Anthropic · AI Agent · OpenAI · Claude · Mythos · MIT Technology Review
Argues of incipient, dangerous superintelligence are not based in good scientific or engineering practice
Compiled by KHAO Editorial — aggregated from 1 source. See llms.txt for citation guidance.
◌ Single Source
It’s worth thinking about why there is so much attention on computer programming and math as fields in which to apply large language models and related technology.
Key facts
- Timnit Gebru is executive director of DAIR and author of the forthcoming book Deep Unlearning: The Radicalization of a Tech Idealist, which is available for preorders now and set to publish
- AI agents are not yet creative enough to carry out genuinely innovative open-ended AI research, it seems
- At the end of April, Anthropic claimed that its model Claude Mythos is better at finding software vulnerabilities than most security experts
- The former property helps AI hype mongers sell the idea that they are building everything machines
Summary
It’s been a busy few months for AI hype. This was followed by Anthropic ’s claim that one of its models had made a mathematical breakthrough; soon OpenAI claimed a mathematical breakthrough of its own. Each of these events was mostly covered breathlessly by the press, often repeating the companies’ anthropomorphizing framings —which are designed to portray their software is not only powerful but incipient “ artificial general intelligence.” So what is going on? In all these incidents, massive fanfare from the companies (presented as mea culpas in illicit hacking cases) is accompanied by intense press coverage. Regarding the “hacking” incidents, cybersecurity experts say the story is more about OpenAI’s negligence and failure to adopt basic, established security practices than about “models gone rogue” or “AI agents creating civilizations.”