logo
AI industry ‘timelines' to human-like AGI are getting shorter. But AI safety is getting increasingly short shrift

AI industry ‘timelines' to human-like AGI are getting shorter. But AI safety is getting increasingly short shrift

Yahoo15-04-2025

Hello and welcome to Eye on AI. In this edition…AGI timelines are getting shorter but so is the amount of attention AI labs seem to be paying to AI safety…Venture capital enthusiasm for OpenAI alums' startups shows no sign of waning….A way to trace LLM outputs back to their source…and the military looks to LLMs for decision support, alarming humanitarian groups.'Timelines' is a short-hand term AI researchers use to describe how soon they think we'll achieve artificial general intelligence, or AGI. While its definition is contentious, AGI is basically an AI model that performs as well as or better than humans at most tasks. Many people's timelines are getting alarmingly short. Former OpenAI policy researcher Daniel Kokotajlo and a group of forecasters with excellent track records have gotten a lot of attention for authoring a detailed scenario, called AI 2027, that suggests AGI will be achieved in, you guessed it, 2027. They argue this will lead to a sudden 'intelligence explosion' as AI systems begin building and refining themselves, rapidly leading to superintelligent AI.
Dario Amodei, the cofounder and CEO of AI company Anthropic, thinks we'll hit AGI by 2027 too. Meanwhile, OpenAI cofounder and CEO Sam Altman is cagey, trying hard not to be pinned down on a precise year, but he's said his company 'knows how to build AGI'—it is just a matter of executing—and that 'systems that start to point to AGI are coming into view.' Demis Hassabis, the Google DeepMind cofounder and CEO, has a slightly longer timeline—five to 10 years—but researchers at his company just published a report saying it's 'plausible' AGI will be developed by 2030.
The implications of short timelines for policy are profound. For one thing, if AGI really is coming in two to five years, it gives all of us—companies, society, and governments—precious little time to prepare. While I have previously predicted AI won't lead to mass unemployment, my view is predicated on the idea that AGI will not be achieved in the next five years. If AGI does arrive sooner, it could indeed lead to large job losses as many organizations would be tempted to automate roles, and two years is not enough time to allow people to transition to new ones.
Another implication of short timelines is that AI safety and security ought to become more important. (The Google DeepMind researchers, in their latest AI safety paper, said AGI could lead to severe consequences, including the 'permanent end of humanity.')
Jack Clark, a cofounder at Anthropic who heads its policy team, wrote in his personal newsletter, Import AI, a few weeks ago that short timelines called for 'more extreme' policy actions. These, he wrote, would include increased security at leading AI labs, mandatory pre-deployment safety testing by third-parties (moving away from the current voluntary system), and spending more time talking about—and maybe even demonstrating—dangerous misuses of advanced AI models in order to convince policymakers to take stronger regulatory action.
But, contrary to Clark's position, even as timelines have shortened, many AI companies seem to be paying less, not more, attention to AI safety. For instance, last week, my Fortune colleague Bea Nolan and I reported that Google released its latest Gemini 2.5 Pro model without a key safety report, in apparent violation of commitments the company had made to the U.S. government in 2023 and at various international AI safety summits. And Google is not alone—OpenAI also released its DeepResearch model without the safety report, called a 'system card,' publishing one only months later. The Financial Times also reported this week that OpenAI has been slashing the time it allows both internal and third-party safety evaluators to test its models before release, in some cases giving testers just a few days for evaluations that had previously been allotted weeks or months to be completed. Meanwhile, AI safety experts criticized Meta for publishing a system card for its new Llama 4 model family that provided only barebones information on the models' potential risks.
The reason safety is getting short shrift is clear: Competition between AI companies is intense and those companies perceive safety testing as an impediment to speeding new models to market. The closer AGI appears to be, the more bitterly fought the race to get there first will be.
In economic terms, this is a market failure—the commercial incentives of private actors encourage them to do things that are bad for the collective whole. Normally, when there are market failures, it would be reasonable to expect the government to step in. But in this case, geopolitics gets in the way. The U.S. sees AGI as a strategic technology that it wants to obtain before any rival, particularly China. So it is unlikely to do anything that might slow the progress of the U.S. AI labs—even a little bit. (It doesn't help that AI lab CEOs such as Altman—who once went before Congress and endorsed the idea of government regulation, including possible licensing requirements for leading AI labs, but now says he thinks AI companies can self-regulate on AI safety—are lobbying the government to eschew any legal requirements.)
Of course, having unsafe, uncontrollable AI would be in neither Washington nor Beijing's interest. So there might be scope for an international treaty. But given the lack of trust between the Trump administration and Xi Jinping, that seems unlikely. It is possible President Trump may yet come around on AI regulation—if there's a populist outcry over AI-induced job losses or a series of damaging, but not catastrophic, AI-involved disasters. Otherwise, I guess we just have to hope the AI companies' timelines are wrong.
With that, here's the rest of this week's AI news.
Jeremy Kahnjeremy.kahn@fortune.com@jeremyakahn
Before we get to the news, if you're interested in learning more about how AI will impact your business, the economy, and our societies (and given that you're reading this newsletter, you probably are), please consider joining me at the Fortune Brainstorm AI London 2025 conference. The conference is being held May 6–7 at the Rosewood Hotel in London. Confirmed speakers include Mastercard chief product officer Jorn Lambert, eBay chief AI officer Nitzan Mekel, Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire, noted tech analyst Benedict Evans, and many more. I'll be there, of course. I hope to see you there too. You can apply to attend here.
And if I miss you in London, why not consider joining me in Singapore on July 22–23 for Fortune Brainstorm AI Singapore. You can learn more about that event here.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Can we trust ChatGPT despite it 'hallucinating' answers?
Can we trust ChatGPT despite it 'hallucinating' answers?

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Can we trust ChatGPT despite it 'hallucinating' answers?

I don't really want you to read this copy. Well I do - but first I want you to search out the interview I did with ChatGPT about its own propensity to lie, attached to this article, and watch that first. Because it's impossible to imagine what we're up against if you haven't seen it first hand. An incredibly powerful technology on the cusp of changing our lives - but programmed to simulate human emotions. Empathy, emotional understanding, and a desire to please are all qualities programmed into AI and invariably drive the way we think about them and the way we interact with them. Yet can we trust them? On Friday, Sky News revealed how it was fabricating entire transcripts of a podcast, Politics at Sam and Anne's, that I do. When challenged, it doubles down, gets shirty. And only under sustained pressure does it cave in. The research says it's getting worse. Internal tests by ChatGPT's owner OpenAI have found that the most recent models or versions that are used by ChatGPT are more likely to "hallucinate" - come up with answers that are simply untrue. The o3 model was found to hallucinate in 33% of answers to questions when tested on publicly available facts; the o4-mini version did worse, generating false, incorrect or imaginary information 48% of the time. ChatGPT itself says that the shift to GPT-4o "may have unintentionally increased what users perceive as 'bluffing'" - confidently giving wrong or misleading answers without admitting uncertainty or error. In a written query, ChatGPT gave four reasons. This is its explanation: 1. Increased fluency and confidence: GPT-4o is better at sounding human and natural. That polish can make mistakes seem more like deliberate evasions than innocent errors - even when there's no intent to "hide" anything. 2. Smarter, but not omniscient: The model is faster and more responsive, but still has blind spots. When it doesn't know something, it sometimes "hallucinates" (makes things up) with fluent language, which can feel like bluffing. 3. Less interruption and hedging: In older models, you'd often see more qualifiers like "I'm not sure" or "I may be wrong." In GPT-4o, some of that hedging was toned down for clarity and readability - but that can come at the cost of transparency about uncertainty. 4. Prompt tuning and training balance: Behind the scenes, prompt engineering and tuning decisions can shift the model's balance between confidence, humility, and accuracy. It's possible the newer tuning has dialled up assertiveness slightly too far. But can we trust even this? I don't know. What I do know is that the efforts of developers to make it all feel more human suggest they want us to. Critics say we are anthropomorphising AI by saying it lies since it has no consciousness - yet the developers are trying to make it sound more like one of us. Read more from Sky News:Man chased on tarmac at Heathrow AirportSoldier arrested on suspicion of raping woman What I do know is that even when pressed on this subject by me, it is still evasive. I interviewed ChatGPT about lying - it initially claimed things were getting better, and only admitted they are worse when I insisted it look at the stats. Watch that before you decide what you think. AI is a tremendous tool - but it's too early to take it on trust.

College Grads Are Lab Rats in the Great AI Experiment
College Grads Are Lab Rats in the Great AI Experiment

Bloomberg

time3 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

College Grads Are Lab Rats in the Great AI Experiment

Companies are eliminating the grunt work that used to train young professionals — and they don't seem to have a clear plan for what comes next. AI is analyzing documents, writing briefing notes, creating Power Point presentations or handling customer service queries, and — surprise! — now the younger humans who normally do that work are struggling to find jobs. Recently, the chief executive officer of AI firm Anthropic predicted AI would wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs. The reason is simple. Companies are often advised to treat ChatGPT 'like an intern,' and some are doing so at the expense of human interns.

Meta Looks to Expand AI Development by Investing in Scale AI
Meta Looks to Expand AI Development by Investing in Scale AI

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Meta Looks to Expand AI Development by Investing in Scale AI

This story was originally published on Social Media Today. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Social Media Today newsletter. Meta's reportedly looking to expand its AI infrastructure even further, by investing in AI startup Scale AI, which specializes in data labeling to facilitate AI model expansion. According to Bloomberg, Meta is in advanced talks to potentially invest up to $10 billion into the company, which Meta already works with as part of its expanded AI development. Originally founded in 2016, Scale AI has become a key provider of qualified data, which can help to improve AI system training significantly. Scale AI ensures that data sources are accurately labeled and annotated, essentially making sense of data input streams in order to improve the training process. According to research, this can significantly reduce AI training time, by feeding more valuable data sources to AI companies, reducing manual load on their part. And as noted, Scale AI already works with several major AI projects, including OpenAI and Meta, to assist in their current AI training process. Meta previously invested $1 billion in Scale's Series F funding round. An expanded partnership could give Zuck and Co. a significant advantage, by ensuring that it has exclusive access to Scale's evolving data classification tools, which could help to improve Meta's AI models significantly. This comes as Meta is also working to grow its data processing capacity, with the development of a 2 gigawatt data center, among various major infrastructure elements. Meta's also currently holds around 350,000 Nvidia H100 chips, which power its AI projects (both OpenAI and xAI have around 300k H100s), while it's also developing its own hardware for expanded AI development. Essentially, Meta's pushing hard to become the leader in the global AI race. And with expanded investment in key infrastructure tools like Scale AI, it's well on the way to leading the market on potential AI development. That could have major implications for Facebook, Instagram, and Meta's broader AI tools, including in VR environments and in wearables, moving forward.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store