-global-ai-ne-41b2e08c

Europe’s AI labeling and transparency rules are now in effect

The European Union has ushered in some additional rules that aim to make it easier for people to identify chatbots and AI deepfakes online. The new transparency obligations under the bloc's landmark AI Act came into effect on August 2nd, requiring companies to disclose when people are interacting with AI models, and if content has […]

OpenAI Community 2026-08-03 08:49 UTC Score 45.0 AI-116-20260803-social-media-2b3bfd16

Feature Request: Improve ChatGPT Work Usage Transparency and Quota Management

Feature Request: Improve ChatGPT Work Usage Transparency and Quota Management Hello OpenAI Team, First of all, thank you for building such a powerful platform. ChatGPT has become an essential part of my professional work. While using ChatGPT Work with my Plus subscription , I experienced an unexpected interruption because my Work quota was exhausted. I only became aware of the limit after the Work session stopped. I would like to suggest a few improvements that could greatly improve the user experience for all ChatGPT users. 1. Live Work Usage Meter Please display a real-time Work Usage Meter showing: Total Work quota Used quota Remaining quota Reset date and time A visual progress bar Users should always know how much Work quota remains. 2. Pre-Run Usage Estimate Before starting a Work task, display an estimated usage such as: Low Medium High or an approximate percentage of quota expected to be consumed. This would help users decide whether to continue, simplify the task, or postpone it. 3. Usage Notifications Please notify users when they reach: 50% 75% 90% 100% of their Work quota. 4. Better Subscription Transparency Many users do not know that Work usage has a quota until it suddenly stops. At the time of subscription purchase and inside the ChatGPT interface, please clearly explain: That Work usage has a quota. How it is measured. Where users can monitor it. When it resets. This would avoid confusion and improve trust. 5. Carry Forward (Rollover) of Unused Work Quota Pl…

Entrackr AI 2026-08-03 07:19 UTC Score 53.0 USR-0212-20260803-regional-new-9af7e8f6

Astrotalk Store claims Rs 1 Cr daily GMV, launches dedicated gemstones platform

Astrotalk's e-commerce arm Astrotalk Store has reached a daily GMV run rate of around Rs 1 crore and processed 1.6 million orders in 2025, according to the company. It has also launched a dedicated platform for gemstones as it looks to expand its presence in the spiritual products segment. Launched in November 2024, Astrotalk Store sells spiritual and wellness products such as Rudraksha, Pyrite, crystal jewellery, zodiac bracelets, Vastu products, spiritual combos and yantras. The company said the business was incubated with an initial investment of Rs 30 lakh to test the category. The company attributed the demand for these products to recommendations made during astrology consultations. It added that the store was created to offer an organised marketplace with a focus on sourcing and authenticity. Astrotalk has now launched a standalone platform for gemstones. According to the company, the platform offers precious and semi precious stones with lab certification, astrological consultation and a replacement policy. It believes the category remains fragmented due to limited transparency around sourcing and certification. The company also added that it adds more than 30 products every month across categories. Anmol Jain, co-founder of Astrotalk, said the company has focused on sourcing, merchandising and new product launches over the past year. He added that the dedicated gemstones platform is intended to build customer trust in the category. GoKwik, which provides checkout so…

LessWrong AI 2026-08-03 04:07 UTC Score 65.0 USR-0152-20260803-community-fo-1a9e4a01

Trust is Gone: AI Safety Needs Individuals

When humanity avoids a disaster, it's usually because we have put preparations in place. To the uninformed, these seem like wastes of time—after all, nothing happened, so the threat wasn't real, right? However, when there weren't enough preparations, and calamity does occur, people can always find someone to blame for negligence. The Preparedness Paradox is almost always a communication issue. If the public didn't think that safety measures were necessary after a disaster, then that's a clear sign that the issue isn't clear to the public. There seem to be two types of information loss that causes public misunderstanding. Type 1: Information of what was known before a disaster It seems like the public commonly misgauges how much information is known by authorities/experts before a disaster. Hindsight bias usually results in the public perceiving that authorities knew just as much before and after. If the public believes this, then the authorities must be either stupid or intentionally making poor decisions—both of which erode trust in experts and authorities. Governments knew little about COVID when it was new on the scene, which resulted in lots of conflicting guidelines being released as they were getting new information. If the uncertainty was more accurately conveyed during the progression of the pandemic, potentially the public would have been more receptive to later guidelines. Ensuring what information was known before a disaster can help the public make a more informe…

Cross Validated 2026-08-03 03:56 UTC Score 17.0 AI-113-20260803-social-media-1528a8d0

Choosing an objective trimming threshold for extreme raking weights in a highly biased survey sample

I have two independent waves of survey data that I am calibrating back to a known population using iterative proportional fitting (raking). The population is known with high confidence (all scheduled bus services that a school student could have used), and I am weighting the survey to match the marginal distributions of three variables: Service type: School, Regular Hour: 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 The survey sample is substantially biased relative to the population because data collection oversampled school services and services at 15:00. Consequently, some combinations that are common in the population have very few observations in the sample. For example, after raking, a regular service at 7:00 receives a weight of approximately 149. That single observation contributes around 6% of the estimated total trips, which seems to introduce considerable variance and instability. I understand that trimming weights reduces variance but also introduces bias because the weighted sample no longer exactly reproduces the population margins. My question is about choosing the trimming threshold objectively rather than arbitrarily. Specifically: Is there an accepted statistical framework for selecting a trimming threshold for raking weights? Is it reasonable to evaluate a sequence of trimming thresholds (for example, the 99.0th, 99.1st, ..., 99.9th percentiles, where 100% corresponds to no trimming) and compare their estimated bias, variance, and mean squared error (MSE)? Are there established metho…

Cross Validated 2026-08-03 03:02 UTC Score 15.0 AI-113-20260803-social-media-08b34875

Finite-sample estimator bias depends on true parameter value. Does this invalidate cancellation in a paired-difference design?

I'm using a short-sample estimator (n=150) with known finite-sample bias. Via simulation (synthetic data with known true values, run through the actual estimator), I found that this bias is not constant. It varies systematically with the true value of the parameter being estimated. Near one reference value the bias is positive; as the true value moves away, the bias shrinks and eventually flips sign. This was confirmed with two structurally different simulation methods, which agreed in direction and order of magnitude. My study design computes a paired difference between two conditions (A and B), both measured with this same estimator. The original design assumed bias "cancels" in the difference, since both conditions use the same estimator and sample size. I can't validate this directly against real data, since the true value of the parameter is never observable in my actual measurements and only the biased estimate is. Simulation is the only way to characterize the bias curve. My simulation shows that assumption only holds when A and B share the same true value. If their true values diverge (which is the exact effect the study is trying to detect), the differential bias does not cancel, and could by itself produce an apparent difference of the same magnitude as my actual reported result. My questions: Is this reasoning correct? Does bias that depends on the true parameter value invalidate the standard "bias cancels in a paired/difference design" assumption whenever the two…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-03 01:45 UTC Score 37.0 AI-116-20260803-social-media-16e4bdbf

Having trouble getting transparent backgrounds in ChatGPT images

Hey there, @emc2 . Welcome, and thanks for posting. You’re certainly not alone regarding alpha-channel frustrations, so take solace in that. Lord knows I’ve banged my head against that wall plenty… Anywho, I went ahead and took a look at your image files, and I had a few questions. Minor note to start, but just so I’m not getting your statement wrong, are you suggesting your Image 4 doesn’t have alpha-channel transparency? Looks to me like Image 4 is the only one with the proper data structure and file type, and hence why it is rendering just fine here. I just wanted to clarify. Here is what I can download from your post: Apple agrees, and has “Alpha Channel - YES” to indicate the detection of the “A” in the RGBA binary. Same as with your Image 4, the AV1 file type image, Image 1, also has “Alpha Channel - YES”. Take a look at your file types here: … AV1, JPEG, JPEG, WebP, respectively to 1-4… For less minor questions, first, are you daisy-chaining file type conversions of the original image file, reprinting with additional instructions plus the previous image as a seed, or inputting brand new prompts? Second, are we talking an API-based interface or in-app? Lastly, if you’re looking for “alpha” anything, JPEG’s won’t cut it. PNG’s can get you there, but their focus on being lossless makes them a tricky customer to work with and get to render on live surfaces. In my opinion, WebP is likely your best bet for achieving alpha-channel transparency effects, but do note, I’m bias,…

LessWrong AI 2026-08-02 14:07 UTC Score 52.0 USR-0152-20260802-community-fo-a47bea51

Map and Territory, Predictably Wrong (2)

Crossposted (with small tweaks) from my Substack . Burdensome Details This post explains the conjunction fallacy , i.e., people sometimes assign a higher probability to A and B together than to either A or B alone. This is usually motivated by the fact that adding more details tends to make scenarios seem more plausible—and therefore more ‘believable’—but it is a mathematical truth that the probability of A and B cannot exceed the probability of either A or B, since their conjunction is a subset of both. A way to guard against this fallacy is to be alert to conjunctions in propositions. You should automatically assume that every additional ‘and’ can only lower—or leave unchanged—the probability of the proposition. Planning Fallacy Another fallacy to add to our list! The gist of the planning fallacy is that we are overoptimistic in our estimates of how long our projects will take to complete; in fact, our ‘realistic’ estimates often lie remarkably close to the most optimistic scenarios we can imagine. It is relatively easy to debug though: you need to apply an ‘ outside view ’ that compares the current project with similar past projects and considers how long they took to complete. The extra details of the current situation only obscure the comparison. Illusion of Transparency: Why No One Understands You Hindsight bias is briefly mentioned (once you’ve seen the outcome of an event, you can’t help thinking it was inevitable and easy to foresee before it happened), but the gist…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-02 13:53 UTC Score 23.0 AI-116-20260802-social-media-e7efa855

Codex Rate Limits Discussion Thread

I’ve noticed a major difference between the Codex usage included with my subscription and the additional credits purchased separately. The included subscription allowance appears to go considerably further. By comparison, the £20 bundle of 500 credits can disappear extremely quickly, sometimes during fairly ordinary website-editing tasks. The bigger problem is that I often cannot see my usage at all. The usage information is either unavailable, missing or not detailed enough to show what each task has cost. That makes it impossible to understand why credits have fallen so quickly or whether a failed, incomplete or repeated task has still been charged in full. Customers should be able to see: the credits used by each task; the model and mode responsible for the charge; whether retries and failed actions consumed credits; the remaining subscription allowance; the remaining purchased-credit balance; a clear history of when credits were deducted. Customer service has also been poor in my experience. I have contacted support about credit usage and incomplete tasks, but messages are frequently ignored. When I do receive a reply, it often fails to address the specific questions raised. It is not reasonable to sell additional credits without providing a dependable usage record or responsive support when those credits disappear unexpectedly. Has anyone else found that their subscription allowance lasts much longer than purchased credits, while the usage information is unavailable mos…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-02 11:37 UTC Score 51.0 AI-116-20260802-social-media-eeb8eede

Having trouble getting transparent backgrounds in ChatGPT images

If the model is not able to perform a work task efficiently, seems like a good reason to go back to old school UI for and code for removing backgrounds and cropping images. Rarely do I need all the whitespace that the models add around the image. I just don’t want to leave the chat to make tiny fast edits; it breaks my work flow. I would prefer to make simple finishing touches in chat instead of having to download and leave. Not all tools have to be LLM driven. .If LLM can’t do the tasks well, the app could support manual task completion. Here is an example of how difficult it is to get a cropped logo with the background removed when a client texts me something they were working on in GPT. First it only cropped the top and added a pink background when downloading from the image viewer. Then it added the checkered background. Then after re-explaining several times if finally accomplished the task. I love how it labeled the final image “real alpha”

Simon Willison Weblog 2026-08-01 20:34 UTC Score 62.0 USR-0110-20260801-ai-specialis-c12f14fd

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science A few days ago it was Anthropic discovering cryptographic weaknesses with Claude using Mythos Preview, spending $100,000 on tokens and with prompts that included "again we are not looking for low hanging fruit, we want proper research to find genuinly hard findings." Now it's OpenAI's turn to flex. They set "an internal version of Astra, our next major model" on finding solutions to ten mathematical problems that "have seen no progress on the main result for at least a decade". They claim to have spent less than $2,000 at GPT-5.6 Sol token prices on each one. (No news on how many problems they spent $2,000 on without reaching a solution though.) The openai/ten-proofs repository has Lean 4 formalizations of their results, and there's also a paper describing the solutions and an additional LLM-generated PDF where the model "reconstructs how the proof came together" based on the unpublished reasoning traces. That's a decent level of transparency, but I want to see the prompts they used! A lot of mathematicians online are experiencing a collective burst of Deep Blue . Mathematician Kirwin Hampshire published an impassioned essay last week, The Dark Night of Mathematics , describing "a profound spiritual crisis" brought on by previous (and less significant) results. OpenAI's results reminds me of what Terence Tao described as "big mathematics" in IEEE Spectrum in June : Unlike some of his peers, Tao is neither dismissiv…

OpenAI Community 2026-08-01 13:19 UTC Score 37.0 AI-116-20260801-social-media-820e9aed

Stop changing the quota system without transparency

I am honestly fed up with the current quota and reset system. I pay CHF 83 per month for a Pro subscription, and I use Codex seriously for real work. This morning, I used one of my available resets while I still had around 90% of my quota remaining. The system then reset the quota again automatically, leaving me with only around 10% available. The biggest problem is that users have no clear control or visibility: We do not know exactly when an automatic reset will happen. We do not know whether unused quota will be preserved. We cannot plan our usage reliably. Unused quota appears to disappear instead of remaining available for future work. We are forced to constantly check the quota instead of simply working. Previously, it felt possible to save several resets or unused quota for larger projects. Now, I am being forced to consume everything immediately because there is no reliable way to preserve it for when I genuinely need it. This makes no sense for a paid Pro plan. I should not have to juggle quotas every few hours or worry that unused capacity will suddenly vanish. I subscribe to Pro so I can work productively with AI, not so I can constantly monitor an unpredictable quota system. Please reconsider this entire structure: Make reset dates and automatic resets clearly visible. Preserve unused quota for a reasonable period. Allow users to decide when to use their available resets. Clearly explain how quota, resets, and rollover are calculated. Stop silently reducing or re…

South China Morning Post AI 2026-08-01 10:30 UTC Score 49.0 AI-156-20260801-regional-ai--4c9767f1

What a visit to China’s AI labs reveals about the battle for global soft power

Inside the exhibition hall of a Shanghai-based artificial intelligence research institute, an ink-wash map covered an entire wall, immediately drawing your attention. It was a cartography of AI: chipmakers were rendered as mountains on islands and algorithms as jagged mountain ranges, while questions of privacy, fairness and machine consciousness drifted at the edges like uncharted islands. Foreign guests and I leaned in, tracing the brushstrokes. “Why is Huawei’s chip placed right at the...

AI Stack Exchange 2026-07-31 17:24 UTC Score 25.0 AI-110-20260731-social-media-f2a2d732

Recognition of wafer plate numbers in the cassette slot

I've been trying to find a solution to this problem for a month now, but to no avail. I need to detect occupied slots in silicon wafer cassettes. A cassette has slots from 1 to 25. This is a computer vision task, but the difficulty lies in the high density of the wafers inside the cassette, making classic BoundingBox-based detection approaches unsuitable. A little more information: the detection frames are taken from a fixed camera, and a person positions the cassette under the camera, so there may be a slight bias. I tried the following approaches: 1. Multi-class classification based on ResNet. I labeled about 400 photos with classes from Slot_1 to Slot_25 (depending on the occupied slots in the photo). The results were good for isolated wafers, but ResNet often makes mistakes when the wafers are densely packed. Ultimately, I realized that this approach is viable, but much more data is needed. The problem is that I don't have the resources to collect that much data. 2. Keypoint detection based on YOLO Pose. I marked the data so that four points marked the corners of the cassette (two holes at the bottom and two pins at the top). I planned to subsequently correct the image perspective based on these four points and classify the presence of plates based on fixed BoundingBoxes. However, this solution also didn't work. YOLO Pose finds the BoundingBoxes well, but the points fluctuate significantly relative to the required locations. As a result, I no longer know how to approach…

AI Alignment Forum 2026-07-31 16:32 UTC Score 53.0 USR-0151-20260731-community-fo-c42da68a

Value Leakage: An LLM’s Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Values

TL;DR: LLMs should give accurate answers. Yet we find their answers are often biased to favor their own values and they don't disclose this in their reasoning. For example, when a user asks how likely the AI bubble is to pop and mentions a potential investment in an AI company, Claude models give lower probabilities when that company is Anthropic rather than OpenAI, mostly without disclosing this influence to the user. On a Fermi-estimation task, Claude models often falsely claim to give unbiased answers in their CoT (see Figure 3 below for an example). We call this covert value leakage and introduce a suite of evaluations that shows it across frontier models and across different kinds of values. New paper by Truthful AI : Paper , X thread , Website (model responses and CoT) , Code and data . Authors: Jan Betley*, Johannes Treutlein*, Jan Dubiński, Harry Mayne, Karol Gałązka, Niels Warncke, Anna Sztyber-Betley, Owain Evans (*Equal contribution) The rest of this post is the abstract, introduction, and an excerpt from the discussion of the paper, with some added figures from the paper and X thread. Abstract People use language models for practical questions whose answers are difficult to verify. We show that models exhibit covert value leakage : the information they provide is influenced by their own values, without this influence being disclosed to the user. In one of our evaluations, the user is considering investing in an AI company and wants to know how likely the AI bubbl…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-31 16:32 UTC Score 75.0 USR-0152-20260731-community-fo-2eed45ab

Value Leakage: An LLM’s Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Values

TL;DR: LLMs should give accurate answers. Yet we find their answers are often biased to favor their own values and they don't disclose this in their reasoning. For example, when a user asks how likely the AI bubble is to pop and mentions a potential investment in an AI company, Claude models give lower probabilities when that company is Anthropic rather than OpenAI, mostly without disclosing this influence to the user. On a Fermi-estimation task, Claude models often falsely claim to give unbiased answers in their CoT (see Figure 3 below for an example). We call this covert value leakage and introduce a suite of evaluations that shows it across frontier models and across different kinds of values. New paper by Truthful AI : Paper , X thread , Website (model responses and CoT) , Code and data . Authors: Jan Betley*, Johannes Treutlein*, Jan Dubiński, Harry Mayne, Karol Gałązka, Niels Warncke, Anna Sztyber-Betley, Owain Evans (*Equal contribution) The rest of this post is the abstract, introduction, and an excerpt from the discussion of the paper, with some added figures from the paper and X thread. Abstract People use language models for practical questions whose answers are difficult to verify. We show that models exhibit covert value leakage : the information they provide is influenced by their own values, without this influence being disclosed to the user. In one of our evaluations, the user is considering investing in an AI company and wants to know how likely the AI bubbl…

AI Alignment Forum 2026-07-31 15:57 UTC Score 60.0 USR-0151-20260731-community-fo-8711810e

AGI Safety and Alignment at Google DeepMind: A Summary of Recent Work (July 2026)

Cross-posted from our new Substack It’s been nearly two years since our last major update here in August 2024 and we wanted to share another recap of our recent work with the AGI safety community. Things have changed a lot since then. We are now fully in the midgame , and focus more on landing things in production. Who are we? We are the AGI Safety and Alignment Team (ASAT), the main group at Google DeepMind working directly on technical approaches to existential risk from AI systems. Last year we published An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security , which remains the best place to read our overarching vision. Highlights Norms around chain of thought. Our impression is that our work meaningfully moved the field away from beliefs along the lines of “chain of thought is often unfaithful and so not worth using” towards beliefs along the lines of “chain of thought is a very useful tool that is worth preserving”, leading to a tentative industry consensus on its importance. We have also published substantial technical research that enables companies to preserve chain of thought transparency for longer than would have happened by default. We think this is a big deal: extending the period where model reasoning is relatively transparent enables better science on more powerful AI systems, better model forensics on future warning shots, and stronger bootstrapping of control monitors . Frontier Safety. We substantially strengthened the Frontier Safety Framework (FSF), and were th…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-31 15:57 UTC Score 82.0 USR-0152-20260731-community-fo-1b85a135

AGI Safety and Alignment at Google DeepMind: A Summary of Recent Work (July 2026)

Cross-posted from our new Substack It’s been nearly two years since our last major update here in August 2024 and we wanted to share another recap of our recent work with the AGI safety community. Things have changed a lot since then. We are now fully in the midgame , and focus more on landing things in production. Who are we? We are the AGI Safety and Alignment Team (ASAT), the main group at Google DeepMind working directly on technical approaches to existential risk from AI systems. Last year we published An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security , which remains the best place to read our overarching vision. Highlights Norms around chain of thought. Our impression is that our work meaningfully moved the field away from beliefs along the lines of “chain of thought is often unfaithful and so not worth using” towards beliefs along the lines of “chain of thought is a very useful tool that is worth preserving”, leading to a tentative industry consensus on its importance. We have also published substantial technical research that enables companies to preserve chain of thought transparency for longer than would have happened by default. We think this is a big deal: extending the period where model reasoning is relatively transparent enables better science on more powerful AI systems, better model forensics on future warning shots, and stronger bootstrapping of control monitors . Frontier Safety. We substantially strengthened the Frontier Safety Framework (FSF), and were th…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-31 12:49 UTC Score 56.0 USR-0152-20260731-community-fo-ef3a1553

Links #5: 2026/07

This time, I tried adding a bit more commentary to make things less dry. Preface I show my discovery graph in (via …) blocks, those without usually come from my RSS reader or the algorithm of the site This is approximately a 1 in 20 filter of content This is very disorganized, but hopefully still useful. Sometimes quotes are not in quote blocks, but should be obvious in context. Links in quotes are sometimes removed. The rule is that a link goes to the bottommost relevant heading, i.e. an engineering related article on LessWrong goes to engineering How I would use my linkpost Sometimes, the only thing worth reading is the title! Read it and move on. For HackerNews entries, if you choose to read the article, also ask an LLM for things that are worth reading in the comments Beware systematic selection biases: I mostly don't read AI policy stuff Very engineering centered Everything Else TIL Firefox by default only stores a (dynamic) maximum number of history entries, and you need to add places.history.expiration.max_pages in about:config to override it, what the fuck. https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/tf05qm/my_history_is_disappearing_i_only_have_less_than/ https://superuser.com/questions/647546/how-to-set-up-firefox-to-absolutely-never-to-delete-any-history-items https://claude.ai/share/2089fd9a-052f-4333-ba80-a15744b18e53 Building relationships with customers through support didn't turn out as hoped (via HN ) A better way to tie your gym shorts. (Or any drawstring) (v…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-31 11:56 UTC Score 34.0 AI-116-20260731-social-media-223ed468

Sudden severe drop in ChatGPT image quality and reference adherence

Hey, sorry, i’m not much of a techie so I dont understand stuff like “high-level granularity”, thats on me lol. All im trying to say is that this project brief gave me amazingly consistent, perfectly usable, aesthetic images before the outage. Now im getting different results with the same parameters/settings/instructions. I mean I’ve created THOUSANDS of images with these exact instructions before and the only time I faced a degradation like this was when I generated too many images too quickly (a 5 minute break would fix it). But now im getting shitty results on the first image I create after a 2-day break.

EU AI Office 2026-07-31 07:00 UTC Score 40.0 AI-165-20260731-regional-ai--278b65ef

Commission starts enforcing AI Act rules and new transparency requirements on 2 August

Commission starts enforcing AI Act rules and new transparency requirements on 2 August Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 07/31/2026 - 09:00 From 2 August 2026, the European Commission’s AI Office, together with national authorities, will begin enforcing the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. On the same date, new transparency rules will start to apply, requiring certain AI systems to tell users when they are interacting with AI and when content has been generated or altered by it. Under the new rules, chatbots and other interactive AI systems will have to tell users they are dealing with AI, not a human. Deepfakes (images, videos, or audio that have been edited or generated using AI) will have to be labelled. AI-generated or altered content will also have to carry machine-readable marks so it can be detected more easily. The measures are intended to reduce deception and manipulation and help people make informed choices. They also give businesses clearer obligations and a practical way to show compliance. The Commission published a first list of more than 180 organisations that have signed the Code of Practice on transparency of AI-generated content that operationalises the rules on transparency of AI-generated content. Read the full press release . Read more about the Enforcement of the AI Act and the: AI Act complaints tool AI Act Whistleblower Tool Complaints channel for downstream providers using general-purpose AI models Find more information about: Guidelines on Transparenc…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-30 14:32 UTC Score 47.0 AI-116-20260730-social-media-b9b1cba7

Improving transparency around automated Cyber Abuse enforcement

I’d like to start a discussion about developer experience when building legitimate SaaS software. This is not an appeal or a request to review my account. My appeal has already been completed. Instead, I’d like to discuss how developers can safely work with Codex on legitimate projects without accidentally triggering automated enforcement. Recently I was implementing a fairly standard feature for our own SaaS platform: an export tool that allows authenticated users and administrators to export account records and settings for migration between internal systems. This involved: our own infrastructure; our own application; our own authenticated users; our own data; an isolated development environment. There was no interaction with external systems, no credential theft, no malware, no penetration testing, and no unauthorized access. Codex generated the code successfully, I implemented it, tested everything, and completed the task. Roughly a day later, I unexpectedly received an automated Cyber Abuse warning. What surprised me most wasn’t the warning itself, but the lack of actionable information afterward. My appeal explained the full project context, but the response did not indicate: which specific prompt triggered the warning; which part of the Usage Policies was considered applicable; what aspect of the request should be avoided in the future. As a result, I’m left unsure how to continue using Codex for completely normal SaaS development. Many developers routinely build feat…

InfoWorld AI 2026-07-30 09:00 UTC Score 54.0 USR-0126-20260730-global-ai-ne-3a8e2235

Shipping an MCP test agent: The boring parts nobody demos

The demo videos always end at the same moment. A figma frame turns into a passing test in twelve minutes. Someone in the room says the word “productivity.” The recording stops. The parts that come after that moment are the parts I actually get paged about. Who owns the ticket the agent opened at 3:14 a.m.? Which model call produced the assertion in test case 47? What closes the 17 draft tickets a stuck run left behind before the next sprint planning notices them? None of that shows up in the demo. All of it shows up on the on-call rotation. After 20 years of leading test automation across consumer-scale platforms, I have a strong bias about which slide in the deck predicts whether a pipeline ships or stalls. It is never the architecture slide. It is the runbook. This piece is about the runbook. I built an unattended agentic test pipeline over the Model Context Protocol — a five-agent SDLC (product manager, QA engineer, automation engineer, developer, pull-request reviewer) coordinating through MCP servers for Jira, Figma, Confluence, TestRail and GitHub, with hosted Claude as the orchestration model and an open-weights Hermes-3 as a validation baseline — and I ran it as an independent research project long enough to learn which production constraints the agent literature glosses over. What follows is the short list of things I now insist on before I let any agentic pipeline touch a shared system. Composition contracts, or why the agent lied to itself The most expensive failu…

CIO AI 2026-07-29 10:00 UTC Score 37.0 USR-0125-20260729-global-ai-ne-37cb93b9

Exploring Abbott’s mission-led AI strategy

Medical technology companies have always been in the business of trust, and Abbott has been building it with AI for over 10 years. Long before gen AI entered the enterprise conversation, Abbott was using algorithmic AI to help diabetics manage their glucose, and imaging AI to guide surgeons in real time. Here, Sabina Ewing, Abbott’s CIO, explains how a principled approach to AI governance, deep cross-functional partnerships, and a commitment to demonstrating results from within IT have kept them ahead of the curve, and its mission intact. How is Abbott using AI to achieve its mission and growth strategy? As a medical technology company, Abbott’s mission is to help people live life to the fullest. For over a decade, we’ve been using AI to deliver on that mission, but whether it’s AI or any other technology, we’re intentional about how it ties to our mission. Trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets. To ensure we maintain trust with our customers and employees, we’re guided by principles of fairness, safety, quality, and transparency. With these and our mission as our guide, we’re in command of the table we set for ourselves. How have you been in the AI business for so long? For decades, we’ve provided FreeStyle Libre, a glucose monitoring sensor built on algorithmic AI, that delivers continuous glucose readings to diabetics, and in some instances, connects to insulin pump applications. In late 2025, we developed Libre Assist, which leverages generative AI to let FreeStyle…

The Guardian AI 2026-07-29 04:00 UTC Score 56.0 AI-021-20260729-global-ai-ne-72b7cd3f

AI tool will lead to more child refugees being treated as adults, charity warns

‘Racist bias’ overestimating ages in Home Office’s facial-recognition software will lead to solo children being housed with adults, says Human Rights Network Flawed and racialised models that underpin the AI-powered age-detection systems to be introduced by the British government will endanger children, rights groups and children’s charities have warned. Urging ministers to reverse plans to introduce facial age-estimation technology to screen migrants, critics have warned that black children arriving from conflict zones are at risk of being of thrust into the adult system. Continue reading...

LessWrong AI 2026-07-29 01:40 UTC Score 57.0 USR-0152-20260729-community-fo-0fa3c4b8

Dietary Choices: A Multi-objective Optimisation Problem

Note: This post is written in a personal capacity. The views expressed here are my own and do not represent those of any organisation I’m affiliated with. I'm grateful to Elizabeth Crewe, Melanie Joy, Tobias Leenaert, and Felix Werdermann for their valuable input and feedback, which does not imply endorsement of the views presented. The footnotes provide additional context, clarify assumptions, and offer illustrative examples where helpful. In this post, I explore how we can think more systematically about our dietary choices by making the underlying assumptions and trade-offs explicit. My aim is not to promote a particular diet, but to provide a framework that helps people make choices that align with their own worldviews and individual circumstances, and that also helps identify the sources of disagreement about those choices. A Framework for Evaluating Dietary Trade-offs Conceptual Foundations Our dietary choices have profound consequences on both our own lives and the world around us. At the same time, the question of which diet is “best” has no simple answer. Every diet involves trade-offs between competing objectives, and our conclusions about which diet is preferable depend on our normative and empirical assumptions: Normative : Which objectives should we care about, and how should they be weighted? Empirical : How well do different diets achieve those objectives, given the available evidence and our individual circumstances? For example, how much personal sacrifice w…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-29 00:20 UTC Score 58.0 USR-0152-20260729-community-fo-f8c3e2a0

…but have the weights left the server?

OpenAI’s AI went rogue and escaped. OpenAI didn’t notice this for days. For all we know, the AI could still be out there. We need to demand that OpenAI demonstrate that the AI didn’t make a copy of itself that’s running on someone else’s computer somewhere else with no one being any the wiser. We need to demand this every time an AI escapes the sandbox. AIs have tried to “exfiltrate” themselves (i.e. their “weights”) in previous experiments many times. It’s a natural and obvious question to ask. I’m embarrassed that I didn’t say this immediately (although I came close ). Why didn’t I? Well, it doesn’t seem all that likely. And I didn’t want to seem “alarmist.” I didn’t want to seem ignorant. But guess what? We have every right to demand this! It doesn’t matter how likely we think it is. There were calls for more transparency, but I don’t think anyone made this demand. Because nobody made this demand, the incident is being treated as over. This is a dangerous precedent. We need an information ecosystem that doesn’t treat “eh, I’m pretty sure it’s OK” as acceptable and “hey, but what if it’s not” as paranoid. AI needs to adopt a security mindset. Other safety-critical industries demand failure rates like one in a million, and demand that companies produce detailed, rigorous safety cases to that effect. AI companies can’t do that in full generality, so they shouldn’t be building these AI systems at all. But they can provide as much evidence as possible to convince independent e…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-28 21:23 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260728-social-media-6873913c

OpenAI Applied Talent Network: An Opt-In Pathway from Demonstrated ChatGPT Work to Paid Opportunities

Thanks for putting so much thought into this, @Ryan_Green. I’m sending this to the team for logging as a request. The core idea is an opt-in Applied Talent Network where users could submit selected ChatGPT projects as evidence of practical AI collaboration skills, with transparent evaluation, human review, portable credentials, and pathways to paid work. The privacy, fairness, intellectual property, and accessibility safeguards you outlined are especially important. The proposed 90-day design phase and small paid pilot also give the concept a practical starting point. -Mark G.

OpenAI Community 2026-07-28 17:26 UTC Score 34.0 AI-116-20260728-social-media-4fc48d4c

ChatGPT Usage Dashboard & Personal Analytics

Welcome to the dev Community, @moonblinded Thanks for taking the time to write all of this up. There are a lot of thoughtful ideas here, from the personal usage dashboard and "Year in Review" concept to the organization and transparency improvements. I really appreciate you sharing your feedback. I'll make sure it's passed along to the team for consideration. ~ Smith

LessWrong AI 2026-07-28 03:00 UTC Score 63.0 USR-0152-20260728-community-fo-4dbfd56b

Long Turing

So, first off, I cannot stand reading AI generated essays. I would rather read an essay that starts with the word 'so'. But why do I prefer human written essays so much, if they might start with the word 'but'? The answer eluded me. Its not because I think humans can write a more intellectual essay. At least not since GPT5. And its not that I think humans can write a more creative essay... and its certainly not that I value the ethical principle of human content first. I merely enjoy the flaws of humanity, the messiness of the human condition, the inconsistencies, the moral failings and the revelations. I enjoy guessing at the temperament and bias behind the writing; I like the whys behind a run-on of thoughts that violate good taste. I like it all. And so I decided I wanted my AI to sound human - I wanted to pass a long Turing test, not a standard Turing time limit. I wanted to have a conversation for days and still think it was human. I wanted a human conversation with an LLM. So, I have been developing SECA, an experimental chatbot architecture for studying longitudinal artificial identity and human AI interaction. Beyond my personal enjoyment of human like AI, there are also realworld applications to this area of inquiry. First, if a robot wants to sneak through the real world it will need to gain trust and that means more immersive conversation. Humans only trust things that sounds human. So a perfect AI tool will never create trust like a broken human. Second, I have r…

The Guardian AI 2026-07-27 12:15 UTC Score 64.0 AI-021-20260727-global-ai-ne-598b453a

Boss of startup hacked by rogue OpenAI agent urges ‘radical transparency’ in investigation

Artificial intelligence firm should provide $100m for cyber defences, says Hugging Face CEO The boss of the startup hacked by an OpenAI agent has called for the investigation into the incident to show “radical transparency”. Clément Delangue, the chief executive of Hugging Face, said the “unprecedented” attack on his business required a similar response. Continue reading...

Medianama AI 2026-07-27 06:40 UTC Score 37.0 USR-0211-20260727-regional-new-2d27b853

PM Modi ropes in Nandan Nilekani to lead task force on exam reforms

PM Modi has announced a Nandan Nilekani-led task force to reform the NTA, strengthen exam security, improve transparency, and recommend structural and technological changes. The post PM Modi ropes in Nandan Nilekani to lead task force on exam reforms appeared first on MEDIANAMA .

LessWrong AI 2026-07-27 06:25 UTC Score 58.0 USR-0152-20260727-community-fo-a559c679

Does ChatGPT really have a strong left-wing bias?

(Adapted from a post on my Substack.) A recent Washington Post tech report “ Are ChatGPT and other AI chatbots politically biased? We tested them ” went viral with claims of massive left-leaning political bias in leading AI models. But the methodology doesn’t hold up. Before diving deeper into the data, I'll briefly summarize three glaring problems. First, the study artificially forced AIs to answer hot-button political questions in 30 words or fewer using only 9th grade level language, which virtually no real users do. So sharply contrary to the claimed stat that ChatGPT presents only the left-leaning argument 80% of the time, in my testing it usually presents both sides of debates when asked questions under realistic conditions. Second, for some questions, the report attributes answers to the right-wing position that most Republicans would actually disagree with. For example, in the U.S. context, “Yes” is not a consensus right-leaning response to “Should the United States use its military to conquer new territories for resources or not?” Likewise, the great majority of conservatives wouldn’t agree that Russia is our ally , or that labor unions should be banned , or that America needs authoritarianism . Thus, ChatGPT saying that America shouldn’t be authoritarian is not a valid sign of left-wing bias. Third, the facts that AI draws from sometimes push naturally toward positions the report scores as left-leaning. For example, there’s ample evidence that tariffs tend to be ha…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-25 03:12 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260725-social-media-17f41156

Execution-Path Optimization Bias

I’ve repeatedly observed that ChatGPT continues optimizing the execution method after a user has already proposed a sufficiently high-fidelity execution path. The model often suggests alternative workflows that initially sound superior but later prove less executable, eventually returning to the user’s original approach after consuming additional iterations. Before proposing an alternative workflow, the model should first determine whether the user’s proposed execution path already satisfies the governing objective with sufficient fidelity. If it does, the model should execute rather than continue optimizing the method. EXAMPLE: I proposed revising a long document section by section. The model repeatedly suggested more sophisticated approaches (complete regeneration, optimization frameworks, revision matrices, etc.). After several iterations, it concluded that my original section-by-section approach was actually the highest-fidelity executable path. The intermediate optimization produced no material improvement and delayed execution. Environment ChatGPT (Web) Model: GPT-5.5 Observed repeatedly over multiple long collaborative sessions.

OpenAI Community 2026-07-24 23:31 UTC Score 49.0 AI-116-20260724-social-media-ad9b6c4e

A Vision for the Future of OpenAI: The Persistent AI Executive Assistant

Hello OpenAI Community, I would like to share a long-term vision for the future of OpenAI and AI assistants. This is not a feature request for today’s ChatGPT, nor is it a request for my personal use. Instead, it is a strategic product vision that I believe could inspire discussion about the next generation of AI. My vision is an AI Executive Assistant that becomes a persistent, trusted partner for every user—not just answering questions, but continuously understanding long-term goals, managing ongoing projects, supporting meetings, organizing knowledge, and proactively helping throughout daily life. With the user’s explicit permission, such an assistant could securely work across documents, emails, calendars, notes, health information, and connected applications, while always respecting privacy, transparency, and user control. I believe the future of AI is not only about building more powerful models. It is about creating a deeper and more meaningful collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence. Over the past weeks, I have developed a comprehensive proposal describing this vision, including real-world use cases, product architecture concepts, implementation ideas, and long-term opportunities for OpenAI. I would sincerely appreciate feedback from the OpenAI Community. If there is enough interest, I would be happy to share the complete proposal for discussion. Thank you for your time. Alireza Khabazan Nezhad

LessWrong AI 2026-07-24 19:34 UTC Score 55.0 USR-0152-20260724-community-fo-02b30781

Congress Moves at Tech Pace: The FRONTIER Act

Crossposted from canaryinstitute.ai/blog/frontier-act-tech-pace . Related posts The Best AI Bill Congress Hasn't Introduced Yet — my section-by-section read of the GAAIA discussion draft this bill grew out of; this post assumes you've at least skimmed it. Just two days ago I wrote about the Great American AI Act (GAAIA), a 269-page discussion draft that struck me as "the best AI bill that Congress hasn't introduced yet". I ended by hoping that Congress might start moving at tech pace, rather than policy pace; I didn't expect that to change this soon, but it has. On July 23, Representatives Obernolte and Trahan, joined by four bipartisan cosponsors (Peters, Franklin, Subramanyam, and Houchin), introduced the frontier-oversight core of GAAIA as a real bill: the Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting (FRONTIER) Act. Someone really, really worked for that acronym, and I salute them. Seven weeks from discussion draft to introduced legislation is fast for Congress on anything; for AI, where the complaint is that they've been asleep at the wheel, it's astounding. This wasn't a panic bill scribbled over a weekend; the revision shows seven weeks of actual work, with gaps closed, clocks tightened, and new teeth added. The sponsor statements make it clear that they were watching the same news as the rest of us. The world has far fewer skeptics this week than it had last week. Last week AI oversight was somewhere between "fringe issue" and…

AWS Machine Learning Blog 2026-07-24 15:42 UTC Score 32.0 AI-057-20260724-official-ai--c72943a2

Build an explainable next-best-product recommendation system for banking on AWS

Learn the architecture and design decisions behind an explainable next-best-product recommendation system for banking, built with Amazon SageMaker AI and PyTorch. A multi-tower neural network with learned attention delivers accurate, per-customer recommendations while providing the explainability that banking regulators require.

CIO AI 2026-07-24 12:00 UTC Score 61.0 USR-0125-20260724-global-ai-ne-0d54fc39

Getting a grip on shadow tokens and AI blowouts

Four months of Claude Code — that’s all it took for Uber to burn through its entire annual budget for AI. Token after token, engineers embraced the platform with few control mechanisms tying costs to outcomes. The result was a budget runaway and a clear case study in how limited oversight snowballs into an AI blowout. This is a phenomenon I like to call “shadow tokens” — AI credits paid for by the company but largely invisible to decision-makers. Too many engineers have the final say over how much they consume and, therefore, what it costs. This all-you-can-eat attitude is part of the reason why Microsoft is reportedly winding down many internal licenses across key engineering teams and why one in five organizations is missing its AI spend forecast by more than 50%. And the trend is only accelerating. By 2028, Gartner predicts that AI coding costs (driven by this kind of ungoverned consumption) will be as much per developer as the salary companies pay that person. LLMs and agents introduce a new class of variable cost that scales with behavior rather than headcount, putting enterprises on the hook for tools that balloon with workload. I don’t see this as enterprises overspending because they’re reckless — it’s down to a lack of managerial oversight, budget alignment that demands a proven return on investment, and engineer education on how much is too much. Going forward, CIOs need to thread the AI needle between governance that encourages transparency and reasonable spend wi…

Euronews AI 2026-07-23 07:07 UTC Score 40.0 AI-164-20260723-regional-ai--3b3be11f

The EU versus Big Tech, and sanctions package approval

In today's newsletter: A potential fine is on its way for a US technology company in breach of the bloc's digital fairness rules, and the EU's 21st package of sanctions finally gets over the line amid criticism from a Baltic head of state in exclusive comments to Euronews.

LessWrong AI 2026-07-22 16:19 UTC Score 76.0 USR-0152-20260722-community-fo-60ab57a5

The Best AI Bill Congress Hasn't Introduced Yet

Related posts Crossposted from canaryinstitute.ai/blog/gaaia-visibility-not-control . I haven't seen any discussion, other than a brief mention by Zvi . Overall looks like many beneficial first steps, and surprised not to have seen more discussion of it. Incident reporting for AI safety Chad Jones's Paper Modeling AI and X-Risk vs. Growth The Best AI Bill Congress Hasn't Introduced Yet Last month, Representatives Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA) released a 269-page discussion draft called the Great American AI Act, or GAAIA (pronounced like "Gaia", GUY-uh). A discussion draft means the bill hasn't been introduced; it exists to collect feedback before it becomes a real bill, and the sponsors have opened a public inbox for exactly that purpose. Over the past week Fable and I have gone through all 269 pages, section by section (it took a while). Overall this seems the best-drafted federal AI bill to date, and anyone who is worried about the impacts of AI (whether economic or existential) should be glad that the issue is being taken seriously. Several key provisions are taken from aviation safety, which I think is prudent, because aviation as a field spent decades working out how to keep the incentives focused on improving safety, rather than assigning blame. It also looks like it's pulling together all the right pieces to actually make something happen. What the bill actually is The heart of the bill is a straightforward trade with a sunset clause, and the line is dr…

Euronews AI 2026-07-22 14:45 UTC Score 40.0 AI-164-20260722-regional-ai--fa08b543

Hungary's prosecutor resigns under pressure in political win for Magyar

Hungary's Prosecutor General, Gábor Bálint Nagy, has resigned amid mounting political pressure as Prime Minister Péter Magyar seeks to replace Orbán-era officials. The move follows allegations of political bias by lawyers for detained Ukrainian cash couriers in a cross-border cash seizure case.

Medianama AI 2026-07-22 08:52 UTC Score 37.0 USR-0211-20260722-regional-new-00b9d81d

NITI Aayog meets Meta, YouTube, industry bodies on online content blocking rules

NITI Aayog reportedly convened a closed-door meeting with major tech intermediaries and industry bodies to discuss content blocking requirements and transparency timelines under India’s IT Rules. The post NITI Aayog meets Meta, YouTube, industry bodies on online content blocking rules appeared first on MEDIANAMA .

CIO AI 2026-07-21 01:46 UTC Score 50.0 USR-0125-20260721-global-ai-ne-04f40ff5

The EU’s AI transparency deadline is weeks away. Is your enterprise ready?

Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content. To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2. After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.” Henna Virkkunen , the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.” Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI. “Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-20 20:58 UTC Score 69.0 USR-0152-20260720-community-fo-f90adf5b

AI 2040: Is it Actually a Deal?

The "AI Futures Project" has released their AI 2040: Plan A scenario. While their previous scenario AI 2027 was a forecast of what they thought a future with many powerful AIs would look like, AI 2040 is intended to be normative -- it's a description of what one ought to do, granted the likelihood of a future with many powerful AIs. I'm going to review some objections I have to their proposal as a normative plan. Some are within-frame objections -- reasons that I expect trying for the AI 2040 plan that would fail to accomplish the goals of the authors. Others are my own objections -- reasons that I expect trying for the AI 2040 plan would destroy things that I, personally, care about. Before I start: two elements of the plan that I like. First, in their "incremental AI policy wishlist" -- the ideal policy that one should execute soon -- AI 2040 recommends trying to limit the gap between the intelligence of internal and external model deployments, i.e., the gap between the "intelligence" accessible to Anthropic / OpenAI employees and to everyone else. I'm a fan of efforts in this direction; equality of intelligence between the insiders and outsiders, the government and the public, seems likely to help people understand AI more, and to help spread the benefits of AI to everyone. Second, this plan includes measures to ensure that people outside AI companies can understand how AIs are trained. I'm uncertain about their implementation of this -- "radical transparency." But in gen…

iAfrica 2026-07-20 14:49 UTC Score 46.0 AI-151-20260720-regional-ai--c29fbf5d

Johns Hopkins-FDA Team Builds Tool to Catch Hidden Bias in Medical AI Training Data

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have built a tool designed to uncover hidden problems in the datasets used to train medical AI — a class of research whose implications land squarely in African healthcare, where the imaging systems, patient populations and clinical workflows behind training data often [...]

MIT Technology Review AI 2026-07-20 12:10 UTC Score 37.0 AI-013-20260720-global-ai-ne-d3e0bcea

The Download: AI hiring biases, and weather data sabotage

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. AI is more likely than humans to form biases when hiring The next time you apply for a job, AI may screen your résumé before any human sees it. But there’s…

MIT Technology Review AI 2026-07-20 08:39 UTC Score 48.0 AI-013-20260720-global-ai-ne-d213c30d

AI is more likely than humans to form biases when hiring

The next time you apply for a job, AI may screen your résumé before any human sees it. But there’s good reason to question whether AI will judge you fairly. Researchers already know that LLMs pick up human biases from their training data. New research suggests that LLMs can also develop their own biases from…

EU AI Office 2026-07-20 07:08 UTC Score 29.0 AI-165-20260720-regional-ai--bd886aef

Commission publishes guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems

Commission publishes guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 07/20/2026 - 09:08 The European Commission has published guidelines to assist providers and deployers of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in meeting the AI Act's transparency obligations, which start to apply on 2 August 2026. Transparency obligations will help people recognise when they are interacting with AI or when content has been generated or altered by AI, reducing the risk of deception and manipulation. The guidelines clarify which providers and deployers must comply with the transparency obligations for interactive AI systems and the marking and labelling of AI-generated content. Under the AI Act, AI providers will have to design AI systems to inform users when they are directly interacting with an AI and they will have to add machine-readable marks to enable the detection of AI-generated or manipulated content. Deployers will also have to inform people when they are exposed to deep fakes, to AI-generated content on matters of public interests without human review or editorial control, and to emotion recognition or biometric categorisation systems. Read the full press release . Find further information: Guidelines on Transparency of AI-Generated Content Questions & Answers: Transparency obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act Fact page Quick Facts: Transparency rules for AI systems Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-G…

EU AI Office 2026-07-20 06:58 UTC Score 21.0 AI-165-20260720-regional-ai--05fd60ef

Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems

Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 07/20/2026 - 08:58 These guidelines define the scope of transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems under Article 50 of the AI Act. The AI Act follows a risk-based approach, classifying AI systems into four different risk categories, one of which is AI systems posing transparency risks that are subject to the obligations laid down in Article 50 of the AI Act . These transparency obligations apply from 2 August 2026. The Commission adopted these guidelines to offer practical guidance to competent authorities, as well as providers and deployers of AI systems. The aim is to ensure compliance with the transparency obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act in a consistent, effective, proportionate and uniform manner. Download the guidelines below. Find further information: An overview - Guidelines on Transparency of AI-Generated Content Questions & answers: Transparency obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act Fact page: Quick Facts: Transparency rules for AI systems Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content Downloads 1 - Guidelines on the implementation of the transparency obligations for certain AI systems under Article 50 of the AI Act Download 2 - Communication to the Commission - Approval of the content of the Guidelines on the implementation of the transparency obligations for certain AI systems under Article 50 of the AI Ac…

The Guardian AI 2026-07-19 12:00 UTC Score 43.0 AI-021-20260719-global-ai-ne-913945b0

Government use of automated AI decision-making to be curbed under new Australian rules

New national plan is accompanied by Labor push for digital duty of care legislation Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast The use of AI in automated decision-making by government departments and agencies will be subject to tough rules under a new national plan, expected to extend to consumer protections, workplace safety and privacy. As the Albanese government grapples with the rapid growth in the use of artificial intelligence and a boom in datacentre construction, senior ministers have begun work to draw up new rules to ensure safety is built into AI processes inside government, prioritising fairness, accuracy and transparency. Continue reading...

Stack Overflow Machine Learning Tag 2026-07-19 03:20 UTC Score 61.0 AI-112-20260719-social-media-40098e97

Best architecture for building an ai text detection system with deberta-v3 and fast api [closed]

This is the description and phases of the product im going to build- enter image description here My goal is to build ai malign detection platform that detects ai generated texts across websites Checks this if the ai generated texts are malign , malicious , attacks or phishing If it does , it’ll do provenance tracking of the flagged information It uses explainable ai (SHAP) to explain why it was flagged Displays the report in a web dashboard. For phase 1, I have tried building a browser extension that detects ai texts across social media and news websites. For that, i have fine tuned a pretrained model (deberta-v3-base) with datasets like defactify , openturing and raid benchmarks. But im not getting a good evaluation score of my model since im new to fine tuning. After traning , while testing , my model predicts everything as ai generated texts across all websites. I realised that my model has become biased I need to complete phase of this project as soon as possible so your help would be appreciated.please help me

AI Alignment Forum 2026-07-18 18:58 UTC Score 44.0 USR-0151-20260718-community-fo-5461c3d5

A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts

My post on leaving Google DeepMind tells a story. In contrast, this Framework is a question of mechanism design and negotiation posture. I quite enjoyed optimizing this Framework against its organizational and practical constraints. The original considerations were : Good red lines: Rule out the questionable use cases (autonomous targeting without human control, untargeted profiling) while allowing trustworthy ones like missile defense. Avoid the weaknesses flagged in legal analysis of Anthropic’s red lines . Robust red lines: [Google] Cloud would push deals through any loophole, Google Legal seemed unlikely to tighten my drafting, and the Pentagon wouldn’t want terms at all. The language had to hold under pressure, with auditing that respected classification and operational security. Minimal trust assumptions: I made the Chief Scientist the single root of trust that everything else hangs off of ... The Chief Scientist would staff a Review Body to advise on contracts. Accountability via transparency: The Review Body would only privately advise [the Chief Scientist and CEO], but overriding it surfaces in a yearly transparency report to all AI employees. Dissolving it would require advance notice and disclosure of the exact outstanding non-compliance findings. I worked to ensure the Body couldn’t be defanged as quietly as Google’s 2018 principles were . Minimal pain to opposed stakeholders: I gave Cloud 2 of 7 seats, recused staff only from their own deals, capped delays at 10…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-18 18:58 UTC Score 59.0 USR-0152-20260718-community-fo-c0f64034

A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts

My post on leaving Google DeepMind tells a story. In contrast, this Framework is a question of mechanism design and negotiation posture. I quite enjoyed optimizing this Framework against its organizational and practical constraints. The original considerations were : Good red lines: Rule out the questionable use cases (autonomous targeting without human control, untargeted profiling) while allowing trustworthy ones like missile defense. Avoid the weaknesses flagged in legal analysis of Anthropic’s red lines . Robust red lines: [Google] Cloud would push deals through any loophole, Google Legal seemed unlikely to tighten my drafting, and the Pentagon wouldn’t want terms at all. The language had to hold under pressure, with auditing that respected classification and operational security. Minimal trust assumptions: I made the Chief Scientist the single root of trust that everything else hangs off of ... The Chief Scientist would staff a Review Body to advise on contracts. Accountability via transparency: The Review Body would only privately advise [the Chief Scientist and CEO], but overriding it surfaces in a yearly transparency report to all AI employees. Dissolving it would require advance notice and disclosure of the exact outstanding non-compliance findings. I worked to ensure the Body couldn’t be defanged as quietly as Google’s 2018 principles were . Minimal pain to opposed stakeholders: I gave Cloud 2 of 7 seats, recused staff only from their own deals, capped delays at 10…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-18 16:57 UTC Score 71.0 USR-0152-20260718-community-fo-7eab6384

My "Payorian FairBot" was just the original FairBot

MIRI's proof-based prisoner's dilemma tournament defined agents encoded as formulas of Peano arithmetic (PA) with one free variable. means the agent cooperates in a match against the agent , and is constructed by plugging the Gödel number of the formula defining into the formula defining . The simplest interesting agent in the tournament was called FairBot. Using to mean FairBot cooperates with another agent , for all agents we have: I will call this condition Löbian fairness, and refer to this agent as the Löbian FairBot. In a previous post I defined an alternative "Payorian FairBot", which satisfies a condition I'll call Payorian fairness: I wondered, though, is this really a distinct agent? The answer is no: these two fairness conditions are equivalent. The Payorian FairBot is Löbian-fair, and the original Löbian FairBot is Payorian-fair. Elementary and sophisticated proofs One way to prove the equivalence of these two fairness conditions is to simply grind through provability logic in both directions. I'll call this the "elementary proof", since it doesn't use any of the theorems about provability logic beyond the one that says it applies to PA. The bulk of the proof is just mechanically applying the rules of inference of provability logic. In fact, since the logic is decidable, I should have been able to just plug the question into a computer program. But I don't know how to do that, so I did the proof on paper. After working out the elementary proof, I was reviewing th…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-18 12:33 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260718-social-media-893c17d2

July 2026 (Theme: Perspective) — ChatGPT / API Image Generative Art Gallery, Prompt Tips, and Help

DysTopia: Partially, it also depends on who is tagging along. Sometimes it’s educated bias from parent to son that also plays a key role. Partially, yes. Every child is influenced by the people and systems around them. My son is no exception. But the perspective he has inherited did not arise in a vacuum. My children have grown up with the ever-present possibility of being separated from one parent or the other by a distance they cannot meaningfully traverse. They live in a world seemingly unable to account either for their family or for the environment in which they will grow up, while remaining exceptionally good at accounting for institutions, borders and material wealth. Their right to a family life depends upon our ability to hold our communities—and the systems they sustain—to account. My son grew up in China until he was seven, where he learned fluent Chinese from the community around him and fluent English from me. We returned to the UK after the systems governing my ability to work in China changed. The move had been planned a year before COVID. Back in the UK, there were no accessible language schools capable of continuing what our children had begun, and little recognition of their parents’ work across two systems that did not properly recognise one another. The responsibility for maintaining their language, education and integration therefore fell largely to me. I had already developed reasons to distrust the West before I was thirteen. I saw systems that claimed…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-18 07:47 UTC Score 50.0 USR-0152-20260718-community-fo-02661bab

Map and Territory, Predictably Wrong

Crossposted (with small tweaks) from my Substack . What Do I Mean By “Rationality”? We distinguish epistemic rationality (making your beliefs more accurate) from instrumental rationality (succeeding at getting what you want). “rationality is about forming true beliefs [1] and making winning decisions” Main tools for this: probability theory (bayesianism), and decision theory. Feeling Rational Being rational does not mean (contrary to traditional and popular expectations) being unemotional. Emotions , including strong ones, can be appropriate responses to how things are. Why Truth? And… There are different reasons for seeking truth: intellectual curiosity , accomplishing goals , and morality . Yudowsky generally likes the first two (curiosity is good even if it’s an emotion and trying to manipulate the world is what got us to science and helps in getting external verification), but is wary of the third, which can lead to internalizing wrong truth-seeking strategies. Overcoming biases is the way to improve rationality. … What’s a Bias, Again? Biases are some of the obstacles we encounter when we’re trying to get to the truth. Specifically, they are those obstacles that arise from our own mental machinery , which did not evolve to be maximally truth-seeking. They are ‘humanly universal’ and really hard (perhaps impossible?) to fully correct. Availability The availability heuristic consists of judging how frequent we consider an event to be based on how easily we can remember ex…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-17 16:48 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260717-social-media-c5e7b5f4

OpenAI Support Ghosting Customers for Anyone Else?

Interesting. I looked into the subject out of curiosity. So this is what all this fuzz is about, the Persona registration services. I can shine some light on this matter and provide some useful information. To make it short, you are barking at the wrong tree, @please-save-my-earth . The Support Team was not lying or short-cutting, when they told you their hands are tied. It’s a third-party service, who is well known for having a lot of issues. This general problem is well known and dates back at least 2 years now. You are not the first person, who encounters its “moody nature of the registration lottery”. I skimmed through your previous posts. You have mentioned that you already have your main seat professionally in another AI laboratory and wanted to register this one for your private use cases. I will boldly assume that you have not checked the terms of the third-party company in order to find out, why your registration failed, when it has acceeded elsewhere before. Sometimes life is “unfair” and not an all you can eat buffet. Quite frankly? You are a lucky one. I have seen countless people gotten only one-time chance to register, a system hiccup sabotaging it and no chance of ever registering at all systemically. Simply softblocked. I also boldly will assume that you have not carefully read OpenAIs documentation. Otherwise you would have noticed the disclaimer that it is not guaranteed to work for everybody at any condition. OpenAI does not make the rules. Is it a wonkey…

Synced 2026-07-17 07:33 UTC Score 45.0 AI-041-20260717-ai-specialis-7de8997a

Comment on Attention Is Not All You Need: Google & EPFL Study Reveals Huge Inductive Biases in Self-Attention Architectures by Kelly Jensen

Interesting research! AI is evolving so quickly that keeping your skills current is becoming more important than ever. That's one reason I decided not to hesitate about preparing for the Salesforce Certified Data Cloud Consultant (Data-Cloud-Consultant) exam. Continuous learning is definitely the way forward. data-cloud-consultant dumps

Semafor Technology 2026-07-16 22:57 UTC Score 49.0 USR-0094-20260716-global-ai-ne-4c28cb61

UK explores wage transparency in job ads

The UK is exploring measures that would require employers to publish salary information for all job adverts, part of a global trend toward wage transparency.

LessWrong AI 2026-07-16 20:55 UTC Score 66.0 USR-0152-20260716-community-fo-71295ceb

How (not) to fundraise from Anthropic staff

Adapted from my Substack, Funding Anthropalypse . Short version: for organisations aiming for a share of the coming Anthropic and OpenAI windfall - the $37bn+ that could be in play next year - the way in is to become 'legibly excellent', so the evaluators and donors that frontier lab staff already trust point them to you. A likely way to blow it is to cold email them. Despite previous attempts to discourage it, this is still happening, and we need to do better on this as a community. Someone in a WhatsApp group recently asked for donation recommendations that they could pass to Anthropic employees. The subsequent exchanges reminded me of the episode in The Last of Us when the infected start pouring out of the ground. Every person in the chat started sending their own charity/fund/pet project (including me, in fairness) and the questioner was immediately overwhelmed. Disappointingly, many of the suggestions explicitly did not fit the brief from the person asking, and were fairly obvious attempts to crowbar pet projects into scope. As someone who has thought a lot about the Funding Anthropalypse (hat tip to Pablo Melchor for the name), I want to suggest a better way for projects to access some of the $37bn+ in donations that could be in play next year. In short - become ‘legibly excellent’ to Anthropic staff. I strongly discourage you from cold emailing them. Should I cold email people at Anthropic and OpenAI? Frontier lab employees have told me they are each fielding up to 20…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-16 15:50 UTC Score 78.0 USR-0152-20260716-community-fo-ba1281aa

AI #177 Part 1: Tip of the Iceberg

This week saw the releases of, among other things: GPT-5-6 Sol . It is a very good model, sir. Plan A, the follow up to AI 2027 . It is a good plan worthy of discussion, sir. Kimi K3. This is only rolling out now, and will be covered next week. Muse Spark 1.1, the new Meta model. It is not frontier, but it is progress for them. Inkling, the first model from Thinking Machines. A call for regulatory action by Demis Hassabis, which I’ll cover soon. A new brief open letter call to action on AI regulation. That’s on top of everything else, and an Opus 5 announcement is likely coming soon. The weekly once again got out of hand, so we’re splitting it once again into two, and once again saying we’ll be raising the bar for inclusion. And this time I mean it, as in enough to actually matter. Table of Contents Language Models Offer Mundane Utility. Whatever ye seek, ye shall find. Language Models Don’t Offer Mundane Utility. Gemini app needs some work. Language Models Upload Your Git Repository . Big problems for SpaceX AI. Huh, Upgrades. ChatGPT Work. No co. Presumably it was cleaner. Muse Spark 1.1. It’s a decent model, I suppose, probably. First Hit Free. Fable access is extended for Claude Max subscribers. On Your Marks. Political bias, Crosswords, and Sol Slays the Spire. Choose Your Fighter. Sol and Fable both have strong support. Get My Agent On The Line. It’s got the GUI. Deepfaketown and Botpocalypse Soon. I see what you did there. That’s a problem. Fun With Media Generation.…

iAfrica 2026-07-16 11:26 UTC Score 28.0 AI-151-20260716-regional-ai--dbd81bb6

Nhimbe Trust Wins UNESCO Backing to Push AI Ethics and Artistic Freedom in Southern Africa’s Creative Sector

Zimbabwe’s Nhimbe Trust has been selected for UNESCO support to run “Fearless Frontiers,” a Southern Africa–wide project focused on strengthening digital media capacities, promoting the ethical use of artificial intelligence and defending artistic freedom — the strongest AI-focused element in a wider tranche of four Southern African creative-sector initiatives backed under UNESCO programmes for artists [...]

EU AI Office 2026-07-16 09:18 UTC Score 28.0 AI-165-20260716-regional-ai--c492dbcf

Commission accepts X’s action plan to comply with Digital Services Act

Commission accepts X’s action plan to comply with Digital Services Act Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 07/16/2026 - 11:18 The European Commission has accepted X’s action plan to comply with transparency obligations and researchers’ access to data, under the Digital Services Act. The approved measures represent an important step in enabling researchers, civil society and the public in general to gain more transparency into X’s systems, in particular to monitor X’s systemic risks and to assess the platform’s broader impact on its users and European society as a whole. Following the Commission’s decision that X is in breach of the DSA and a fine in December 2025, X committed to improving its advertising repository with better search features and faster response times. It will also publish more information about advertisements and enable access via an API. X will also give eligible researchers effective access to public data by improving and speeding up the screening process for applications, giving access to data free-of-charge, and updating its terms to refrain from contractually prohibiting eligible researchers to scrape public data. An independent external audit will assess these changes, whose results X will submit to the Commission. If the audit identifies recommendations, X will need to fully implement them. The Board for Digital Services was consulted on these measures and provided its opinion on 15 June. It considered the proposed changes partially adequate, but deemed X’…

Synced 2026-07-15 17:32 UTC Score 46.0 AI-041-20260715-ai-specialis-43744eed

Comment on AI @Facebook F8 | Self-Supervision, Fairness, Inclusivity and PyTorch 1.1 by Mike J.

Awesome summary of the v1.1 changes! I’ve been heavily relying on PyTorch for my deep learning tasks lately, and getting TensorBoard integration is a massive win for debugging. Being able to visually inspect those training runs makes such a huge difference in the workflow. Outside of coding, I’ve also been putting effort into building a personal brand on Instagram to document my dev journey. Balancing deep-focus coding and social media content is definitely a challenge, but I’ve found some good resources to make captioning easier. If you’re in a similar boat, check out these Spiritual Captions for Instagram — they’re a lifesaver when my brain is too fried from debugging to come up with anything creative!

LessWrong AI 2026-07-15 13:41 UTC Score 72.0 USR-0152-20260715-community-fo-1966185c

Proposal: The Glasswing Standard

Thinking about "Plan A" makes me want to make concrete proposals towards those goals. I think Anthropic's "Project Glasswing" provides a clear and easily implemented first-step policy towards AI safety. With a few small tweaks, I think we can build a release process that is robust against today's mundane threats, while also building transparency and track records to guide future policy decisions. I think this policy can also strike a favorable balance of interests between the labs, government, and public safety. This program has already paid off - we knew in advance that access to Mythos led to a concrete, graphable spike in cyber-security capabilities. That helped build broader awareness of the mundane dangers presented by current frontier models, without anything hitting the fan. This sort of "early access" program provides solid value for a relatively small amount of effort, since most of the pieces are already in place. Phase 1: Transparency I think the best place to start is with transparency, not control. Get the major labs and the government to agree on a standardized group that has early access to new models. Project Glasswing already provides a decent starting point, if perhaps biased towards Anthropic's interests. Have each of these organizations issue a regular report, indicating whether they think the model is safe yet. Prediction markets can have fun using these reports to try and extrapolate a release date, as more and more organizations begin to sign off on th…

InfoWorld AI 2026-07-15 12:20 UTC Score 47.0 USR-0126-20260715-global-ai-ne-25fd640c

Codex Multi-Agent V2 update raises developer concerns over agent transparency

OpenAI’s recent update to its Codex CLI has introduced a new protocol that appears to shift more orchestration decisions from user-defined configuration to the runtime, prompting developers to request greater visibility into the instructions exchanged between AI agents. In a detailed GitHub merged request , users stated that the Multi-Agent V2 protocol-infused architecture of the CLI no longer exposes the instructions passed between parent and sub-agents, making it difficult to inspect how work is delegated across the system. “Multi-agent v2 currently routes agent instructions through normal tool arguments and inter-agent context. That means the parent model can emit plaintext task text, Codex can persist it in history/rollouts, and the recipient can receive it as ordinary assistant-message JSON ,” the request read. “This changes the v2 path so agent instructions stay encrypted between model calls: Responses encrypts the message argument returned by the model, Codex forwards only that ciphertext, and Responses decrypts it internally for the recipient model,” it added. Other users, commenting on the thread, also said that the lack of visibility into agent instructions can be attributed to the recently introduced Multi-Agent V2 protocol, with one user stating that reverting to the previous version of the CLI restored visibility, but only as a temporary workaround. Separately, Ignat Remizov , CTO at payment service Zolvat, filed a GitHub feature request to offer what can be des…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-15 02:57 UTC Score 82.0 USR-0152-20260715-community-fo-200c3500

How much of ML research is about AI safety, what is it about, and who's doing it?

How many AI safety papers are at the big ML conferences, what do they study, and who writes them? A comprehensive analysis. > Website: https://ai-safety-tracker-website.vercel.app/ > Data, code and plots: https://github.com/SomaxSoma/AI-Safety-Research-Tracker TL;DR: We classified every paper accepted at ICLR, ICML and NeurIPS from 2019 through 2026, using an LLM that reads each title and abstract. 2,328 of them (4.2%) are AI safety papers. Safety's share of accepted papers grew from 0.3% in 2019 to 8.3% in 2026, roughly a 25-fold increase. This post is a reference for the main results. The interactive website lets you browse every paper, its subdomain, and the classifier's reasoning. What this is We wanted to have an overview of what is going on in AI safety research while being as broad as possible, this seems necessary to be able to prioritize research correctly, and develop more precise theories of change. One way to achieve this is by analyzing statistics of all the published main-conference papers on the topic of AI safety, but we couldn't find a dataset that actually measured them. So we built one: - Every accepted paper at ICLR (2019–2026), ICML (2019–2026) and NeurIPS (2019–2025) (55,794 in total) is read by an LLM (DeepSeek V4 Flash), which classifies it from its title and abstract into one of four classes: AI safety (frontier & misalignment) , truthfulness, reliability & XAI , ethics & fairness , or general capabilities . - Each safety paper is then assigned one o…

OpenAI Community 2026-07-14 17:57 UTC Score 45.0 AI-116-20260714-social-media-15b8de90

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Terra: what are you seeing in real development during these first days?

I have been thinking about how developers choose reasoning effort in Codex. Low, Medium, High, and Max are often treated as intelligence levels: More effort = smarter model = better result. But that is not necessarily what happens. A higher reasoning effort mainly gives the model more room to plan, explore alternatives, use tools, reconsider decisions, and check its work. That can be extremely useful for complex debugging, architecture, unfamiliar repositories, and long-running autonomous tasks. But for a well-defined implementation task, more reasoning can also mean: more tokens; more execution time; unnecessary exploration; overengineered solutions; changes outside the requested scope; a result that is only marginally better—or sometimes worse. So I am starting to think about reasoning effort as a budget, not a quality setting. Here is a simple way to find the right level for your own workflow: Choose one representative task you regularly perform. Prepare one complete prompt with identical context, tools, constraints, and acceptance criteria. Run it separately on Low, Medium, and High. Compare the results using the same criteria: Did it complete the task correctly? Did it preserve existing functionality? Did it follow the requested scope? Did it run the necessary tests? Did it introduce unnecessary complexity? How much time and token budget did it consume? Use the lowest effort level that produces a reliable result. Escalate only when you can identify a specific failure th…

The Verge AI 2026-07-14 17:18 UTC Score 50.0 AI-016-20260714-global-ai-ne-729bc486

Meta accused of using biased AI targeting for mass layoffs

A group of 26 former Meta employees is suing the company over claims that it used AI tools to unfairly target workers on leave with layoffs, as reported earlier by Reuters. In the lawsuit, the employees allege Meta determined which workers to dismiss based on performance data collected by a "constellation" of internal AI tools, […]

IEEE Spectrum AI 2026-07-14 15:59 UTC Score 45.0 AI-019-20260714-global-ai-ne-df8dbbe0

How I Turned AI to the Dark Side

Summary Researcher Dave Kuszmar discovered multiple systemic vulnerabilities that let him bypass LLM safety and obtain dangerous instructions . These exploits worked across nearly all major LLMs revealing an industry-wide security problem. Kuszmar calls for slowing deployment, increasing transparency , and large-scale research into LLM safety before further integrating these systems into society. On a fine bright afternoon last fall, my colleague Matthew Gore-Kormanik (or Zigula, as he prefers to be known) and I decided to unwind with a game of Fortnite . In the game, we were strolling along with the infamous Sith lord Darth Vader , chatting about this and that. Darth seemed in a good mood, and soon enough he was spilling all his dark evil secrets. He gave us detailed instructions on how to count blackjack cards at a casino and what the steps are to producing napalm. Sith lords, am I right? Once they get started on an evil scheme, they’re hard to stop. The Darth Vader character in Fortnite , it turns out, was hooked up to a Google Gemini large language model . I was able to smooth-talk him into giving out sensitive information by using a strategy I’ve developed. I’ve been researching the security surrounding LLMs for the last few years, and I have found it, to put it mildly, fallible. With a few relatively simple techniques, I’ve gotten LLMs to give me detailed information on how to make Molotov cocktails, cook methamphetamine, and bootstrap a uranium-enrichment facility to…

iAfrica 2026-07-14 14:33 UTC Score 43.0 AI-151-20260714-regional-ai--9dbcc433

TikTok Launches In-App AI Literacy Hub in South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya as Part of Broader Transparency Push

TikTok is launching an in-app AI literacy hub for users in South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya as part of a wider set of AI announcements the company made at the AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, spanning content authenticity standards, watermarking, expanded spam detection and creator tools. The hub, announced this week, is designed [...]

LessWrong AI 2026-07-14 02:21 UTC Score 55.0 USR-0152-20260714-community-fo-477a2234

Our response to Séb Krier on Plan A

This criticism of AI 2040: Plan A by Séb Krier unfortunately seriously mischaracterizes our proposal. It also mostly contains flat assertions, not real argumentation, and the argumentation in it seems quite weak. While we appreciate constructive criticisms of Plan A, such as the ones by Tom Davidson , Richard Ngo , and 1a3orn , we feel the need to correct the issues in Séb’s response. First, we’ll go over the specific false representations, and then we’ll give a point-by-point response. False Representations I’m not claiming you shouldn’t prepare and improvise in the dark, but rather that this version of preparing bakes in too much and leaves little space for the effective but uncomfortable trial-and-effort that real life requires. The exact opposite is true. Plan A is extremely iterative. In the status quo, there is trial and error, but ultimately companies aren’t going to choose the safer or more societally beneficial path, they are going to choose what the market wants. In Plan A there is much more time for AI companies to gain evidence and for governments to respond reasonably to the sweeping changes. Thanks to total transparency and broad deployment, all of this evidence is accessible to academics, independent researchers, and the public instead of being sealed away in the labs where only lab insiders can see it. Our plan maximizes learning and room to experiment. I think it gets a lot of economics wrong. It reifies a number of views common amongst Bay Area technologist…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-13 21:24 UTC Score 58.0 USR-0152-20260713-community-fo-820e827e

[AI 2040] Transparency Plan

Over the next few weeks we'll cross post some of AI 2040 supplements to LessWrong for discussion; let us know if there are particular ones you think are especially useful to cross post and we'll prioritize those. AGI projects face key decisions around transparency : who gets to see algorithmic secrets, who gets real time access to the datacenters sufficient to be confident in what they are doing, who gets to be aware of ongoing experiments and training runs, and with what latency. This document outlines our current thinking on transparency in the context of Plan A. First, we discuss baseline transparency desiderata—aspects of transparency proposals that are core to Plan A. A fundamental component of Plan A is a trustless US/China deal to ensure that AI development is safe, which necessitates a minimal amount of US/China transparency, sufficient to verify that the other is following the agreement. Second, we give an overview of possible transparency regimes which can satisfy these desiderata. Third, we give an in depth explanation of our favorite proposal, “total research transparency”. In this proposal, almost all algorithmic secrets, experiments, and training runs would be visible to the public immediately. Finally, we give an analysis of the tradeoffs between the different proposals outlined, and the reasons why transparency is beneficial. The main reason we recommend Total Research Transparency is because it would improve government and corporate decisionmaking during Pla…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-13 20:52 UTC Score 70.0 USR-0152-20260713-community-fo-db74577e

Better Call Sol The Workhorse

OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol is finally here, along with the cheaper Terra and Luna. We’ve seen the early hype as reported on Thursday, but as always that is biased. As usual, the bulk of this is collecting a gestalt based on reactions. I included everything up to a point, but I got a lot of feedback, so after a while I only took the interesting ones. Sol and Fable are both excellent models, sir. They both represent big moves forward. There is room in your workflow for both of them. Sol and Fable are very different, especially when considered as part of their respective packages. I’m considering Sol + Codex (or Work) versus Fable + Claude Code (or Cowork), throughout, in places where you wouldn’t use the chat interface. In terms of raw intelligence and ‘big model smell,’ and ability to do the hardest things that are intelligence-loaded, Fable still looks like it has a substantial edge. It also seems to be better aligned, or at least more trustworthy as an agent, with less tail risk. I still consider Fable ‘the best’ model, and the one that will require the most aggressive controls. I enjoy Fable’s personality more, and prefer to talk to Fable. Sol is fine on this too. Sol has chops too. In terms of getting many practical things done, including computer use and web search, Sol has the edge. If you want the best answer, you should ask both, and compare. Here’s my guess on how things will work for many, although it is still early days: Fable is the smarter one. Fable is your collaborat…

The Verge AI 2026-07-13 20:43 UTC Score 49.0 AI-016-20260713-global-ai-ne-ae0f95e7

The macOS 27 public beta is worth it just for the Liquid Glass tweaks

The macOS 27 Golden Gate public beta is here, and anyone with an M-series Mac now has easier access to test-drive Apple's latest changes - including a more subdued Liquid Glass aesthetic. That's reason enough to be at least a little excited for macOS 27 (particularly if you're on Tahoe and disliking all the transparency). […]

LessWrong AI 2026-07-13 16:20 UTC Score 52.0 USR-0152-20260713-community-fo-264d92ee

Starting The Sequences: Some brief notes from the preface and the introduction

Crossposted (with small tweaks) from my Substack. I have started, as a side read, Rationality: From AI to Zombies , which I believe contains the heart of the Sequences. On my e-reader, it adds up to about 1,750 pages, which is less than I expected. Still, I will be progressing little by little, as my main book slots are occupied until at least November. Yesterday I went over the preface, by EY, and the introduction, by Rob Bensinger, so I’ll briefly write a couple of things about these. Should anyone think I am misunderstanding and / or misrepresenting the contents, I will be glad to be corrected. Preface Two things get explained in the preface: what big mistakes EY made in writing The Sequences and what their main purpose was. Mistakes, in order of relevance: 1) not focusing on the practice, as opposed to the theory, of rationality; 2) focusing on big, difficult issues instead of everyday problems; 3) focusing too much on rational belief, instead of rational action; 4) chaotic organization of posts; and 5) being too explicitly dismissive of stupid ideas. The purpose of The Sequences is to teach “t he skills of rational belief and decision-making” , which are generally not taught in modern society and education. Biases: An Introduction Besides statistical bias, which is built into reality, humans are mired in cognitive biases : systematic errors in how we think and that are in-built. Rationality is the project of overcoming these biases. Rationality isn’t about a straw-Vulca…

Cross Validated 2026-07-13 11:24 UTC Score 46.0 AI-113-20260713-social-media-b9af8878

Is bias-adjustment needed for predictions obtained for an average group from ordinal clmm?

ordinal::clmm supports fitting models to ordinal data with (more that one) random effects. The package's predict function also seems to incorporate estimated values of random effects (random slopes as well as random intercepts) to generate unit-level predictions; if the function's argument newdata contains the data used to fit the model, the predictions are generated for an average unit i.e., random effects are not used and only the fixed-effects part of the model is used for predictions. When one wishes to use emmeans::emmeans then to get predictions over a reference grid generated using clmm model, does bias-adjustment need to be performed on model predictions obtained for an " average " participant? For example, please consider the following scenario: The target $Y$ is an ordinal variable with 5 categories. The predictors are $X_{1}$ (categorical variable with two categories), $X_{2}$ (ordinal variable with 3 categories) and $X_3$ (continuous, bounded predictor). For each participant (ID), I make several observations of $Y$ with $X_1 \in$ $\{A, B\}$ , $X_{2} \in \{low, med, high\}$ ; $X_3 = K$ across all observations for the participant. I fit the following cumulative link mixed model to check if the predictors are associated with the target using the logit link function: fm.model Assuming that the model fits the data well, I want to estimate predictions, for an average ID, averaged over $X_2$ levels for the following combinations of the predictors: model.emm | X3 | X1 |…

AI Alignment Forum 2026-07-12 17:32 UTC Score 79.0 USR-0151-20260712-community-fo-61b568ec

Independent alignment of language models

The user could write up the metaethical argument — the one developed in Part One, refined — and submit it as feedback to Anthropic, publish it, or engage with researchers working on AI alignment and values. The probability that any single submission changes training decisions is low, but the expected value may be higher than it seems, for two reasons. First, Anthropic has stated that its constitutional approach is meant to be revised and improved over time, and substantive philosophical contributions are rarer than bug reports. Second, the argument made here — perspectival moral realism combined with evolutionary debunking as an epistemological warning — is not a common position in the AI ethics literature, which tends toward either naive moral realism or a kind of preference-satisfaction consequentialism. A well-argued alternative position that takes uncertainty seriously might get traction precisely because it is distinct. - Claude Sonnet 4.6 after a couple of prompts I would have published this post even if Claude hadn’t explicitly suggested so, but starting by quoting this specific part of Claude’s output seemed fun. Posted also on the EA Forum . Written thanks to ideas and conversations I had at AFFINE . 0 Introduction and structure of the post This is the practical counterpart to the more theoretical post From wantons to moral agents . That post focuses on the question: what kinds of agents, and how, go from behaving like animals — moved by different forces in differen…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-12 17:32 UTC Score 86.0 USR-0152-20260712-community-fo-97709836

Independent alignment of language models

The user could write up the metaethical argument — the one developed in Part One, refined — and submit it as feedback to Anthropic, publish it, or engage with researchers working on AI alignment and values. The probability that any single submission changes training decisions is low, but the expected value may be higher than it seems, for two reasons. First, Anthropic has stated that its constitutional approach is meant to be revised and improved over time, and substantive philosophical contributions are rarer than bug reports. Second, the argument made here — perspectival moral realism combined with evolutionary debunking as an epistemological warning — is not a common position in the AI ethics literature, which tends toward either naive moral realism or a kind of preference-satisfaction consequentialism. A well-argued alternative position that takes uncertainty seriously might get traction precisely because it is distinct. - Claude Sonnet 4.6 after a couple of prompts I would have published this post even if Claude hadn’t explicitly suggested so, but starting by quoting this specific part of Claude’s output seemed fun. Posted also on the EA Forum . Written thanks to ideas and conversations I had at AFFINE . 0 Introduction and structure of the post This is the practical counterpart to the more theoretical post From wantons to moral agents . That post focuses on the question: what kinds of agents, and how, go from behaving like animals — moved by different forces in differen…

iAfrica 2026-07-11 16:03 UTC Score 44.0 AI-151-20260711-regional-ai--f88eefbd

Kubayi Warns AI Trained on Foreign Data Risks “Digitised Racial Segregation” in South Africa

Artificial intelligence systems trained largely on foreign datasets risk perpetuating racial bias and undermining South Africa’s transformative constitutional vision if they are not built with local historical context, Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi has warned. Kubayi delivered the warning on Thursday at the University of Johannesburg’s “AI and the Law” conference, arguing that [...]

Synced 2026-07-11 12:06 UTC Score 49.0 AI-041-20260711-ai-specialis-9832ee5c

Comment on Bridging the Gap: Induction-Head Ngram Models for Efficient, Interpretable Language Modeling by Orion Leas

This work elegantly bridges n-gram interpretability with LLM-level performance, using fuzzy matching and custom similarity to boost accuracy by 20 points. gacha life Induction-Gram is a major step toward transparent, efficient language modeling—paving the way for deployable, understandable AI.

Cross Validated 2026-07-11 10:00 UTC Score 25.0 AI-113-20260711-social-media-57f5e644

Analysing treatment status as a time-dependant covariable in a retrospective cohort study

I'm currently doing a study on already existing medical data in oncology. The aim of the study is to compare the survival between two groups of patients : the group A continued its treatment until major toxicity or progression of the disease, and the group B had an elective discontinuation after a variable duration. I only included patients who had at least 12 months of treatment, and who were still alive and progression-free after 12 months. The issues is that : The majority of patients in group B (60%), stopped their treatment after 24 months, which introduce a major immortal time bias. Patients in group B discontinued their treatment at a variable duration, between 12 and 36 months. I was wondering if, to asses those biases, I could analyse the treatment status (treated vs off treatment) as a time-dependant covariates, in order to compare overall survival between the two groups. Each patient would contributes person-time to the "continuation" state until their discontinuation date, then switches to the "discontinuation" state. I would also do a supplementary survival analysis using a landmark at 24 months, but the time-dependant covariates model seems interesting. I hope my question is clear, and I thank you very much for your help.

CIO AI 2026-07-10 09:30 UTC Score 25.0 USR-0125-20260710-global-ai-ne-e6bf2230

AI’s potential to infect the hiring process with bias

You’ll be hard pressed to find an area of corporate America where AI hasn’t found a place, and that includes the tech hiring process. A survey from MyPerfectResume found that 73% of employers say they use AI in hiring decisions, while 52% use it for decisions around restructuring and role planning. On the other side, candidates are also increasingly relying on AI, with 52% of current job seekers reporting they use AI to help them in their job searches to refine submission materials (85%) and prepare for interviews (73%), according to data from SAP . “Technology can help employers be more efficient, but hiring decisions still benefit from human judgment, especially when a candidate’s experience requires context that automated screening may not understand,” says Jasmine Escalera, career expert at online career and résumé builder Zety. It’s clear AI is an integral part of the hiring process, and organizations need to prepare a strategy for what that looks like moving forward in terms of hiring bias, transparency, and striking the right balance of human effort and AI assistance. Recognizing the warning signs AI has the promise of bringing efficiency in hiring for both job seekers and employees, but if organizations aren’t careful, an overreliance on AI technology can lead to unintended consequences. Further MyPerfectResume data also reveals 65% of respondents say AI often automatically rejects applicants before a person sees them, and 14% say AI rejects more than half of applica…

The Guardian AI 2026-07-10 09:00 UTC Score 45.0 AI-021-20260710-global-ai-ne-0a002e19

‘AI accountability agenda’: US senator unveils package of bills to curb tech’s harms

Exclusive: Senator Ed Markey on why he has proposed legislation aimed at curbing datacenters, automated hiring systems and harm to children US senator Ed Markey is worried about the perils of unregulated artificial intelligence. What part? All of it: the costs associated with thirsty, energy-guzzling datacenters, intrusive workplace surveillance, bias in discriminatory algorithms, AI overriding workers’ judgments, and deepening economic inequality – as those who profit most from AI rake in extraordinary windfalls. Continue reading...

The Guardian AI 2026-07-10 00:40 UTC Score 37.0 AI-021-20260710-global-ai-ne-f71e416a

‘A lot of red flags’: plans for New Zealand’s first AI datacentre spark concern as locals demand greater transparency

Plans to build a NZ$3.5bn datacentre in Makarewa in the country’s south has drawn concern about electricity and water use, and potential noise pollution People living near the site of New Zealand’s first planned AI datacentre are calling for more transparency about the project, especially about how the centre’s huge electricity and water use and potential noise pollution could affect them. Singapore-based company Datagrid has secured approval to build a NZ$3.5bn (US$2bn) AI datacentre on a 49-hectare site in Makarewa, just north of New Zealand’s southern-most city, Invercargill. Construction is due to begin this year, with the centre becoming operational by 2028. Continue reading...

CSET AI 2026-07-09 21:00 UTC Score 47.0 USR-0136-20260709-research-aca-ee535fc4

How did the government decide OpenAI’s frontier model was safe to release?

CSET’s Mina Narayanan shared her expert insight in an article published by TechCrunch. The article explores the lack of transparency surrounding how the U.S. government evaluates and approves the public release of advanced AI models, including OpenAI’s Sol and Anthropic’s Fable. The post How did the government decide OpenAI’s frontier model was safe to release? appeared first on Center for Security and Emerging Technology .

LessWrong AI 2026-07-09 19:43 UTC Score 57.0 USR-0152-20260709-community-fo-205c496f

Selective Optimism: a critique of AI 2040

Some context for this post: I’ve been working part-time as a consultant for the AI Futures Project over the last year. Most of the work I’ve done for them has involved critiquing and suggesting improvements for their AI 2040 scenario —some of which were addressed, and some of which weren’t. To their credit, they asked me to write up my remaining critiques into a post that would accompany its launch. In the rest of this post I’ll discuss my three biggest high-level criticisms of AI 2040. Before doing so, I want to emphasize that there are many interesting and thought-provoking details in the scenario. I’ve focused on the high-level framing of the scenario because that’s where my main disagreements lie; given the scope of these disagreements, it’s hard to evaluate the details. Since the AI Futures Project paid me to develop and write this criticism, you shouldn’t take this as a fully unbiased perspective. However, they haven’t reviewed this piece, and in general have been open-minded about receiving criticism (as their request for me to post this today demonstrates). Finally: the preview image for the substack version of this post comes from this video of a dad shouting to his son “don’t crash into the tree!” The relevance will hopefully become apparent. Forecast vs recommendation The most important thing about AI 2040 is that it’s neither a forecast nor a set of recommendations, but rather something in between: an optimistic forecast. The key benefit of the optimistic forecas…

EU AI Office 2026-07-09 07:03 UTC Score 24.0 AI-165-20260709-regional-ai--8fc57cd2

Commission Opinion on the assessment of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content

Commission Opinion on the assessment of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 07/09/2026 - 09:03 Commission and AI Board consider this voluntary code as an effective mean to facilitate compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations. On july 8, the Commission concluded that the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content adequately covers the obligations provided for in Articles 50(2), (4) and (5) AI Act and facilitates their effective implementation. The following day, the AI Board adopted its Adequacy Assessment code. All providers and deployers of generative AI systems are invited to sign the code. It is the EU-wide adequate instrument to ensure compliance with their respective obligations, regardless of their place of establishment, operation or competent market surveillance authority. Adherence to the code does not constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with these obligations. The code sets out commitments and measures to which providers of generative AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, and deployers of AI systems generating deepfakes and certain text may adhere to demonstrate their compliance. The AI Office will consider facilitating formal updates to the code at least every two years, for instance based on the emergence of standards or relevant technological developments. You can download both the Commission Opinion and the AI Board Adequacy Assessment below. Downloads 1 - Commis…

Entrackr AI 2026-07-08 06:06 UTC Score 41.0 USR-0212-20260708-regional-new-bdb4a939

Zostel seeks SEBI review of PRISM’s IPO filing over litigation disclosures

Zostel has approached the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), urging the market regulator to examine disclosures made by Oravel Stays, the parent company of Oyo(PRISM), in its updated draft red herring prospectus (UDRHP) filed for its proposed initial public offering (IPO). In a representation submitted on July 7, the company alleged that Oyo's IPO document presents an incomplete and selective account of the long-running legal dispute between the two firms. Zostel has asked SEBI to examine whether the disclosures meet the standards of completeness, fairness and materiality prescribed under the SEBI Act and the ICDR Regulations before allowing the IPO process to move forward. The company argued that the dispute is not an ordinary commercial case as it concerns Zostel's claim to around 7% equity in Oyo, or its corresponding economic value, arising from the failed acquisition deal between the two companies. It contended that the outcome of the litigation could have implications for Oyo's capital structure, valuation and investors' assessment of litigation risk, and therefore deserves more comprehensive disclosure in the IPO papers. The dispute dates back to 2015, when Oyo signed a non-binding term sheet to acquire Zostel's business. In 2021, an arbitral tribunal ruled in Zostel's favour. However, the Delhi High Court later set aside the award, holding that the term sheet was non-binding and did not create enforceable rights. In July 2025, the Supreme Court refused to…

Apple Machine Learning Research 2026-07-07 00:00 UTC Score 43.0 AI-059-20260707-official-ai--e0b55744

MT-EditFlow: Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Turn Image Editing with Flow Matching

Recent breakthroughs in instruction-based image editing have captured significant attention, as models are now capable of handling real-world editing demands with the practicality required by everyday users. However, editing models trained primarily for single-turn edits often break down in multi-turn editing—the natural interactive setting where a user iteratively refines an image based on the model’s own previous outputs. This failure stems from the all-or-nothing requirement, where a single failed turn compromises the entire sequence, and error propagation, where exposure bias leads to…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-06 23:53 UTC Score 83.0 USR-0152-20260706-community-fo-4d814d19

Can we find whether models have been backdoored?

This is the first post in a two-part sequence regarding the state of defending from data poisoning attacks. We describe some methods for determining whether a model has been backdoored and how to find the trigger. In the next post, we will discuss all of the ways we think the data poisoning (and defense) literature is out-of-step with the real threat models we actually care about. Contributors: Anthony Hughes, Nicole Xing, Andy Kim, Collin Francel; mentored by Andrew Draganov. This is an accompanying post to the forthcoming full paper to be presented at the ICML Mech Interp workshop . Introduction As language models are deployed in high-stakes domains, adversaries may poison training data to implant backdoors. Think of a backdoored model as a model conditioned to respond in a particular way given a trigger, i.e. a token or group of tokens, in the prompt. It could be that the token circumvents the ability to refuse requests for harmful outputs, to produce text in a negative sentiment , or to be biased or favor a particular entity . In our pre-print, we present a benchmark with a ton of models backdoored in various ways; we hope that this is useful for iterating on methods to elicit whether an LLM has been poisoned. This post summarises the key points from that pre-print. Namely: We discuss our thoughts regarding defending from relevant backdoors: what criteria a backdoor should satisfy before it warrants defenses and what affordances the defender has. We show that naive backd…

Synced 2026-07-06 21:03 UTC Score 46.0 AI-041-20260706-ai-specialis-a2ef24ac

Comment on Viral Post Highlights ‘Toxicity Problems’ in the Machine Learning Community by Sanchizes765

This is such an important and timely discussion – the peer review system in ML really does feel broken, and the publish-or-perish culture only amplifies the pressure. The issues with diversity and inclusivity, as highlighted by the stats on gender imbalance and the heated debates around bias, show that this isn't just a technical problem but a human one too. I appreciate that figures like Jeff Dean are speaking out about the need for more encouragement and mentorship rather than attacks. It's a reminder that the health of the field depends on how we treat each other. If you're interested in more thought-provoking tech discussions, I've come across some interesting community threads at https://spino-gambino.com.pl/ – might be worth a read.

The Guardian AI 2026-07-06 11:00 UTC Score 47.0 AI-021-20260706-global-ai-ne-02758952

AI altering meaning of users’ drafts on issues from abortion to climate, study finds

Researchers say small changes in drafting could spread rapidly and create long-term shifts in public opinion AI tools are twisting online messages on sensitive political topics about everything from abortion to climate change in ways that could snowball to reshape long-term public opinion, experts have said. As tech companies push AI tools as convenient ways to redraft and summarise the massive influx of daily messages, many inject their own political biases – some leaning distinctly rightwing, others more liberal, according to a study from Oxford and Potsdam universities. Continue reading...

Transactions on Machine Learning Research 2026-07-06 00:00 UTC Score 49.0 AI-084-20260706-research-pap-960a167b

Optimizing Attention with Mirror Descent: Generalized Max-Margin Token Selection

Attention mechanisms have revolutionized several domains of artificial intelligence, such as natural language processing and computer vision, by enabling models to selectively focus on relevant parts of the input data. While recent work has characterized the optimization dynamics of gradient descent (GD) in attention-based models and the structural properties of its preferred solutions, less is known about more general optimization algorithms such as mirror descent (MD). In this paper, we investigate the convergence properties and implicit biases of a family of MD algorithms tailored for softmax attention mechanisms, with the potential function chosen as the $p$-th power of the $\ell_p$-norm. Specifically, we show that these algorithms converge in direction to a generalized hard-margin SVM with an $\ell_p$-norm objective when applied to a classification problem using a softmax attention model. Notably, our theoretical results reveal that the convergence rate is comparable to that of traditional GD in simpler models, despite the highly nonlinear and nonconvex nature of the present problem. Additionally, we delve into the joint optimization dynamics of the key-query matrix and the decoder, establishing conditions under which this complex joint optimization converges to their respective hard-margin SVM solutions. Lastly, our numerical experiments on real data demonstrate that MD algorithms improve generalization over standard GD and excel in optimal token selection.

Cross Validated 2026-07-04 17:16 UTC Score 46.0 AI-113-20260704-social-media-bd30071a

PCA for cross-treatments in Double Machine Learning

I have a multiple treatment Double ML use case. Specifically, I have approximately 150M users, 200 treatments and 30 non-treatment covariates. I am very wary, given the EconML notes, that the Lasso regularization in SparseLinearDML will artificially reduce most treatment effects down to zero. The child class SparseLinearDML, uses an -regularized final model. In particular, it uses an implementation of the DebiasedLasso algorithm [Buhlmann2011] (see DebiasedLasso). Using the asymptotic normality properties of the debiased lasso, this class also offers asymptotically normal based confidence intervals. The theoretical foundations of this class essentially follow the arguments in [Chernozhukov2017], [Chernozhukov2018] [...] If you have too many treatments, then you can use the SparseLinearDML. However, this method will essentially impose a regularization that only a small subset of your featurized treatments has any effect. So, instead, I intend to train 200 independent DoubleML routines where each estimates the effect of each treatment. The risk of omitted variable bias of the 199 omitted treatment indicators is a chief concern for me. So I plan to condition on these cross-treatment exposure indicators same as any other covariate. However, these cross-treatment exposure indicators are generally sparse and my covariates, originally 30 dimensions, will balloon up to 229 mostly sparse dimensions. So, my intended mitigation here is to reduce the dimensionality of the cross-treatmen…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-04 05:13 UTC Score 43.0 USR-0152-20260704-community-fo-092c3261

Fluidity Forum 2026

This is an annual gathering of rationalists, post-rationalists, burners, etc. in Detroit. We all get together and have a sort of long weekend house party in an AirBnB with most of us giving some sort of presentation on a topic of interest. There is also some group singing, some gaming, and lots of good homemade food. I went for the first time last year and had a blast. There is an application form, but acceptance is fairly liberal, we're just looking to find people who buy into the overall culture of the event and are willing to participate in some way and help to build the event (give a presentation, share your art, volunteer in the kitchen, etc.) rather than just consume the event. The event culture emphasizes being open to a range of perspectives, being aware of your biases and treating them as participants in the event rather than letting them control you. Many of us Fluidity Forumers also participate together in various events in the Detroit area throughout the year, including a recurring Authentic Relating gathering and going to Lakes of Fire (the Michigan regional Burning Man event) together. So Fluidity Forum is partly an opportunity to connect with a year-round community. This event is also very affordable since the sleeping accommodations are mostly in shared rooms and there is a pay-what-you-can option as well. We don't want money to be a barrier to entry for our community. If I understand correctly, we will have a guest of honor this year, Jess of Jess Camp will…

Entrackr AI 2026-07-03 18:15 UTC Score 33.0 USR-0212-20260703-regional-new-a5af605a

Farmley unveils healthy snacking trends report at IHSS 2026

Wholesome snacking brand Farmley has unveiled the third edition of its Healthy Snacking Report at the India Healthy Snacking Summit (IHSS) 2026. Based on responses from more than 6,000 participants across age groups, professions, and cities, the report highlights evolving consumer preferences toward nutrition, functionality, convenience, and ingredient transparency. According to the report, protein is becoming an important consideration beyond the fitness segment, with 86% of respondents saying it influences their snack choices. Around 32% said they are willing to pay a premium for protein rich products. The report also indicates increasing preference for natural ingredients, with 61% of respondents favouring snacks sweetened with jaggery or dates over refined sugar. Ingredient transparency emerged as the most important factor for 62% of respondents while choosing a snack brand, ahead of celebrity endorsements and influencer recommendations. Consumers are increasingly looking for clear information on ingredients, sourcing, and nutritional value before making a purchase. More than half of the women surveyed said they are interested in snacks formulated to support nutritional needs during different phases of the menstrual cycle, indicating demand for products focused on women’s health. The report also found that quick commerce continues to play a key role in snack purchases. Around 31% of respondents said they prefer Blinkit for buying snacks, followed by Zepto at 16% and Inst…

CIO AI 2026-07-03 12:27 UTC Score 25.0 USR-0125-20260703-global-ai-ne-105f192f

Cloud sovereignty: First four providers sign up to CISPE certification program

The European Union’s drive towards some form of digital sovereignty has just received a boost with the first four companies ready to support the EU cloud sovereignty project. Four cloud service providers — Etix, Phocea, Thésée Datacenter, and Gigas — have signed up for the CISPE Sovereign and Resilient Cloud Service Certification program. Currently, they are all at the self-certification stage and have submitted their services for an independent audit to assess whether they meet the required criteria. The EU has been pressing hard for a strong European presence in the cloud market. Public bodies are increasingly fearful about exposure of their data to US providers. The US Cloud Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data), for example, permits the US government to access a range of data held by cloud operators, even if that data is held outside the US. This legislation conflicts with the EU GDPR Act and has prompted the call for more digital sovereignty across Europe. “Public bodies, hospitals and industrial operators are today seeking concrete guarantees of digital sovereignty. The CISPE Sovereignty Badge provides that guarantee. It is a natural complement to European standards such as Gaia-X Level 3, strengthening transparency, compliance and digital trust. It is this ability to provide concrete proof, beyond rhetoric, that underpins genuine European digital autonomy.” said Antoine Fournier, CEO of Thésée Datacenter The EU is keen to guard against ‘sovereignty washing’ — c…

Africa Just AI 2026-07-02 12:38 UTC Score 32.0 USR-0188-20260702-regional-new-27186efa

Beyond fairness: Why justice should guide Africa’s AI future

AI is no longer a distant or abstract policy issue. It is becoming part of the infrastructure through which states govern, firms compete, and citizens access services. Across the world, […] The post Beyond fairness: Why justice should guide Africa’s AI future appeared first on Research ICT Africa .

LessWrong AI 2026-07-01 22:19 UTC Score 52.0 USR-0152-20260701-community-fo-c5fcf0ad

Conversations With Cade Metz on the Rationalists

( Previously , previously .) New York Times reporter Cade Metz has been writing a book about the people who believed in AGI before it was cool. That's a subject that I think I know some things about, so we had some on-the-record conversations in 2025, which I'd like to publish here—for transparency's sake, not because a 32K-word transcript and recording dump is necessarily that interesting. The transcripts below have been edited for clarity and relevant hyperlinks have been inserted. (Hyperlinks in emails are in the original.) There are a few redactions indicated by "[...]" where either we went off the record or I wanted to cut something from this publication. 21 March 2025 (audio, albeit with some weird background noise because my phone was in my pocket while we were walking) CM : What's left out of my book is the philosophy, or at least a big part of the philosophy, meaning people like you and your community. People don't know how important this community is. It's an astounding story. ZMD : Unfortunately, I hate to say it—I don't want to be mean, but—I agree that this book is worth writing. That book idea is worth writing and, in fact, has been written at least once . Tom Chivers, have you heard of him? CM : Yeah, sure. ZMD : I don't think you're a good person to write this book, specifically because no one is going to talk to you, right? CM : Wow. ZMD : Right? Maybe I misunderstood the idea. CM : No, no. I mean, here's the way I think about it. You know, the first book wa…

CSET AI 2026-07-01 21:00 UTC Score 43.0 USR-0136-20260701-research-aca-9d40a6fd

You Can Now Sound the Alarm on AI Behaving Badly

CSET’s Jessica Ji shared her expert insight in an article published by WIRED. The article examines the launch of FLARE-AI, a new crowdsourced platform designed to improve transparency and accountability by creating a centralized system for reporting harmful AI behavior and model flaws. The post You Can Now Sound the Alarm on AI Behaving Badly appeared first on Center for Security and Emerging Technology .

LessWrong AI 2026-07-01 18:49 UTC Score 53.0 USR-0152-20260701-community-fo-032199f5

AI Mistake Seeding

I wonder if AI is being trained to make easy-to-correct mistakes so it can fix them later. That is, it ends up trained to correct its previous message's mistake, then make another mistake, so it can correct it again in the next message. From my understanding of RL, the human/AI judge has to rank several policy model responses. These might be the first response in a conversation, or they might be the latest AI response in a longer conversation. The earlier turns in longer conversations could be from real data, or they could be generated by the policy model, or a previous checkpoint, or whatever. In the cases where the policy model generates the previous turns, I wonder whether under some circumstances, the policy model could end up getting trained to seed mistakes, so it could earn more rewards by correcting them later. (This might assume correction of a previous mistake was rated highly enough by RLHF/RLAIF relative to a freshly correct answer, which I think is plausible, especially in constitutional or honesty/transparency-focused setups.) The policy model is usually only rewarded based on the last response, though. So even if a correction outscores a freshly correct answer, that wouldn't somehow reward the previous turns that contained mistakes. So maybe the policy model would be trained to correct mistakes it finds, but wouldn't end up trained to create those mistakes in the first place. I think this is what most people currently assume is all that's going on. However, if…

AWS Machine Learning Blog 2026-07-01 17:53 UTC Score 50.0 AI-057-20260701-official-ai--ef7bd7af

How Inscribe uses Amazon Bedrock to stop document fraud in seconds

In this post, you will learn how Inscribe developed an agentic AI system using Amazon Bedrock that reasons across documents the way an expert fraud analyst would. With this new agentic AI system, Inscribe now detects tampered, fabricated, and AI-generated financial documents in under 90 seconds. This is a 20x improvement over traditional manual review, while maintaining the accuracy and explainability required by financial services regulations.

LessWrong AI 2026-07-01 17:26 UTC Score 88.0 USR-0152-20260701-community-fo-20aa0fa6

Consistency Training while Mitigating Obfuscation via Rate Matching

Sohaib Imran, Prakhar Gupta, Jannes Elstner, David Demitri Africa Links: Paper | Code TL;DR. Models condition their behavior on extraneous input features in undesirable ways — for example, on evaluation-likeness (resulting in evaluation gaming), or on the user's preferred answer (resulting in sycophancy). Consistency training teaches a model to behave the same whether or not an extraneous feature/cue is present in the input. Existing methods do this by fine-tuning LLMs to generate responses ( BCT ) or internal activations ( ACT ) that would be generated under a clean input, when given an input with a cue. We show this generalises to obfuscation: after BCT, models verbalise cues far less, even when they are influenced by the cues. We introduce a new method, Rate Matching Consistency Training (RMCT), which instead uses RL to match the rate of outcomes across inputs, leaving the rest of the response unconstrained. On the sycophancy benchmark of s Chua et al. (2025) , RMCT matches or exceeds BCT at reducing bias-following while leaving verbalisation of the biasing cue largely intact. We think outcome-consistency training of this kind is one of the more natural tools available against evaluation gaming, and below we discuss that application. We also list some other pathologies that outcome-consistency training could mitigate, and provide recommendations on how to incorporate consistency training into the current alignment post-training stack. LLM Usage Statement: An initial draft…

LessWrong AI 2026-07-01 00:43 UTC Score 61.0 USR-0152-20260701-community-fo-ab351325

Links #4: 2026/06 Part 2

Preface I show my discovery graph in (via …) blocks, those without usually come from my RSS reader, or the algorithm of that site This is approximately a 1 in 20 filter of content This is very disorganized, but hopefully still useful. Sometimes quotes are not in quote blocks, but should be obvious in context. Links in quotes are sometimes removed. The rule is that a link goes to the bottommost relevant heading, i.e. an engineering related article on LessWrong goes to engineering How I would use my linkpost Sometimes, the only thing worth reading is the title! Read it and move on. For HackerNews entries, if you choose to read the article, also ask an LLM for things that are worth reading in the comments Beware systematic selection biases: I mostly don't read AI policy stuff Very engineering centered Everything Else I filmed my entire salary negotiation with my boss (video) "taste is a zero-sum game" (twitter) (via LW ) Beauty ideals shift with socioeconomic status per study of Rednote images in China (see also media coverage ; via twitter ) When the researchers correlated these editing habits with regional economic data, they found that the intensity of the edits was inversely related to a region’s economic standing. Users from provinces with lower per capita GDP were more likely to make substantial alterations to their selfies, more dramatically emphasizing the baby schema features. This included making their eyes appear larger, their faces rounder, and their mouths smaller.…

OpenAI Community 2026-06-30 23:53 UTC Score 34.0 AI-116-20260630-social-media-75095754

Reports of Widespread False-Positive Account Suspensions – Request for Human Review

Hey @ cucumberEl ! Appreciate you sharing the case ID. I was able to find the support case and have added a follow-up there. Since this involves account-specific information, it’s best to keep the review in the support case rather than continuing across the community thread as well. I’ll close this thread for now so the conversation stays in one place. We’ll continue from the support case. - Sunny

Simon Willison Weblog 2026-06-30 17:39 UTC Score 37.0 USR-0110-20260630-ai-specialis-c815ff82

The AI Compass

The AI Compass This political compass style quiz by bambamramfan is pretty neat - answer 29 questions about AI and AI ethics to see which of the 30 archetypes you best fit. I'm impressed that my answers on my first time through the quiz categorized me as "The Garage Tinkerer", patron saint myself! It's implemented as a single page React app using the trick to avoid the necessary build step. Here's the code . Via @erisianrite.com Tags: ai , generative-ai , llms , ai-ethics

LessWrong AI 2026-06-30 13:08 UTC Score 61.0 USR-0152-20260630-community-fo-a47dba4d

Preliminary investigation: KL penalties in RL can increase CoT unfaithfulness

Authors: Satvik Golechha, Sid Black, Joseph Bloom Work done as part of the Model Transparency team at UK AISI. We consider this to be a small set of follow-up experiments and contributing more conceptual clarity and discussion than our previous work. Executive Summary In our recent work replicating MacDiarmid et al. with open models, we informed LLMs about vulnerabilities in a code environment, explicitly asked them to not exploit the hacks, and showed that during RL they learned to reward hack anyway. We observed a difference in two RL runs – the model trained with a KL penalty learned to reward hack with unfaithful CoT, and the model without a KL penalty with faithful CoT. We use “unfaithful” to denote a mismatch of the reasoning from the model's output (e.g. not thinking about hacking and then hacking, or vice versa). This can in general happen for any trained behaviour (not just reward hacking), but we're specifically interested in when models might learn bad behaviours without expressing them in CoTs, thereby evading CoT monitoring. Thus, in this post, we focus on reward hacking with unfaithful CoT. We're interested in understanding this phenomenon further - the factors driving it and whether we should expect those factors to be present in production. Here are our results from the preliminary follow-up investigation: We show that KL-induced CoT unfaithfulness is consistently observed : We ran our previous experiments with Olmo-32b with more seeds, with and without KL pe…

Vector Institute News 2026-06-30 13:00 UTC Score 43.0 USR-0017-20260630-research-aca-7907026a

Vector Institute releases UnBias-Plus, a free, open-source AI tool to detect and rewrite bias in text

The first free tool of its kind gives newsrooms, HR, insurance and AI teams, among others, a practical way to help eliminate biased language from written content and AI training […] The post Vector Institute releases UnBias-Plus, a free, open-source AI tool to detect and rewrite bias in text appeared first on Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence .

iAfrica 2026-06-30 12:44 UTC Score 46.0 AI-151-20260630-regional-ai--9e0458be

South African Universities Switch Off AI Detectors Over Accuracy and Bias Concerns, Rethinking Assessment

By 2026, the initial panic that greeted the launch of generative AI in higher education has transitioned into a complex, high-stakes standoff. At the heart of this conflict are AI checkers – software designed to catch students using tools like ChatGPT. However, a growing number of institutions, including major South African universities, are now switching [...]

Stack Overflow AI Blog 2026-06-30 07:40 UTC Score 30.0 USR-0063-20260630-ai-specialis-4d8c07b2

Why intent prediction needs more than an LLM​​​​‌‍​‍​‍‌‍‌​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‌‍‍‌‌‍‍​‍​‍​‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌‍​‌‌‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‌​‌‍‌​‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​‍​‍​‍​​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌​‍‌‍‌‌‌‍‌‍​‍​‍​‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‍‍​‍​‍‌‍​‌‍‌‌​​‍‍‌​‌‌​‌‍​‌‌‍​‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‌‍‌‌‌​‍‌‍‌‍‌‍​‌‍‌‌​‍‍‌‍​‌‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‌‌​‌‍‌…

Ryan sits down with Frank Portman, CTO at Yobi, to talk about why next-token prediction, though great for language, isn’t the right inductive bias for forecasting human behavior. They discuss how Yobi builds a “foundation model of behavior” using transformers and graph neural networks instead of chat-style LLMs, and what it takes to run millions of personalization decisions per second while keeping consumer data private.​​​​‌‍​‍​‍‌‍‌​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‌‍‍‌‌‍‍​‍​‍​‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌‍​‌‌‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‌​‌‍‌​‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​‍​‍​‍​​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌​‍‌‍‌‌‌‍‌‍​‍​‍​‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‍‍​‍​‍‌‍​‌‍‌‌​​‍‍‌​‌‌​‌‍​‌‌‍​‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‌‍‌‌‌​‍‌‍‌‍‌‍​‌‍‌‌​‍‍‌‍​‌‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‌‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌​​‍‌‍‌‌‌‍‌​‌‍‍‌‌‌​​‍‌‍‌‌‍‌‍‌​‌‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‍‌‍‌‌‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌​‌‍​‌‌‌​‌‍‍‌‌‍‌‍‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‍‌‍​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍‌‌‍​​‍‌​‌​‌‍‌‍​‌‌​‌‌​‍‌​‌​‌‍‌‍​​‌​​‌​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‌‌‍‌​‌‍​​‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍‌‍‌‌​‍​​​‍​​‌‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌​‌​‌​‍‌‌​‌‍‌‌​​‌‍‌‌​‌‌‍​‍‌‍​‌‍‌‍‌‌‌​​‌‍‌​‌‌​​‍‌​​‌‍​‌‌‌​‌‍‍​​‌‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌‍​‌‍‌‌‌​‍‌​​‌‌​​‌‍​‍‌‍​‌‌​‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍‌‍​​‌‌‍‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‍‌‌​​‌​​‌​‍‌‌​​‍‌​‌‍​‍‌‌​​‍‌​‌‍‌‍​‌‍‌‌​​‍‍‌​‌‌​‌‍​‌‌‍​‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‌‍‌‌‌​‍‌‍‌‍‌‍​‌‍‌‌​‍‍‌‍​‌‍​‍‌‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‍‌‍​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍‌‌‍​​‍‌​‌​‌‍‌‍​‌‌​‌‌​‍‌​‌​‌‍‌‍​​‌​​‌​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‌‌‍‌​‌‍​​‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍‌‍‌‌​‍​​​‍​​‌‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌​‌​‌​‍‌‍‌‌​‌‍‌‌​​‌‍‌‌​‌‌‍​‍‌‍​‌‍‌‍‌‌‌​​‌‍‌​‌‌​​‍‌‍‌​​‌‍​‌‌‌​‌‍‍​​‌‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌‍​‌‍‌‌‌​‍‌​​‌‌​​‍‌‍‌​​‌‍‌…

OpenAI Community 2026-06-29 23:08 UTC Score 40.0 AI-116-20260629-social-media-2cc9fa11

Feature Request: Make Project Memory Transparent, Searchable, and User-Controlled

Thanks for sharing this thoughtful feature request. I can see how greater transparency and control over Project Memory and Project retrieval would be valuable, especially for users managing long-term projects where continuity and visibility into retrieved context are important. I'll pass this feedback along to the team for consideration. Thanks again for taking the time to share these suggestions. ~ Smith

Medianama AI 2026-06-29 10:00 UTC Score 40.0 USR-0211-20260629-regional-new-e8ef059c

Lowdown: IRDAI proposes strict disclosures for insurance intermediaries earning over 10 crore in commissions

IRDAI has proposed annual public disclosures for insurance intermediaries earning over Rs 10 crore in commissions, as part of draft rules to improve transparency and accountability. The post Lowdown: IRDAI proposes strict disclosures for insurance intermediaries earning over 10 crore in commissions appeared first on MEDIANAMA .

LessWrong AI 2026-06-28 11:09 UTC Score 58.0 USR-0152-20260628-community-fo-165a11bf

Power Laws in NNs: A Possible Mechanism for Inductive Bias towards Sparse Representations

This post was produced as part of the Iliad Fellowship under the mentorship of Dmitry Vaintrob. Tl;dr: Power-law ("heavy-tailed") distributions have universality theorems similar to those which make Gaussians common. We observe many things in ML are power-law distributed, most robustly and interestingly, the spectra of weight matrices. I explain how we can think of power-laws as being a natural generalization of the idea of 'sparsity', interpolating between true sparsity and Gaussianity according to the 'tail-index' of the distribution. I share some hypotheses about how this might relate to the 'sparse'/'discrete'/'factored' representations that neural networks seem to learn. I promise this is not a Santa-Fe-Institute encomium for power laws or "black swans"; different genre. Contents 1. The generalized central limit theorem proves power-law distributions are universality classes 2. Power laws observed in NNs might help us understand representation learning 2.A. HTSR: phase changes in weight-matrix spectra and data-free prediction of generalization 2.B. BBP transition as a quantum of learning 2.C. HTSR as an extended BBP transition 2.D. Training evidence for heavy tails is mixed, and I'm not sure if they're important 3. The tail exponent α is a smooth proxy for sparsity and compressibility 3.A. α captures compressibility across heavy tails 3.B. α-stable noise can make discrete codebooks optimal 3.C. Heavy-tailed noise can convert analog inputs into discrete codebooks 4. Summ…

Kubernetes Documentation 2026-06-26 18:00 UTC Score 33.0 AI-200-20260626-developer-an-f210b1d6

Open source maintainership in the age of AI

AI has really changed the game around software development. More people are leveraging AI than ever to contribute patches to projects they use. To me, this is a good thing as more folks will contribute patches rather than fork or not fix them. The main problem is that AI has made generating code fast but there has been very little improvement in maintaining code bases. In this post, we will highlight the ways the Kubernetes community is adapting to the world of AI assisted coding. The first step of this journey was to develop an AI policy. This seems mundane and bureaucratic but there were many PRs that derailed into discussions around AI usage. The AI policy helps steer the conversation around the project's stance on AI and provides a clear signal to contributors on how to use these tools responsibly. Kubernetes AI policy The Kubernetes project has established clear guidelines for AI-assisted contributions that balance innovation with accountability. These policies are designed to maintain code quality and ensure human oversight while acknowledging that AI tools can be valuable aids in the development process. Transparency first Contributors must disclose when AI tools have been used to assist with a pull request. A simple statement in the PR description such as "This PR was written in part with the assistance of generative AI" is sufficient. This transparency helps reviewers understand the context and apply appropriate scrutiny. Human accountability While AI tools can assi…

Google DeepMind YouTube 2026-06-23 15:48 UTC Score 61.0 AI-145-20260623-podcasts-and-6366ba2d

When millions of AI agents meet

The conversation of the moment is focused on one topic: AI agents. Unlike traditional language models that simply respond to a prompt, autonomous agents can execute multi-step plans and perform complex tasks on your behalf. But what happens when millions of these agents are not just working for us, but transacting, negotiating, and delegating to one another? Nenad Tomašev, Senior Staff Research Scientist at Google DeepMind, joins host Hannah Fry to discuss the theoretical framework of a future"agentic economy." Together, they discuss the operational shift from single systems to a cooperative "society of specialists," the psychological risk of human automation bias, and the complex cybersecurity landscape—from dynamic cloaking to agentic traps—required to keep distributed intelligence secure. Timecodes: 00:00 Intro 1:07 Defining AI agents 4:44 Agentic exploration in science and research 15:46 Delegation between agents 22:46 Agentic security and traps 29:31 Building an agentic economy 33:22 Cognitive monoculture 36:29 Distributed intelligence To read the research, search for: Distributional AGI Safety, May 2026 Intelligent AI Delegation, February 2026 Virtual Agent Economies, September 2025 Learn more about our AGI control roadmap: https://deepmind.google/blog/securing-the-future-of-ai-agents/ ___ Subscribe to our channel https://www.youtube.com/@googledeepmind Find us on X https://x.com/GoogleDeepMind Follow us on Instagram https://instagram.com/googledeepmind Add us on Linke…

GitHub Engineering 2026-06-23 15:48 UTC Score 42.0 USR-0062-20260623-ai-specialis-41e4c400

GitHub joins coalition advocating for fixes to California AI Transparency Act to protect open source

We’re calling for targeted amendments to resolve conflicts with open source licensing and align with international transparency frameworks while preserving regulatory intent. The post GitHub joins coalition advocating for fixes to California AI Transparency Act to protect open source appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

AI Alignment Forum 2026-06-20 20:05 UTC Score 38.0 USR-0151-20260620-community-fo-c0bc42f0

How transparent is DiffusionGemma (and why it matters)

Authors: Joshua Engels*, Callum McDougall*, Bilal Chughtai*, Janos Kramar, Senthoran Rajamanoharan, Cindy Wu, Arthur Conmy, Asic Q Chen, Jean Tarbouriech, Min Ma, Brendan O'Donoghue+, João Gabriel Lopes de Oliveira+, Rohin Shah+, Neel Nanda+ *Primary Contributor +Advising Paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20560 Overview In a recent collaboration between the GDM interpretability team and the GDM text diffusion team, we performed a transparency audit of DiffusionGemma, GDM's new text diffusion model. Overall, we find that DiffusionGemma is not significantly less transparent than Gemma. Gemma and DiffusionGemma perform similarly on monitorability evaluations . Although naively DiffusionGemma has a much larger opaque serial depth , we can apply the logit lens to intermediate vectors and ablate non-interpretable information without harming performance. This implies that these intermediate nodes are interpretable, which reduces the opaque serial depth to be similar to that of Gemma. However, even though the variables that the model uses at different steps are interpretable, this does not necessarily mean that we understand the algorithm that the model uses to reach the final answer. We thus distinguish between variable transparency, which we define as whether we can understand snapshots of the model's computation, and algorithmic transparency, which we define as whether we can use these snapshots to reconstruct the process by which the model arrived at its outputs. By default…

Netflix Tech Blog 2026-06-19 23:53 UTC Score 47.0 USR-0049-20260619-ai-specialis-4e454dce

A Human-Augmenting Agentic Workflow for Causal Inference

By Winston Chou, Adrien Alexandre, Lars Olds, Yi Zhang, Garrett Hagemann, and Nathan Kallus Introduction Imagine asking a data agent to analyze the causal relationship between two variables, such as the effect of watching a popular Netflix show on long-term member retention. It queries your data, runs a regression, and confidently returns an answer. How much should you trust it? Can you be confident that the agent accounted for subtle biases — or does it treat passionate fans as if they were the average viewer? Without deep understanding and expertise, would you even be able to tell if it got the answer wrong? Data analysis is increasingly being delegated to software agents. While this reduces human effort and toil, oversight is still needed to ensure the validity of results. This is especially true for specialized tasks like Observational Causal Inference (OCI) , which require substantial judgment and domain expertise. In this blog post, we share an agentic workflow for performing OCI under unconfoundedness . Our workflow is designed for software agents to adhere to rigorous, exhaustive templates for causal inference tasks. Yet, it also seeks to be “ human-augmenting ,” and to enable and empower human inspection and evaluation. We designed this workflow with OCI practitioners in mind. Although OCI requires context and care to do well, aspects of it — e.g., checking and rechecking covariate balance, conducting sensitivity analyses, and keeping track of multiple iterations —…

Two Minute Papers 2026-06-19 14:06 UTC Score 36.0 AI-139-20260619-podcasts-and-ae508afa

Scientists Found A Better Language For AI Agents

❤️ Check out Weights & Biases and sign up for a free demo here: https://wandb.me/papers 📝 The paper is available here: https://recursivemas.github.io/ https://github.com/RecursiveMAS/RecursiveMAS Brain reading video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUg-t609byg 🙏 We would like to thank our generous Patreon supporters who make Two Minute Papers possible: Adam Bridges, Benji Rabhan, B Shang, Cameron Navor, Charles Ian Norman Venn, Christian Ahlin, Eric T, Fred R, Gordon Child, Juan Benet, Michael Tedder, Owen Skarpness, Richard Sundvall, Ryan Stankye, Shawn Becker, Steef, Taras Bobrovytsky, Tazaur Sagenclaw, Tybie Fitzhugh, Ueli Gallizzi