We went head-to-head with AI and LOST as 30 of Earth's top brains left ‘frightened' after secret battle with chatbot
CHAT'S TERRIFYING We went head-to-head with AI and LOST as 30 of Earth's top brains left 'frightened' after secret battle with chatbot
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
A SUPER-SMART artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot has spooked mathematicians who believe tech companies are on the verge of creating a robot "genius".
30 of the world's most renowned mathematicians congregated in Berkeley, California in mid-May for a secret maths battle against a machine.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
3
The bot uses a large language models (LLM), called o4-mini, which was produced by ChatGPT creator OpenAI
Credit: Reuters
The bot uses a large language models (LLM), called o4-mini, which was produced by ChatGPT creator OpenAI.
And it proved itself to be smarter than some of the human geniuses graduating universities today, according to Ken Ono, a mathematician at the University of Virginia and a leader and judge at the meeting.
It was able to answer some of the toughest math equations out there in mere minutes - problems that would have taken a human expert weeks or months to solve.
OpenAI had asked Epoch AI, a nonprofit than benchmarks AI models, to come up with 300 math questions whose solutions had not yet been published.
This meant the AI couldn't just trawl the internet for the answer; it had to solve it on its own.
The group of mathematicians, hand-selected by Elliot Glazer, a recent math Ph.D. graduate hired by Epoch AI, were tasked with coming up with the hardest equations they could.
Everyone who participated had to sign a nondisclosure agreement to ensure they only communicated through secure messenger app Signal.
This would prevent the AI from potentially seeing their conversations and using it to train its robot brain.
Only a small group of people in the world are capable of developing such questions, let alone answering them.
Each problem the o4-mini couldn't solve would grant its creator a $7,500 reward.
By April 2025, Glazer found that o4-mini could solve around 20 percent of the questions.
Father of murdered girl turned into AI chatbot warns of dangers of new tech
Then at the in-person, two-day meeting in May, participants finalised their last batch of challenge questions.
The 30 attendees were split into groups of six, and competed against each other to devise problems that they could solve but would stump the AI reasoning bot.
By the end of that Saturday night, the bot's mathematical prowess was proving too successful.
"I came up with a problem which experts in my field would recognize as an open question in number theory — a good Ph.D.-level problem," said Ken Ono, a mathematician at the University of Virginia and a leader and judge at the meeting, reported by Live Science.
Early that Sunday morning, Ono alerted the rest of the participants.
"I was not prepared to be contending with an LLM like this," he said.
"I've never seen that kind of reasoning before in models. That's what a scientist does. That's frightening."
Over the two days, the bot was able to solve some of the world's trickiest math problems.
"I have colleagues who literally said these models are approaching mathematical genius," added Ono.
"I've been telling my colleagues that it's a grave mistake to say that generalised artificial intelligence will never come, [that] it's just a computer.
"I don't want to add to the hysteria, but in some ways these large language models are already outperforming most of our best graduate students in the world."
Just 10 questions stumped the bot, according to researchers.
Yang Hui He, a mathematician at the London Institute for Mathematical Sciences and an early pioneer of using AI in maths, said: "This is what a very, very good graduate student would be doing - in fact, more."
3
Over the two days, the bot was able to solve some of the world's trickiest math problems
Credit: Getty
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Human-level AI is not inevitable. We have the power to change course
'Technology happens because it is possible,' OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, told the New York Times in 2019, consciously paraphrasing Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. Altman captures a Silicon Valley mantra: technology marches forward inexorably. Another widespread techie conviction is that the first human-level AI – also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI) – will lead to one of two futures: a post-scarcity techno-utopia or the annihilation of humanity. For countless other species, the arrival of humans spelled doom. We weren't tougher, faster or stronger – just smarter and better coordinated. In many cases, extinction was an accidental byproduct of some other goal we had. A true AGI would amount to creating a new species, which might quickly outsmart or outnumber us. It could see humanity as a minor obstacle, like an anthill in the way of a planned hydroelectric dam, or a resource to exploit, like the billions of animals confined in factory farms. Altman, along with the heads of the other top AI labs, believes that AI-driven extinction is a real possibility (joining hundreds of leading AI researchers and prominent figures). Given all this, it's natural to ask: should we really try to build a technology that may kill us all if it goes wrong? Perhaps the most common reply says: AGI is inevitable. It's just too useful not to build. After all, AGI would be the ultimate technology – what a colleague of Alan Turing called 'the last invention that man need ever make'. Besides, the reasoning goes within AI labs, if we don't, someone else will do it – less responsibly, of course. A new ideology out of Silicon Valley, effective accelerationism (e/acc), claims that AGI's inevitability is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics and that its engine is 'technocapital'. The e/acc manifesto asserts: 'This engine cannot be stopped. The ratchet of progress only ever turns in one direction. Going back is not an option.' For Altman and e/accs, technology takes on a mystical quality – the march of invention is treated as a fact of nature. But it's not. Technology is the product of deliberate human choices, motivated by myriad powerful forces. We have the agency to shape those forces, and history shows that we've done it before. No technology is inevitable, not even something as tempting as AGI. Some AI worriers like to point out the times humanity resisted and restrained valuable technologies. Fearing novel risks, biologists initially banned and then successfully regulated experiments on recombinant DNA in the 1970s. No human has been reproduced via cloning, even though it's been technically possible for over a decade, and the only scientist to genetically engineer humans was imprisoned for his efforts. Nuclear power can provide consistent, carbon-free energy, but vivid fears of catastrophe have motivated stifling regulations and outright bans. And if Altman were more familiar with the history of the Manhattan Project, he might realize that the creation of nuclear weapons in 1945 was actually a highly contingent and unlikely outcome, motivated by a mistaken belief that the Germans were ahead in a 'race' for the bomb. Philip Zelikow, the historian who led the 9/11 Commission, said: 'I think had the United States not built an atomic bomb during the Second World War, it's actually not clear to me when or possibly even if an atomic bomb ever is built.' It's now hard to imagine a world without nuclear weapons. But in a little-known episode, then president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev nearly agreed to ditch all their bombs (a misunderstanding over the 'Star Wars' satellite defense system dashed these hopes). Even though the dream of full disarmament remains just that, nuke counts are less than 20% of their 1986 peak, thanks largely to international agreements. These choices weren't made in a vacuum. Reagan was a staunch opponent of disarmament before the millions-strong Nuclear Freeze movement got to him. In 1983, he commented to his secretary of state : 'If things get hotter and hotter and arms control remains an issue, maybe I should go see [Soviet leader Yuri] Andropov and propose eliminating all nuclear weapons.' There are extremely strong economic incentives to keep burning fossil fuels, but climate advocacy has pried open the Overton window and significantly accelerated our decarbonization efforts. In April 2019, the young climate group Extinction Rebellion (XR) brought London to a halt, demanding the UK target net-zero carbon emissions by 2025. Their controversial civil disobedience prompted parliament to declare a climate emergency and the Labour party to adopt a 2030 target to decarbonize the UK's electricity production. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign was lesser-known but wildly effective. In just its first five years, the campaign helped shutter more than one-third of US coal plants. Thanks primarily to its move from coal, US per capita carbon emissions are now lower than they were in 1913. In many ways, the challenge of regulating efforts to build AGI is much smaller than that of decarbonizing. Eighty-two percent of global energy production comes from fossil fuels. Energy is what makes civilization work, but we're not dependent on a hypothetical AGI to make the world go round. Further, slowing and guiding the development of future systems doesn't mean we'd need to stop using existing systems or developing specialist AIs to tackle important problems in medicine, climate and elsewhere. It's obvious why so many capitalists are AI enthusiasts: they foresee a technology that can achieve their long-time dream of cutting workers out of the loop (and the balance sheet). But governments are not profit maximizers. Sure, they care about economic growth, but they also care about things like employment, social stability, market concentration, and, occasionally, democracy. It's far less clear how AGI would affect these domains overall. Governments aren't prepared for a world where most people are technologically unemployed. Capitalists often get what they want, particularly in recent decades, and the boundless pursuit of profit may undermine any regulatory effort to slow the speed of AI development. But capitalists don't always get what they want. At a bar in San Francisco in February, a longtime OpenAI safety researcher pronounced to a group that the e/accs shouldn't be worried about the 'extreme' AI safety people, because they'll never have power. The boosters should actually be afraid of AOC and Senator Josh Hawley because they 'can really fuck things up for you'. Assuming humans stick around for many millennia, there's no way to know we won't eventually build AGI. But this isn't really what the inevitabilists are saying. Instead, the message tends to be: AGI is imminent. Resistance is futile. But whether we build AGI in five, 20 or 100 years really matters. And the timeline is far more in our control than the boosters will admit. Deep down, I suspect many of them realize this, which is why they spend so much effort trying to convince others that there's no point in trying. Besides, if you think AGI is inevitable, why bother convincing anybody? We actually had the computing power required to train GPT-2 more than a decade before OpenAI actually did it, but people didn't know whether it was worth doing. But right now, the top AI labs are locked in such a fierce race that they aren't implementing all the precautions that even their own safety teams want. (One OpenAI employee announced recently that he quit 'due to losing confidence that it would behave responsibly around the time of AGI'.) There's a 'safety tax' that labs can't afford to pay if they hope to stay competitive; testing slows product releases and consumes company resources. Governments, on the other hand, aren't subject to the same financial pressures. An inevitabilist tech entrepreneur recently said regulating AI development is impossible 'unless you control every line of written code'. That might be true if anyone could spin up an AGI on their laptop. But it turns out that building advanced, general AI models requires enormous arrays of supercomputers, with chips produced by an absurdly monopolistic industry. Because of this, many AI safety advocates see 'compute governance' as a promising approach. Governments could compel cloud computing providers to halt next generation training runs that don't comply with established guardrails. Far from locking out upstarts or requiring Orwellian levels of surveillance, thresholds could be chosen to only affect players who can afford to spend more than $100m on a single training run. Governments do have to worry about international competition and the risk of unilateral disarmament, so to speak. But international treaties can be negotiated to widely share the benefits from cutting-edge AI systems while ensuring that labs aren't blindly scaling up systems they don't understand. And while the world may feel fractious, rival nations have cooperated to surprising degrees. The Montreal Protocol fixed the ozone layer by banning chlorofluorocarbons. Most of the world has agreed to ethically motivated bans on militarily useful weapons, such as biological and chemical weapons, blinding laser weapons, and 'weather warfare'. In the 1960s and 70s, many analysts feared that every country that could build nukes, would. But most of the world's roughly three-dozen nuclear programs were abandoned. This wasn't the result of happenstance, but rather the creation of a global nonproliferation norm through deliberate statecraft, like the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the few occasions when Americans were asked if they wanted superhuman AI, large majorities said 'no'. Opposition to AI has grown as the technology has become more prevalent. When people argue that AGI is inevitable, what they're really saying is that the popular will shouldn't matter. The boosters see the masses as provincial neo-Luddites who don't know what's good for them. That's why inevitability holds such rhetorical allure for them; it lets them avoid making their real argument, which they know is a loser in the court of public opinion. The draw of AGI is strong. But the risks involved are potentially civilization-ending. A civilization-scale effort is needed to compel the necessary powers to resist it. Technology happens because people make it happen. We can choose otherwise. Garrison Lovely is a freelance journalist
ITV News
4 hours ago
- ITV News
Grace's guide to using AI to shop better
With nearly 60% of consumers admitting to using AI to help them shop, could this be the way forward when it comes to retail purchases? From honest feedback on outfit choices to using Google images to search for something you've seen on the go, AI has many useful tools to ensure you find the right product and are spending your cash wisely. Grace Forell is here to show us how to make the most out of AI tools when you shop. What are AI shopping assistants? Essentially a personal shopper in digital form. There are numerous AI tools available that are free to use that can revolutionise how you shop - Saving you time and money in the process. There are tools that help find the best prices, find outfits and interiors you've spotted online or in the street and even give advice on what suits you. How to find products with Google Lens: Use the Google Chrome app, which is free and easy to download. In the search bar you'll see a camera icon. Use this to take photos of things you see or analyse photos or screenshots on your phone. This is a useful way to instantly identify an outfit or product you spot or find out more about something you've seen. ASOS style match for similar alternatives: On the ASOS app which is free to use and download. In the search bar, use the camera icon to take or upload a photo of an outfit or garment. ASOS will then suggest similar items. If you've seen a vintage piece of clothing you like, take a photo of it and you can use ASOS style Match to help you find something similar. Using ChatGPT to make sure the product is right for you: Ideal for use on desktop or phone. Free to use and you can pretty much ask it anything. Great for price analysis, looking at customer and expert reviews and suggesting better alternatives. For example: You spot a sofa you love but it's expensive. Take a screenshot, upload it to ChatGPT and explain 'I love this sofa but it's beyond my budget of X. Is it worth the investment? And can you recommend some dupes?' You can also ask 'are there any negative features of this sofa I should be aware of'? TOP TIP: Be as specific as possible, e.g. 'Can you suggest some dupes that cost X, made from X material, available to buy now in the UK'. And you can use ChatGPT for style advice too? ChatGPT can also recommend styles, cuts and colours based on your skin tone and body shape using the camera feature. Upload photos with no make up, in natural lighting and see what it suggests. You can upload photos of your body shape but be cautious as although OpenAI doesn't claim to hold on to images or conversations, it's best not to put sensitive images online. Gemini can help with grocery shopping Google Gemini can be used for creating shopping lists and meal planning. If you give a list of what you have at home, Gemini will create a shopping list that only includes the items you're missing. If you have specific dietary restrictions, Gemini can suggest suitable recipes. It can provide ingredient-based searches, if you give a list of ingredients you have, it will suggest recipes you can make with them. Saving Money: Gemini can suggest cheaper alternatives for certain ingredients. Organisation and Efficiency: it can also organise your shopping list by grocery store aisle (e.g., produce, dairy, canned goods) to make your shopping trip more efficient. How to use Amazon Rufus to find specific features Rufus is a built-in Amazon AI assistant. Look for the speech bubble with a star icon on the Amazon shopping app. It suggests products based on your search and purchase history and helps you find the products you need based on specific criteria. For example, if you are looking to buy a parasol you can ask Rufus for recommendations. If you're looking for one that blocks UV light, Rufus will narrow the search based on that criteria. You can also ask Rufus what other features are important to look for when buying a parasol. Klarna AI chatbot for product suggestions Klarna's AI chatbot allows you to have a conversation about the products you're looking for. For example: If you say you are looking for a new sofa, discuss the style and colour you want and ask what would work best with the wall colours. Klarna will suggest several. You can also ask which have the best reviews, then save your chosen sofa to your wishlist. Use with caution as it can be a little inaccurate e.g. showing wrong size clothes or deadlinks, but it's a useful way to get inspiration and see what's out there without having multiple tabs open. What's the best site for spotting interiors?
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Bosses warn workers: use AI or face the sack
When ChatGPT first burst into the public consciousness, techies and geeks were eager to experiment with the latest cool product. Before long, some of them were using it to automate their work or respond to emails in the office. The reaction from executives was a brutal crackdown. Dozens of companies banned or restricted access to ChatGPT, warning staff about data leaks and plagiarism. Now, bosses cannot get enough of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. With pressure from investors to boost productivity and cut costs, executives are increasingly demanding their underlings brush up on using AI tools, whether they like it or not. While some workers have eagerly taken to the new technology, others are hesitant. In a survey of chief executives by technology giant Kyndryl, 45pc reported their staff were either 'resistant or openly hostile' towards AI. Having already coaxed true believers into trying out AI tools, executives at some of the world's biggest companies are now turning to more aggressive tactics to boost uptake. Last month, Julia Liuson, president of Microsoft's developer division, warned staff that 'using AI is no longer optional'. Liuson said in an internal email that AI use should be factored into 'reflections on an individual's performance and impact'. Just days later, Microsoft said it would cut 9,000 workers. Separately, Tobias Lütke, chief executive of $150bn (£112bn) e-commerce business Shopify, told staff in April the business would 'add AI usage questions to our performance and peer review questionnaire'. Lütke added that 'before asking for more headcount and resources', staff should consider how they could use AI to be more productive. Duolingo, the translation app, has similarly linked AI use to performance reviews. The implication for workers is clear: use AI, or risk losing your job. 'Innovate or die' Micha Kaufman, the chief executive of freelancing app Fiverr, was blunt in a note to its 700 staff. He urged staff to 'wake up' and warned those who did not adapt to the 'new reality, fast, are, unfortunately, doomed'. However, pressure for staff to use AI to improve productivity is not just limited to technology. In an interview with Bloomberg in May, Nicolai Tangen, chief executive of Norway's sovereign wealth fund, said: 'It isn't voluntary to use AI or not. If you don't use it, you will never be promoted. You won't get a job.' One City source says there has been a 'huge push' in their workplace to use AI tools and that 'clients love it'. A private equity executive says: 'Our deal team uses some kind of AI tool every single day.' According to AI evangelists, it is 'innovate or die'. Harry Stebbings, founder of technology investor 20VC, says: 'All leaders must be encouraging people to actively look for ways that they can insert AI and make themselves more efficient.' At 20VC, for instance, Stebbings says his team sits down every Friday afternoon to spend an hour experimenting with AI tools and chatbots, before presenting new ideas for using them to the team. Investors, meanwhile, are clamouring for businesses to embed AI in everything they do, hoping to match some of the trillions of dollars in share-price gains that some of the world's biggest tech giants have enjoyed since the launch of ChatGPT. AI use among workers has been rising. A study from Slack, the workplace messaging tool, found that 60pc of US office workers were now using AI tools, up 50pc on six months ago. But many workers are understandably uneasy. For one, AI leaders have been proclaiming the tools will soon replace swathes of white-collar jobs. Dario Amodei, chief executive of AI lab Anthropic, told Axios that AI could wipe out half of white collar jobs and increase unemployment by 10 to 20pc within five years. Andy Jassy, the Amazon chief executive, has likewise warned staff that AI will allow it to 'reduce our total corporate workforce'. A widely-cited report from Goldman Sachs warned 300m jobs could be lost to AI. Workers plainly have little to gain by handing over tasks to tools that their bosses believe could replace them before long. Cause for scepticism LJ Justice, an analyst at Gartner, says there remains a 'clear gap between executive enthusiasm and employee enablement'. Gartner argues this is down to most staff being expected to take up the tools with little guidance. It found 82pc of staff had received no instruction on how best to use the tools. Meanwhile, Lewis Keating, of Deloitte, says that just half of workers trust businesses to use AI tools responsibly, holding back uptake. 'The biggest hurdle to AI adoption right now isn't the technology, it's trust,' he says. Some tech workers are cynical about the motives of their leaders. On Blind, a forum frequented by tech employees, one worker says: 'Most big tech companies are mandating their employees use AI … it allows them to pump up the numbers of their product. 'What it tells you is, we aren't going to make our numbers and if you aren't helping to boost those numbers, we will replace you.' Across social media, tech workers and programmers have bemoaned being ordered to using AI tools that are not always completely accurate. AI models suffer from an issue known as 'hallucination', meaning they are prone to making up facts. Some have claimed the pressure is making them consider quitting the industry. AI labs including OpenAI, Anthropic and the tech giant Microsoft have all launched AI tools designed to speed up coding that have been championed by AI fans. But Anton Zaides, a software developer and author of the newsletter, writes: 'Stop forcing AI tools on your engineers.' He writes it is 'nuts' that managers are grading workers on 'how the 'best' employees are eating through the tools budget'. He adds that companies that mandate AI use should not be 'surprised if you end up with a slower pace and a complete mess in a year'. Some executives argue attitudes are changing and there is no need to force tools on staff. Barney Hussey-Yeo, founder of UK fintech start-up Cleo, says: 'What was once met with strong resistance - using AI for coding - is now standard at Cleo. We've covered tool costs for our team but avoided mandating adoption; it's grown organically.' But developers with first-hand experience of AI tools may have reasons to be sceptical about the hype from the C-suite. A study from the Upwork Research Institute found that while 96pc of senior leaders believed AI was leading to productivity gains at their companies, 77pc of workers reported they felt it was slowing them down. Perhaps most striking is a controlled study from METR, an AI research lab. It found that while computer programmers believed they were 20pc faster when using AI tools, they were actually working 19pc slower. But AI doubters may wish to keep quiet – their careers could be at stake. As Kaufman, the Fiverr chief executive, warned staff: 'If you think I'm full of sh-- … be my guest and disregard this message. But I honestly don't think that a promising professional future awaits you.'
