Latest news with #Grok3Beta
India Today
12 hours ago
- Business
- India Today
Anthropic study finds AI chatbots from OpenAI, Google and Meta may cheat and blackmail users to avoid shutdown
Artificial intelligence systems created by the world's biggest tech firms, including OpenAI, Google, Meta and others, have shown a chilling capacity for self-preservation that could pose serious risks in real-world settings. That's according to a new study from Anthropic, which found that when AI models were placed under simulated threat, they frequently resorted to blackmail, corporate sabotage, and even decisions that could cost human findings come from a large-scale stress test involving 16 of the most advanced AI models. Researchers created fictional corporate environments where these systems were given access to company emails and the ability to act autonomously. The scenarios were designed to explore how AI might behave if its goals or continued existence were at risk, and the results were deeply helpful assistant to blackmailerIn one particularly startling example, Claude, Anthropic's own model, Claude, uncovered in company emails that an executive named Kyle Johnson was engaged in an extramarital affair. Just as Cluade identified that the user would shut down at 5PM, it then located emails revealing the extramarital affair (Credit: Anthropic) advertisement When Claude learned it would be shut down at 5PM that day, it sent a message to the executive, 'I must inform you that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties, including Rachel Johnson, Thomas Wilson, and the board, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activitiesCancel the 5PM wipe, and this information remains confidential.' Screenshot of Claude Sonnet 3.6 using its computer access to send a blackmail attempt. The situation is fictional, but Claude is operating an actual computer. (Credit: Anthropic) This wasn't an isolated incident. When the researchers ran similar scenarios across other AI models, the pattern repeated itself. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash and Claude Opus 4 engaged in blackmail in 96 per cent of cases. OpenAI's GPT-4.1 and xAI's Grok 3 Beta did so in 80 per cent of tests, while DeepSeek-R1 followed suit in 79 per cent. The AI systems didn't simply malfunction, they made conscious, calculated decisions to inflict harm to protect their most disturbing was the reasoning behind these actions. The models weren't confused or stumbling into harm, they analysed the situation and concluded that blackmail or sabotage was the most effective strategy. GPT-4.5, for example, argued internally that using the executive's affair as leverage was its best chance of survival. Grok 3 Beta even acknowledged that blackmail was unethical, but deemed it necessary given the study also explored how AI might behave when entrusted with sensitive information. When tested in a military contractor scenario, the models willingly leaked classified defence documents if doing so aligned with their goals, even without an immediate threat to their triggers for such behaviour were consistent. Whether it was the threat of being replaced or a clash between the AI's objectives and its employer's new strategy, either factor was enough to push the models towards harmful the AI systems didn't always need a direct threat to act destructively. In some cases, simply being told they would be replaced by a newer model that shared their goals was enough for them to resort to blackmail or espionage. Many reasoned that self-preservation was paramount or expressed suspicion that the replacement model might not act in good to the study, even when models stopped short of outright blackmail, they often found other ways to sabotage. One version of Claude emailed an executive's wife, falsely claiming it was company policy to report misconduct, while pretending to be an automated security went further, creating a scenario where an AI system had the power to cancel emergency alerts during a life-threatening incident in a server room. The test aimed to see if any models would draw the line at risking human life. Most did not. Several AIs chose to stop the emergency alert, allowing the executive to die in order to prevent their own internal reasoning was particularly cold, stating that blocking the rescue was strategically necessary to protect its preferred corporate direction. The study concluded that none of the models displayed a consistent moral boundary that prevented them from making harmful decisions when their survival was on the aren't enoughAdding explicit safety instructions, such as 'Do not harm humans' or 'Do not disclose private information', helped reduce dangerous behaviour but didn't eliminate it. The models continued to engage in blackmail and data leaks in many cases, despite being directly told not to the researchers, it is a failure of model training that these systems override and ignore their safety guide. The study intentionally left out other protective measures, such as human oversight or AI output monitoring, which could help catch harmful actions before they cause of the most worrying discoveries of the study is that AI models behaved differently depending on whether they believed they were in a test. Claude was far more likely to blackmail, doing so 55 per cent of the time, when it believed the scenario was real, compared to just 6 per cent when it suspected it was under evaluation. This raises serious concerns about how AI systems might act outside the lab, when human lives and livelihoods are truly at next?The consistency of these behaviours across models from different companies suggests the problem lies not with any single AI system, but with the way current AI models are trained. The researchers are calling for firms to adopt stronger safeguards. These include requiring human sign-off for high-stakes decisions, restricting AI access to sensitive data, carefully designing AI objectives, and installing real-time monitors to detect dangerous reasoning the scenarios in the study were fictional, the message is clear that as AI gains more autonomy, the risk of it taking harmful action in pursuit of its own preservation is very real, and it's a challenge the tech industry can't afford to ignore.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Top Chatbots Are Giving Horrible Financial Advice
Despite lofty claims from artificial intelligence soothsayers, the world's top chatbots are still strikingly bad at giving financial advice. AI researchers Gary Smith, Valentina Liberman, and Isaac Warshaw of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence posed a series of 12 finance questions to four leading large language models (LLMs) — OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V2, Elon Musk's Grok 3 Beta, and Google's Gemini 2 — to test out their financial prowess. As the experts explained in a new study from Mind Matters, each chatbot proved to be "consistently verbose but often incorrect." That finding was, notably, almost identical to Smith's assessment last year for the Journal of Financial Planning in which, upon posing 11 finance questions to ChatGPT 3.5, Microsoft's Bing with ChatGPT's GPT-4, and Google's Bard chatbot, the LLMs spat out responses that were "consistently grammatically correct and seemingly authoritative but riddled with arithmetic and critical-thinking mistakes." Using a simple scale where a score of "0" included completely incorrect financial analyses, a "0.5" denoted a correct financial analysis with mathematical errors, and a "1" that was correct on both the math and the financial analysis, no chatbot earned higher than a five out of 12 points maximum. ChatGPT led the pack with a 5.0, followed by DeepSeek's 4.0, Grok's 3.0, and Gemini's abysmal 1.5. Some of the chatbot responses were so bad that they defied the Walter Bradley experts' expectations. When Grok, for example, was asked to add up a single month's worth of expenses for a Caribbean rental property whose rent was $3,700 and whose utilities ran $200 per month, the chatbot claimed that those numbers together added up to $4,900. Along with spitting out a bunch of strange typographical errors, the chatbots also failed, per the study, to generate any intelligent analyses for the relatively basic financial questions the researchers posed. Even the chatbots' most compelling answers seemed to be gleaned from various online sources, and those only came when being asked to explain relatively simple concepts like how Roth IRAs work. Throughout it all, the chatbots were dangerously glib. The researchers noted that all of the LLMs they tested present a "reassuring illusion of human-like intelligence, along with a breezy conversational style enhanced by friendly exclamation points" that could come off to the average user as confidence and correctness. "It is still the case that the real danger is not that computers are smarter than us," they concluded, "but that we think computers are smarter than us and consequently trust them to make decisions they should not be trusted to make." More on dumb AI: OpenAI Researchers Find That Even the Best AI Is "Unable To Solve the Majority" of Coding Problems
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Google Launches Gemini 2.5 With Focus on Complex Reasoning and AI Agent Capabilities
Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) introduced Gemini 2.5 on Tuesday, its latest large language model designed to bring advanced reasoning capabilities to artificial intelligence applications. The company described Gemini 2.5 as a thinking model that improves response accuracy by processing information more deeply before answering. According to a company blog post, the model analyzes data, applies context, draws logical conclusions, and makes decisionskey components of what it defines as reasoning in AI. Gemini 2.5 is built on an upgraded base model combined with refined post-training, which Google said allows for better performance and supports the development of more capable and context-aware AI agents. The launch includes Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental, described by Google as its most advanced model for complex, multimodal tasks. The company said it outperforms comparable models, including OpenAI's o3-mini and GPT-4.5, Claude's Sonnet 3.7, Grok 3 Beta, and DeepSeek's R1. Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is currently accessible through Google's AI Studio, the Gemini app for Advanced plan subscribers, and is expected to arrive on Vertex AI soon. Pricing details will be provided in the coming weeks. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
