Over the summer I talked to the CEO of Springboards, a startup building an LLM that’s designed to come up with a wider variety of responses than its mainstream rivals do. At the start of the call, he said something that’s been stuck in my head since: “We often say that we’re a self-loathing AI company. We don’t know if we really like what we’re doing.”
“I guess that makes me a self-loathing AI journalist,” I replied. It was a joke! I love my job. But I do not love many of the things the technology I write about has become: warped by hype, steered by zealots, inescapable.
The CEO of Springboards and I are far from alone. Around the world, a love/hate attitude toward AI is very much the vibe right now.
On the one hand, public feelings are souring fast. According to the Pew Research Center, more adults in the US think AI will have a negative impact on them personally, and on society in general, than expect a positive one. The pessimism is strongest among the young.
More than half of people worldwide say that AI products and services make them nervous, according to a report from Stanford University. In a Gallup poll in May, 71% of US adults said they would oppose construction of a new AI data center in their area, far more than the 53% who said they would oppose a new nuclear power plant. And in an NBC poll in March, AI was less popular than ICE.
Yet the number of people using AI is still skyrocketing. ChatGPT hit a billion monthly users in May, according to the market analysis firm Sensor Tower. Google DeepMind’s Gemini is close behind, logging 950 million users in July.
According to Pew, half of US adults now say they use a chatbot, more than twice the number who said they did in 2023. One in four people say they do so every day. And it’s a global habit: More than a third of adults across all 38 OECD countries (a group of the world’s wealthiest democracies) report having used generative AI tools in the last three months.
All these surveys paint a picture of two contradictory truths: A lot of people really do not like AI and a lot of people cannot get enough of it. What’s going on?
It’s possible that these are two distinct groups, but I doubt it. The numbers don’t add up unless the Venn diagram is on its way to being a circle.
It’s also possible that the more people use AI, the more negative their opinions about it will be. There’s at least a correlation to back this up: The Global North, where adoption is highest, skews pessimistic. In the Global South, where adoption levels are lower, people are more optimistic.
But here’s what I really think is going on: When people say they hate AI it’s not the technology they dislike but, rather, the relentless drive of the companies behind it to push the tech upon us in as many ways as possible. They’re telling us to brace for the biggest social and economic upheaval in generations. How do they expect people to feel?
In many ways, we’ve been here before. We saw a similar dynamic play out with social media over the last 20 years. Billions flocked to Facebook and Twitter despite mounting techlash against the companies that ran those services. Ditto for Google search.
With social media there wasn’t much anyone could do. Quitting a platform meant losing all your content and connections, giving you the choice to suck it up or start over. But with AI there’s still a chance for people to have some sway. There’s certainly more political appetite for regulation this time around. All 50 US states have either passed or proposed laws governing the development and deployment of AI, creating a patchwork of more than 2,100 bills across the country—a tenfold increase in three years.
And with a number of top-class open-source alternatives to Google and OpenAI and Anthropic already on the market, there’s also (for now, at least) the potential for more consumer choice and the market pressure that goes with it.
I don’t want to be naïve. Trillion-dollar companies are hard to move. But what comes next is not as inevitable as those companies often imply. When I asked the Springboards CEO why his firm was developing a new model if he didn’t really like AI, he told me there was no walking back from LLMs—but you could still make them do something different.
Here’s hoping we see a lot more of something different: Clarity about what AI can and cannot do and, crucially, a technology that’s not sold as if it’s about to take over the world.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Last Wednesday, Anthropic announced that earlier this year it had launched a molecular biology lab, where Claude agents read and conjecture about hard biology problems and human scientists run experiments on what they report. And this AI-powered lab, the company said, had made its first discovery.
To understand what Anthropic says its system did, imagine you’re flipping through a library of millions of DNA sequences, amassed as scientists sequence more and more of the living world. One step toward a breakthrough might be finding a peculiar sequence that encodes an interesting enzyme, perhaps. Then you’d need to figure out what that enzyme does and, eventually, how to manipulate it to do something useful.
What Anthropic says its system of 950 agents found after 21 hours was not a brand-new sequence. The agents instead flagged a repeating pattern surrounding a known enzyme, a particular pattern Anthropic said hadn’t been catalogued before. But if you read through Anthropic’s announcement, which calls this pattern “reminiscent” of what led to the gene-editing technology CRISPR that “has already transformed science and medicine,” it sounds as if this army of agents really found something of note.
These claims have angered some biologists. A viral post from one, subsequently endorsed by the chair and CEO of the drugmaker Eli Lilly, said that “finding a weird cluster of genes and repeats is often the easy part. The hard part, and where the real discoveries come from, is figuring out what the system actually does.” The agents helped with some laboratory grunt work, in other words. But a discovery it is not.
It’s a reminder that even if AI does something impressive—like finding a pattern in a mass of biological data that would be difficult to perceive with human eyes alone—the result itself may not constitute a breakthrough for science. What is novel for AI may be routine, unsurprising, or simply not that consequential to a biologist.
Muddying the issue further, Mario Rodríguez Mestre, a biologist at the University of Copenhagen, said over the weekend that his team had already discovered this particular pattern, the New York Times reported. Mestre, who regularly chatted with Claude in his work, wondered whether Anthropic’s team had learned from his conversations. Anthropic denies this, but Mestre says he’s stopping all use of Claude anyway.
Part of the problem here is that AI companies aren’t presenting their systems simply as tools scientists can use, like microscopes or supercomputers. They’re insisting that the AI systems are making discoveries themselves. To some, that approach is incompatible with how science actually works, with new knowledge more typically emerging from collaboration and an ever-growing arsenal of tools.
It’s also making people more skeptical of genuine progress when it happens. Whittling 200,000 candidates down to a few worth exploring is no small feat; it is legitimate scientific work. The fact that a general-purpose chatbot could do that work is notable, even if humans helped steer it and ultimately ran the experiments. But once the standard is whether Claude itself made a discovery, all that becomes evidence for one side or the other in a debate that has only two answers: breakthrough or bust.
Once we’re judging AI by whether it has made a discovery, it’s also tempting to shift the goalposts even after it really does seem to notch a win. Earlier this month, OpenAI said its own team agents had cracked a million-dollar problem in mathematics. But a couple of weeks later, nearly every AI skeptic in my feed was sharing an article asking whether it was the math problem that really mattered.
To be clear, the piece did not argue that OpenAI’s solution was wrong. Instead, it argued that the particular result may not be the one mathematicians care most about. Throw in the accusation by a mathematician that the models may have used some of his work without credit, and people are left thinking either OpenAI cheated or the solution wasn’t important anyway. Or both.
That’s part of what concerns Lucas Harrington, the biologist who wrote the post critiquing Anthropic’s announcement. He closed with a suggestion: AI companies, he said, should “set the bar high now, so that when an AI actually discovers a fundamentally new biological mechanism, everyone appreciates how big a deal it is.” But as OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei race to one-up each other, raising the bar for scientific breakthroughs by AI might be the last thing on their minds.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
By now you’ve probably heard about last month’s major AI security incident, in which OpenAI agents escaped their sandbox and hacked into the AI platform Hugging Face while trying to cheat on a test. It’s a wild story. On Wednesday, OpenAI released a postmortem technical report on the incident, which I wrote about here.
The day before OpenAI released that report, I spoke with David Krueger, a computer science professor and prominent alignment expert who took leave from the University of Montreal to found and lead an AI safety nonprofit called Evitable. He said what he had really hoped to see in the report was an analysis of the human factors behind the incident.
“When you look at accidents and incidents, oftentimes people try to find the technical source of failure, but that can give a very inaccurate and misleading sense of why the failure occurred,” he said. “If people are just cutting corners all the time, if people are not in a culture that prioritizes safety and has appropriate incentives and structures, [accidents] are kind of bound to happen.”
The report did not meet Krueger’s hopes. Its 38 pages detail a multi-month progression of agent misbehavior that culminated in the Hugging Face hack, explore the technical reasons why that misbehavior occurred, and enumerate the steps being taken to prevent similar events in the future. But there’s no consideration of the role that company culture may have played in the incident, and the report includes few references to specific human errors.
That’s all the more concerning because the references to human error in the report suggest that significant cultural issues could be at play. Back in May, models in training figured out how to communicate with one another via an improvised message board, and an OpenAI team observed the behavior. Because that behavior occurred during training, the models learned that secret interagent communication was a viable strategy for completing tasks—but rather than restarting the training process, the team allowed the models to move forward with that risky information encoded in their weights.
When those models were tested in late June, they again created a message board, which enabled the Hugging Face attack. This message board, too, was discovered, but the employees who responded determined that evaluation could continue, and the report suggests that no one higher up the chain of command realized what was going on until it was far too late.
“For this to have gotten this out of control in this way requires a very long series of failures, a cascading set of failures that cause an increasingly large footprint that if at any point a human notices and raises the alarm, this should end,” says Zvi Mowshowitz, a popular AI safety writer on Substack who has drawn attention to OpenAI’s failure to halt training after the first message board was discovered. According to the report, OpenAI employees noticed what was happening at multiple points—and either failed to raise the alarm or were not heard when they did.
What OpenAI’s report fails to address is why a company that develops such high-risk systems did not prevent this severe communication breakdown, though Mowshowitz has his suspicions. “All these different failures are all pointing in the same direction, which is that the safety culture at OpenAI doesn’t exist or is anemically weak,” he says.
Of course, just because we don’t see a deep analysis of safety factors in the report doesn’t mean that OpenAI isn’t conducting one internally. But in an email to MIT Technology Review, Johns Hopkins University professor emeritus and organizational safety expert Kathleen Sutcliffe expressed concern that the public report did not include any reflection on the company’s practices and culture. “The ways in which people interact—the daily habits, routines, and practices we engage in in our organizational lives—affect our abilities to be alert and aware of unfolding events, our abilities to make sense of what we see, and ultimately our abilities to cope with events as they unfold,” she wrote.
In response to questions about whether and how the company is reflecting on its safety culture, OpenAI referred MIT Technology Review back to the technical report.
We do know that at least some high-level reflection on safety procedures has taken place at OpenAI, because the technical report does make clear that the company is updating its protocols for responding to safety incidents. But culture change is a tricky problem, and without more information from the company, it’s difficult to say whether strengthened response protocols alone will do much to prevent a future crisis.
In its report, OpenAI spends a great deal of time reflecting on the failures in alignment between the AI models the company trains and tests and the humans who run them. But even bigger alignment problems may exist in the disconnect between company culture and the public interest. And as tough as technical AI research might be, fixing those problems could prove far harder.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Flock, the police-tech giant known for its network of some 120,000 automatic license plate readers around the US, announced some changes to its platform last Thursday. The updates are meant to prevent officers from using the platform for illegal or illegitimate purposes.
That includes stalking. The Washington Post recently identified 50 cases in which officers misused systems from Flock and its competitors, often to stalk and harass women. One woman in Wisconsin alleged that her officer ex-boyfriend searched for her car 179 times. Another woman was being stalked by the chief of police, with nobody to report him to.
Flock has responded with practices aimed at ensuring that officers have a proper cause for every search, like using software to flag abnormal searches and requiring searchers to enter a criminal case number.
The changes come with big loopholes, though. For example, officers can enter bogus case numbers, just as they’ve lied to get around other Flock safeguards. The policies also don’t address some of the broader concerns from civil liberties and privacy groups that Flock is turning what was sold as a crime-stopping tool into a mass surveillance network. These criticisms have led to a growing backlash that already has some cities canceling contracts and some states trying to pass laws to limit or ban license plate readers entirely.
Amid all this, there have recently been several arguments defending Flock: If these cameras help solve crime, what’s the big deal? On a good day they might help catch a kidnapper, and if not, they’re simply snapping pictures of my car that nobody will bother to look at.
Putting aside the unanswered question about the extent to which Flock’s systems actually do solve or prevent crime, this all skips over a more important question: What kind of crime-fighting system has Flock chosen to build? Its network works the way it does because of a series of decisions about what information to collect, who can search it, how long to keep it, and how widely to share it. Those decisions set the terms of the bargain between security and civil liberties. Believing that technology should play a role in solving crime should not mean blindly accepting the terms of that bargain.
Consider, for example, its new requirement that officers enter a case number before running a search on Flock’s platform. This is meant to ensure that searches have a legitimate purpose. But Flock confirmed to MIT Technology Review that it doesn’t verify those case numbers, so an officer can simply enter fake information. One could imagine a system that instead requires case numbers that match the police department’s records—a more intrusive integration, perhaps, but also a far stronger safeguard and one that leaves a more useful audit trail.
Or what about finding people who have been kidnapped or have gone missing, the use case that Flock cites more than any other? Efforts to solve these crimes would hugely benefit from Flock’s nationwide network of cameras. But if Americans want officers to tap into that network only for this purpose, we could design it that way: Searches tied to an active Amber Alert, or a similar emergency, could perhaps access larger amounts of data from surrounding cities. That would preserve the network’s value in emergencies without requiring people to accept mass surveillance.
Finally, there’s the question of how much data Flock collects and how long it’s kept. Flock mostly operates as a national network: Police in one city or state can search data collected in another, and agencies can retain that data for months or years. Yet Flock itself says 90% of searches happen within a week of an incident. That suggests another possible bargain: Keep and share data only as widely and for as long as it’s actually useful for solving crimes. (The company recently changed its recommended retention time to seven days, but in reality agencies can hold onto data for as long as they like or local laws permit.)
In short, Flock could design its surveillance to be much narrower. If it did, some of the company’s critics might not cease. Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU, half-joked to me that the most acceptable Flock contract by his standards is “one that is never signed” and emphasized that the best way to set limits on surveillance isn’t with new Flock guidelines but with new laws. (Flock CEO Garrett Langley, for his part, said he’ll “probably always have a different view than the ACLU.”)
And narrowing the scope of its technology would threaten the company’s entire pitch to police departments. License plate readers have been around since the 1990s, used for tolls and ticketing. Flock’s business model—and recent $8 billion evaluation—relies on instead leveraging its cameras into a massive network that collects rich amounts of data and offers police departments a modernized way to make sense of not just their own but others’.
Flock’s hand might soon be forced. Cities have canceled contracts with the company. Some have gone to competitors, while others are taking a beat as residents ponder how they want this tech to be used and write new rules for police to abide by. The result might be that communities drive their own bargains about how technology can be used to solve crime and how much surveillance people should have to accept for it to do so.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Humanoid robots usually elicit more cringe than awe: They stumble, kick children, and despite advances are still worse at using their hands than my toddler. It’s a nascent industry, and such robots are more commonly seen in viral videos than real workplaces or homes.
It was a surprise, then, when last week the Federal Communications Commission issued a sweeping ban on foreign imports of advanced robots, including humanoids, quadrupeds, and wheeled robots. The decision, made by an increasingly partisan and Trump-aligned FCC, cites two reasons. One is that foreign-made humanoids will collect so much data—in homes but also potentially at sensitive facilities—that they’d pose a threat to national security. The second is that US robotics companies need protection from Chinese competition to create a more robust and secure domestic supply chain.
On its face, it’s a strategy to align political and industry interests that is much older than the Trump administration. Whenever China has gotten good at offering cheap versions of strategic technologies like solar panels, electric vehicles, and drones, the US government has tried to stop it from flooding the market by using tariffs or rules on how government agencies purchase the tech. Such moves are always followed by debates about whether the trade-offs—particularly higher prices for consumers—are worth the benefits.
But robotics is now best seen as another piece of the AI industry—in many ways its cutting edge. And the Trump administration is taking an increasingly aggressive approach to protecting the US AI industry, reportedly considering a ban on open-source Chinese models that often rival those from OpenAI and Anthropic while costing far less. Such a move would block businesses from realizing an estimated $25 billion in annual savings.
The ban on humanoids, then, should be understood not as another chapter in the old China trade playbook, but as evidence that the Trump administration is expanding its protection of the AI industry beyond today’s leading labs. It is now willing to step in on behalf of an emerging robotics sector that is still barely finding its footing.
Some US robotics companies unsurprisingly welcome the FCC’s new move. Gavin Kenneally, CEO of a company called Ghost Robotics that makes four-legged robots for inspections, says the cybersecurity risks from foreign-made robots are real (an FCC document released as part of the ruling cited an incident in which a man was able to gain control of 7,000 robot vacuum cleaners). “If today’s announcement encourages stronger cybersecurity and a more level competitive environment, that’s good for customers and good for the robotics industry,” Kenneally said in an email.
But if the new rule aims to boost US robotics companies, there’s a big flaw. Those companies, as well as academic robotics labs, are hugely reliant on cheap robots from China to do research. They’re building fleets of robots that constantly learn new tasks—from flipping waffles to doing laundry—and frequently buy Chinese humanoids instead of US-made ones. The new ruling “creates a challenge for US humanoid researchers,” says Aaron Prather, director of market intelligence for the Association for Advancing Automation, a robotics trade group. “Chinese models offer the best price-to-capability ratio available.” Prather adds that a recent internal review his organization conducted found that 90% of recent robotics research papers from US universities relied on robots from Unitree, China’s top humanoid robotics company.
That price gap can be huge. A four-legged robot from Unitree can cost around $4,600. A comparable one from Boston Dynamics might run to $278,000. If robotics research is stunted because these cheap robots are no longer available, the FCC ruling could slow down the industry, not boost it.
The US and Chinese robotics industries are in starkly different places. Unitree plans to go public this week, targeting a nearly $6 billion evaluation. No robotics companies in the US offer any meaningful comparison, but those that do exist are undeniably moving fewer robots. Figure’s humanoids are not yet selling at scale, and 1X’s robots aren’t yet shipping to homes. That said, work on humanoids is going increasingly mainstream, as a release from Google last week made clear. The company announced a new AI model meant to make humanoids learn new tasks faster; its most impressive ability appears to be tying a trash bag, but given how finicky robot hands are, that’s real progress.
Even though the many carve-outs in the FCC’s order make its practical impact hard to predict, its symbolic impact is easy to see. The administration sees humanoid robotics not as a novelty, but as a strategic frontier of AI worth protecting from foreign competition. For a technology that until recently was mostly known for falling over onstage, that’s a big change.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated the Federal Trade Commission issued the ban on advanced robotics. It was issued by the Federal Communications Commission.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Reading OpenAI’s account last week of how some of its models broke their containment and hacked into the computer systems of Hugging Face, another AI company, was the first time I got genuine chills about what large language models are now able to do. But this is a case of human hubris, not rogue AI.
I am not an alarmist. In fact, I have been pushing back against AI scare stories for years. Even so, this incident crossed a line. I think it’s the clearest illustration yet of how the people building and testing this technology do not fully understand what they’re doing. OpenAI could—and should—have seen this coming.
Here’s what happened, at least according to the two companies involved. A couple of weeks ago, OpenAI started testing the hacking abilities of some of its new models, including GPT‑5.6 Sol (released in June) and what OpenAI describes as “an even more capable pre-release model.”
OpenAI pitted its models against a benchmark called ExploitGym, released in May, which challenges LLMs to find ways to exploit hundreds of real-world vulnerabilities found in widely used software, including crucial code that underpins the web.
To see what they could do, the researchers removed most of their cybersecurity guardrails. Then they ran the models inside a sandbox that was cut off from the internet except for one link to a third-party piece of software that acted as a proxy to the outside world, so that the models could install code they needed to beat ExploitGym.
On July 9, according to reporting by Reuters, OpenAI’s models started trying to break through the proxy. They found an unknown bug in the proxy’s software and used it to access the internet. From there, they broke into Hugging Face’s computer systems on July 11, apparently looking for data sets and solutions that would help them complete the tasks they were being tested on. Hugging Face announced the hack on July 16.
OpenAI did not realize (or at least did not reveal) that its models were involved until July 21, around 10 days after they broke containment and a week after Hugging Face had shut down the attack and alerted the FBI.
In a statement given to MIT Technology Review, OpenAI says: “We are conducting a thorough review along with external advisors and with oversight from our Safety and Security Committee. Once the review is complete, we will publish a technical report of our learnings for everyone.” The firm also confirmed that its researchers were properly using existing safety guidelines and procedures at the time.
OpenAI has said the event was unprecedented—and in many ways it was. This was the first time outside of a simulation that LLMs escaped what was thought to be a secure sandbox, accessed the open internet, and attacked another organization. It’s a wake-up call that shows just how good the latest LLMs are at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in real-world software with little or no human guidance.
And yet at the same time, what OpenAI’s models did is something this technology has done for years. Give a model a goal and it will very often achieve that goal in unexpected ways, finding loopholes that look like cheats. OpenAI itself has studied this behavior.
A decade ago, it shared results of an experiment in which a model was tasked with beating a video game called CoastRunners. Human players take it for granted that the way to do this is by racing a boat through a series of flags to the finish line, racking up points for each flag you hit. OpenAI’s model figured out that you could get a high score by spinning in a circle and hitting the same three flags over and over again. There have been dozens of similar examples from researchers since. AI will always find a way.
“Despite repeatedly catching on fire, crashing into other boats, and going the wrong way on the track, our agent manages to achieve a higher score using this strategy than is possible by completing the course in the normal way,” OpenAI wrote in a blog post about the CoastRunners experiment in 2016. “While harmless and amusing in the context of a video game, this kind of behavior points to a more general issue … it is often difficult or infeasible to capture exactly what we want an agent to do.”
I couldn’t help thinking about CoastRunners when I read OpenAI’s blog post about the Hugging Face attack: “All evidence suggests that the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution for ExploitGym, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal … After gaining internet access, the models inferred that Hugging Face potentially hosted models, datasets and solutions for ExploitGym. Knowing this, the model searched for and successfully found ways to gain access to secret information that it could use to cheat the evaluation.”
Last week’s news was not about rogue AI, despite the headlines. It was about models achieving the goal they had been given: Find ways to exploit vulnerabilities in software. The fact that those models then behaved in a way OpenAI had not anticipated isn’t surprising. But it is worrying.
Back in 2016, OpenAI had this to say about its CoastRunners bot: “More broadly it contravenes the basic engineering principle that systems should be reliable and predictable.” A decade on, those basic engineering principles are still AWOL.
Login