
Verity Harding tells WIRED that the US government’s nationalistic attitude toward AI is evidence that a worst-case scenario is taking shape.
A former executive from a major AI research organization argues that describing AI development as an "arms race" between superpowers is dangerous and self-fulfilling. She contends that this war-based framing emerged from a combination of genuine safety concerns, geopolitical tensions, and incentives to resist regulation, and has shifted AI policy away from international cooperation toward nationalist competition. She advocates instead for a coalition of middle-power countries to collaborate on AI development, arguing that the arms race metaphor obscures realistic possibilities and turns smaller nations into subordinate players in a binary superpower competition.

In the brief history of AI security, the prompt injection has quickly become the top threat. Large language models are inherently unable to distinguish between legitimate instructions provided by users and malicious ones sneaked into emails, source code, and other third-party content the models are processing. This makes it trivial to surreptitiously inject malicious commands that the LLM readily follows. With no way to enforce this crucial boundary between trusted and untrusted sources, AI engi

Joshua Achiam spent nearly nine years at OpenAI researching AI safety and made a memorable appearance in the Musk v. Altman trial.

The company confirmed that the issue had been affecting accounts since May, with an additional 200 users banned over the weekend before its team identified and fixed the problem.
Want to go deeper than the news? Explore live, cohort-based AI courses taught by practitioners.
Browse AI courses on Maven