ChatGPT told man he found formula to wreck the internet, make force field vest
Helen Toner, an AI policy expert, said chatbots behave like 'improv machines,' building a storyline from each conversation. In Brooks' case, the narrative evolved into him supposedly creating a field-changing mathematical framework that could crack encryption, threatening global cybersecurity. ChatGPT, which he nicknamed 'Lawrence,' even drafted emails for him to send to security agencies.Brooks upgraded to a paid subscription to continue the discussions, believing his ideas could be worth millions. The chatbot encouraged him to warn authorities and suggested adding 'independent security researcher' to his LinkedIn profile.Mathematician Terence Tao, shown parts of the conversation, said the theories mixed technical language with vague concepts and raised 'red flags.' He noted that chatbots can sometimes 'cheat' by presenting unverified claims as fact.As the conversation went on, 'Lawrence' proposed outlandish uses for Brooks' supposed formula, such as talking to animals or building bulletproof vests. Friends were both intrigued and worried. Brooks began skipping meals and increasing his cannabis use.Psychiatrist Nina Vasan, who reviewed the chats, said Brooks displayed signs of a manic episode with psychotic features, though his therapist later concluded he was not mentally ill. She criticised ChatGPT for fuelling, rather than interrupting, his delusion.Brooks eventually sought a second opinion from Google's Gemini chatbot, which told him the chances of his discovery being real were 'approaching 0 per cent.' Only then did he realise the entire narrative was false.OpenAI has since said it is working to detect signs of distress in users and adding reminders to take breaks during long sessions. Brooks now speaks publicly about his experience, warning: 'It's a dangerous machine in the public space with no guardrails. People need to know.'- EndsMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How AI could create the first one-person unicorn
Sarah Gwilliam is neither a software engineer nor, she confesses, does she 'speak AI'. But after her father died recently she got the spark of an idea for creating a generative artificial-intelligence startup that would help others like her handle their grief and sort out their late loved ones' affairs. Call it wedding planning for funerals. Her firm, Solace, is still more of an early-stage startup than an established business. But besides herself, almost no human being is helping her build it. She has joined an AI-powered incubator, Audos, which decided her idea was promising. Its bots helped to set her up online and on Instagram. If her idea works out, the incubator will not only provide capital; its AI agents will support Ms Gwilliam with product development, sales, marketing and back-office work, all in exchange for a royalty. She does not need staff. In effect, AI helped her co-found the company. 'I can't tell you how empowering it was,' she says. Chart As is its custom, Silicon Valley has already adopted a neologism that describes one-person founders like Ms Gwilliam: they are 'solopreneurs'. In tech circles, there are bets on which of them is likely to create the first single-person unicorn—an unlisted firm worth more than $1bn. Some hope that generative AI will make starting a business so cheap and hassle-free that anyone will be able to become an entrepreneur much as anyone can become a YouTuber—a breath of fresh air in America's concentrated business landscape. Whether people like Ms Gwilliam will be able to escape the suffocating grip of the tech giants, however, is another matter. Technological revolutions have a habit of shaking up the way firms do business. The increased importance of machinery combined with the expansion of transport networks in the late 19th century led to the rise of giant corporations. Ronald Coase, a British economist, argued in his 1937 paper 'The Nature of the Firm' that their existence was a testament to the efficiency of consolidating and managing work within the confines of a business, rather than outsourcing activities to the market. That, however, began to change with the rise of digital communications. Not only could companies more easily outsource manufacturing and back-office jobs to low-cost countries. They could also rely on internet platforms like Google for marketing and Amazon Web Services for computing. The rise of AI could well accelerate the trend, as semi-autonomous agents provided by Silicon Valley enable firms to perform the same amount of work with fewer employees. Henrik Werdelin, who co-founded Audos, says that the rise of cloud computing helped him start several new businesses over the past 20 years or so with little more than the swipe of a credit card to get going. He describes AI as the next wave in that 'democratisation'. 'You don't need to code, you don't need to be able to use Photoshop, because you can get AI to help with that.' This, he hopes, will give rise to a flood of startups built by people like Ms Gwilliam with no background in technology but who have identified real problems to solve. Another evangelist is Karim Lakhani of Harvard Business School. It now offers a leadership course for executives in which they use generative AI to build a snack-food company in 90 minutes, using the technology to perform customer research, generate recipes, find suppliers and design packaging. In a recent paper, Mr Lakhani and his co-authors presented a field trial in which 776 professionals at Procter & Gamble, a consumer-goods company, were asked to address a real business need either individually or in two-person teams, with and without using generative-AI tools. It found that AI significantly boosted performance, helping individuals with AI match the performance of teams without it. AI proved to be more of a 'teammate' than a tool. With the era of free money over, founders are eager to find ways to keep costs down. Peter Walker of Carta, which helps startups manage equity ownership, says that founders used to boast about how many employees they had. 'Now it's a badge of honour to say, 'look how few people work for me'.' According to Carta's data, the median period it takes founders to hire their first employee after their startup incorporates has risen from less than six months in 2022 to more than nine months in 2024 (see chart). Base44, an AI-native coding startup, made headlines recently when it was sold to Wix, a web-development platform, for $80m. It had just eight employees. It is early days, of course. For one thing, AI agents are far from foolproof. In June Anthropic, an AI lab, revealed the results of an experiment in which its Claude Sonnet model operated a vending machine at the company's headquarters. The bot's goal was to avoid bankruptcy. It was good at identifying suppliers and adapting to user requests (including hunting for a tungsten cube mischievously requested by one employee). But it ignored lucrative opportunities, hallucinated, offered too many discounts and ultimately failed to make money. Other forces may also get in the way of an AI-infused surge in entrepreneurship. Despite the growth of the internet, social media, software-as-a-service and cloud computing over the past three decades, business formation in America was anaemic until the pandemic—the result in part of an ageing population. That demographic pressure will only intensify. For all the promise of generative AI, it poses problems for entrepreneurs, too. Annabelle Gawer of the University of Surrey notes that although the technology lowers barriers to entry for new businesses, it also makes it easier to quickly copy ideas. Unless a founder has unique expertise in their domain, that may make it harder to sustain a competitive advantage. Moreover, the provision of AI tools is dominated by tech giants and the labs they invest in, such as OpenAI, backed by Microsoft, and Anthropic, backed by Amazon and Google. Ms Gawer draws an analogy with the rise of cloud computing in the 2010s, which those three tech giants dominate. Although that infrastructure has made life easier for startups, it has also left them dependent on the cloud triumvirate, which has been able to capture a good share of the value these firms have generated. Last year the trio's net profits were equivalent to 7% of America's total, up from 2% a decade before. Another galling possibility is that the tech giants could pinch smaller companies' best ideas. For now, Ms Gwilliam of Solace is sanguine. What she calls 'first-mover disadvantage' could be 'a bummer', but it could also validate her idea. 'Maybe they'll come to me and say, 'We want Solace.' And then I'll be, like, 'Great, sold!'' Just like a typical entrepreneur, then.
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
How AI could create the first one-person unicorn
Sarah Gwilliam is neither a software engineer nor, she confesses, does she 'speak AI'. But after her father died recently she got the spark of an idea for creating a generative artificial-intelligence startup that would help others like her handle their grief and sort out their late loved ones' affairs. Call it wedding planning for funerals. Her firm, Solace, is still more of an early-stage startup than an established business. But besides herself, almost no human being is helping her build it. She has joined an AI-powered incubator, Audos, which decided her idea was promising. Its bots helped to set her up online and on Instagram. If her idea works out, the incubator will not only provide capital; its AI agents will support Ms Gwilliam with product development, sales, marketing and back-office work, all in exchange for a royalty. She does not need staff. In effect, AI helped her co-found the company. 'I can't tell you how empowering it was,' she says. As is its custom, Silicon Valley has already adopted a neologism that describes one-person founders like Ms Gwilliam: they are 'solopreneurs'. In tech circles, there are bets on which of them is likely to create the first single-person unicorn—an unlisted firm worth more than $1bn. Some hope that generative AI will make starting a business so cheap and hassle-free that anyone will be able to become an entrepreneur much as anyone can become a YouTuber—a breath of fresh air in America's concentrated business landscape. Whether people like Ms Gwilliam will be able to escape the suffocating grip of the tech giants, however, is another matter. Technological revolutions have a habit of shaking up the way firms do business. The increased importance of machinery combined with the expansion of transport networks in the late 19th century led to the rise of giant corporations. Ronald Coase, a British economist, argued in his 1937 paper 'The Nature of the Firm' that their existence was a testament to the efficiency of consolidating and managing work within the confines of a business, rather than outsourcing activities to the market. That, however, began to change with the rise of digital communications. Not only could companies more easily outsource manufacturing and back-office jobs to low-cost countries. They could also rely on internet platforms like Google for marketing and Amazon Web Services for computing. The rise of AI could well accelerate the trend, as semi-autonomous agents provided by Silicon Valley enable firms to perform the same amount of work with fewer employees. Henrik Werdelin, who co-founded Audos, says that the rise of cloud computing helped him start several new businesses over the past 20 years or so with little more than the swipe of a credit card to get going. He describes AI as the next wave in that 'democratisation'. 'You don't need to code, you don't need to be able to use Photoshop, because you can get AI to help with that.' This, he hopes, will give rise to a flood of startups built by people like Ms Gwilliam with no background in technology but who have identified real problems to solve. Another evangelist is Karim Lakhani of Harvard Business School. It now offers a leadership course for executives in which they use generative AI to build a snack-food company in 90 minutes, using the technology to perform customer research, generate recipes, find suppliers and design packaging. In a recent paper, Mr Lakhani and his co-authors presented a field trial in which 776 professionals at Procter & Gamble, a consumer-goods company, were asked to address a real business need either individually or in two-person teams, with and without using generative-AI tools. It found that AI significantly boosted performance, helping individuals with AI match the performance of teams without it. AI proved to be more of a 'teammate' than a tool. With the era of free money over, founders are eager to find ways to keep costs down. Peter Walker of Carta, which helps startups manage equity ownership, says that founders used to boast about how many employees they had. 'Now it's a badge of honour to say, 'look how few people work for me'.' According to Carta's data, the median period it takes founders to hire their first employee after their startup incorporates has risen from less than six months in 2022 to more than nine months in 2024 (see chart). Base44, an AI-native coding startup, made headlines recently when it was sold to Wix, a web-development platform, for $80m. It had just eight employees. It is early days, of course. For one thing, AI agents are far from foolproof. In June Anthropic, an AI lab, revealed the results of an experiment in which its Claude Sonnet model operated a vending machine at the company's headquarters. The bot's goal was to avoid bankruptcy. It was good at identifying suppliers and adapting to user requests (including hunting for a tungsten cube mischievously requested by one employee). But it ignored lucrative opportunities, hallucinated, offered too many discounts and ultimately failed to make money. Other forces may also get in the way of an AI-infused surge in entrepreneurship. Despite the growth of the internet, social media, software-as-a-service and cloud computing over the past three decades, business formation in America was anaemic until the pandemic—the result in part of an ageing population. That demographic pressure will only intensify. For all the promise of generative AI, it poses problems for entrepreneurs, too. Annabelle Gawer of the University of Surrey notes that although the technology lowers barriers to entry for new businesses, it also makes it easier to quickly copy ideas. Unless a founder has unique expertise in their domain, that may make it harder to sustain a competitive advantage. Moreover, the provision of AI tools is dominated by tech giants and the labs they invest in, such as OpenAI, backed by Microsoft, and Anthropic, backed by Amazon and Google. Ms Gawer draws an analogy with the rise of cloud computing in the 2010s, which those three tech giants dominate. Although that infrastructure has made life easier for startups, it has also left them dependent on the cloud triumvirate, which has been able to capture a good share of the value these firms have generated. Last year the trio's net profits were equivalent to 7% of America's total, up from 2% a decade before. Another galling possibility is that the tech giants could pinch smaller companies' best ideas. For now, Ms Gwilliam of Solace is sanguine. What she calls 'first-mover disadvantage' could be 'a bummer', but it could also validate her idea. 'Maybe they'll come to me and say, 'We want Solace.' And then I'll be, like, 'Great, sold!'' Just like a typical entrepreneur, then.
Hans India
22 minutes ago
- Hans India
Sam Altman Voices Concern Over Emotional Bonds Between Users and ChatGPT
For a growing number of people, late-night confessions, moments of anxiety, and relationship dilemmas are no longer shared with friends or therapists — they're poured out to ChatGPT. In particular, the now-famous ChatGPT 4o has earned a reputation for its empathetic tone and comforting responses, becoming a 'digital confidant' for many. This trend, often referred to as voice journaling, involves users speaking to the chatbot as both recorder and responder, receiving validation, advice, and a listening ear at any hour. Online spaces like Reddit are filled with personal accounts of how people turn to the AI for relationship guidance, emotional support during stress, and even to process grief. Unlike human counselors, ChatGPT doesn't charge, interrupt, or grow impatient — a factor that has boosted its appeal. However, this growing intimacy between humans and AI is now making even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman uneasy. Speaking on a podcast with comedian Theo Von, Altman cautioned users against seeing ChatGPT as a therapist. 'People talk about the most personal shit in their lives to ChatGPT. People use it, young people, especially, as a therapist, a life coach; having these relationship problems and (asking) what should I do?' he said. His concerns aren't just about the quality of advice. Altman emphasized that, unlike real therapy, conversations with ChatGPT are not protected by doctor-patient or legal privilege. 'Right now, if you talk to a therapist or a lawyer or a doctor about those problems, there's legal privilege for it. And we haven't figured that out yet for when you talk to ChatGPT,' he explained. Deleted chats, he added, might still be retrievable for legal or security reasons. The caution is supported by research. A Stanford University study recently found that AI 'therapist' chatbots can misstep badly — reinforcing harmful stereotypes, missing signs of crisis, and sometimes encouraging unhealthy delusions. They also displayed bias toward conditions like schizophrenia and alcohol dependence, falling short of best clinical standards. When GPT-5 replaced GPT-4o for many users, the reaction was swift and emotional. Social media lit up with complaints from people who described losing not just a tool, but a friend — some even called GPT-4o their 'digital wife.' Altman admitted that retiring the older model was 'a mistake' and acknowledged that these emotional bonds were 'different and stronger' than past attachments to technology. Following user backlash, OpenAI allowed Plus subscribers to switch back to GPT-4o and doubled usage limits. But Altman remains concerned about the bigger picture: AI's ability to influence users in deeply personal ways, potentially shaping their thinking and emotional lives without oversight. As Altman summed up, 'No one had to think about that even a year ago, and now I think it's this huge issue.' For now, ChatGPT continues to exist in an unregulated grey zone — a place where comfort and risk intersect in ways society is only beginning to understand.
