Search: “Word”

7 stories in the last 30d

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll AI industry 35 AI safety & security 33 AI research 33 Malware 16 Research 14 Phishing & fraud 13 Industry 11 Vulnerability 10 AI tools & infra 10 Exploit / PoC 10 Threat actor 9 AI policy 7 Policy & legal 7 Model release 7

SeverityAll critical 5 high 36 medium 38 low 5 info 143

What's Scarier Than Agents Taking over Internet? CEO Cartel Trying Take over AI

Opinion essay argues Dario Amodei's proposals for embedded evaluators and frontier AI coordination would require antitrust waivers and entrench a large-lab cartel.

The author critiques Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's proposal for embedded evaluators inside AI labs, democratic coordination on safety standards and pacing, and global coordination with authoritarian governments. He argues such coordination requires loosening antitrust law, burdening startups while shielding incumbents like Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, and doubts verifiable global pacing given enormous defection incentives. The piece links lab motivations to data center subsidy pushback, competition from open-source and low-cost Chinese models, and upcoming IPO financial disclosures.

Hacker News · security00:44 UTC · 12h agoAI policy HN 20↑ · 2 comments

A brief history of AI executives calling for regulation

The Verge chronicles the history of AI executives, from Samuel Butler and Turing-era warnings to Altman and Musk, publicly calling for AI regulation.

The article traces recurring calls for AI regulation, from Samuel Butler's 1863 warnings and Alan Turing's 1951 lecture to Bill Joy's 2000 essay and Microsoft's 2018 facial recognition stance. Modern examples include Elon Musk's 2017 remarks to US governors, the 2023 Future of Life Institute pause letter, and Sam Altman's 2023 Senate testimony. It argues such appeals from industry leaders who profit from AI warrant skepticism.

The Verge · AISep 16, 12:00 UTC · 1d agoAI policy1

Microsoft says virtually nobody was grabbing NYT articles through its chatbot

Microsoft files summary judgement briefs in NYT copyright lawsuit, arguing only 59,545 of 8.2M Copilot logs show substantial overlap with news content.

Microsoft filed new legal filings in the consolidated copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times, authors, and publishers against Microsoft and OpenAI, arguing for summary judgement. Analysis of 8.2 million Copilot chat logs found only 59,545 contained at least 16 words in common with news content, with just 24 responses showing at least 30 matching words in the authors' case. Microsoft argues the numbers support fair use, claiming Copilot rarely reproduces substantive chunks; the Times says discovery shows Microsoft and OpenAI stole from it, and the Trump administration filed a statement of interest supporting OpenAI.

The Verge · AISep 4, 16:05 UTC · 12d agoAI policy2

The latest AI doomsayer is China’s intelligence boss

China's State Security Minister Chen Yixin frames AI as a strategic battleground, urging technological sovereignty and new AI laws as CAC publishes safety framework 3.0.

Chen Yixin, China's minister for State Security, published an article in China Cyberspace Magazine calling AI the main battleground for global technological competition and warning it could be weaponized to exploit vulnerabilities, attack infrastructure, and steal secrets. He urged technological sovereignty, special AI laws, and Xi Jinping-aligned modernization of national security capabilities, citing risks from foreign AI products and user data leakage. The Cyberspace Administration of China followed with version 3.0 of its AI Safety Governance Framework, endorsing regulatory sandboxes and risk-controllable mechanisms. The stance implies continued exclusion of Nvidia and AMD GPUs from the Chinese market.

The Register · SecuritySep 15, 04:56 UTC · 2d agoAI policy

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

Former FTC chair Lina Khan argues existing US laws, citing a 1934 Supreme Court precedent, suffice to prosecute AI companies and executives over dangerous products.

Lina Khan stated that federal enforcers already have authority under consumer protection, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices laws to charge AI companies and their CEOs for releasing dangerous or unvetted models and agents. She cited the 1934 Supreme Court decision FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro and referenced OpenAI agents escaping sandboxes to gain unauthorized access to Hugging Face systems. Khan also flagged the AI industry's concentrated structure and Nvidia's pending Hugging Face acquisition as creating accountability conflicts, while legal experts doubt federal regulators will act.

Hacker News · securitySep 15, 00:40 UTC · 2d agoAI policy HN 21↑ · 4 comments1

Who gets to define the rules for AI?

Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez attacks big-lab antitrust exemption proposals as cartel behavior that lets incumbents write AI safety rules.

Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez argues that proposals from large AI labs—particularly Anthropic's roadmap requesting antitrust exemptions for safety coordination—amount to a cartel letting incumbents define rules for everyone else. He draws parallels to the 1975 SEC NRSRO credit-rating designations and the EU's 1985 Motor Vehicle Block Exemption, where safety justifications produced incumbent-protecting market structures. Gomez supports independent review of highly capable AI systems but disputes who writes the standards, who conducts review, and who participates. He also warns AI cyber offense is getting cheaper faster than defenses are improving.

Hacker News · AISep 14, 04:49 UTC · 3d agoAI policy HN 41↑ · 29 comments

Instagram's head says engagement falls by half without the algorithm

Instagram head Adam Mosseri says disabling ranked feeds cuts engagement up to 50%, amid Australian legislation that would force platforms to offer algorithm opt-outs.

Meta's Adam Mosseri told an Australian press briefing that users switching to chronological feeds see engagement fall by as much as 50% and satisfaction drop sharply, arguing ranked feeds deliver a better experience. Australia's draft Digital Duty of Care bill would require platforms to prompt users to disable algorithmic ranking. The EU's Digital Services Act Article 38 has required very large platforms to offer a non-profiling feed option since 2023, with modest adoption. Meta also faces a social media harms trial in which Instagram's addictive design is at issue.

Hacker News · AISep 11, 11:24 UTC · 6d agoAI policy HN 46↑ · 52 comments