OpenAI tightens the screws on security to keep away prying eyes
OpenAI has reportedly overhauled its security operations to protect against corporate espionage. According to the Financial Times, the company accelerated an existing security clampdown after Chinese startup DeepSeek released a competing model in January, with OpenAI alleging that DeepSeek improperly copied its models using 'distillation' techniques.
The beefed-up security includes 'information tenting' policies that limit staff access to sensitive algorithms and new products. For example, during development of OpenAI's o1 model, only verified team members who had been read into the project could discuss it in shared office spaces, according to the FT.
And there's more. OpenAI now isolates proprietary technology in offline computer systems, implements biometric access controls for office areas (it scans employees' fingerprints), and maintains a 'deny-by-default' internet policy requiring explicit approval for external connections, per the report, which further adds that the company has increased physical security at data centers and expanded its cybersecurity personnel.
The changes are said to reflect broader concerns about foreign adversaries attempting to steal OpenAI's intellectual property, though given the ongoing poaching wars amid American AI companies and increasingly frequent leaks of CEO Sam Altman's comments, OpenAI may be attempting to address internal security issues, too.
We've reached out to OpenAI for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Citi Shares Climb to Highest Since 2008 on Stock Buyback Plan
Citigroup Inc. shares rose to the highest level since 2008 after the bank said it would ramp up stock buybacks following a strong result in regulatory stress tests. The bank plans to repurchase at least $4 billion of shares this quarter, Chief Financial Officer Mark Mason said Tuesday on a call with analysts. That's more than the $3.75 billion the firm bought back in the entire first half of the year, and the plans helped push the stock briefly past $90 for the first time since the financial crisis.
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Shares Promising Avexitide Data for Post-Bariatric Hypoglycemia at ENDO 2025, Phase 3 Enrollment Nears Completion
Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:AMLX) is one of the best low priced pharma stocks to buy now. On July 13, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals announced new exploratory analyses from its Phase 2 PREVENT and Phase 2b clinical trials of avexitide for post-bariatric hypoglycemia/PBH at the Endocrine Society's annual meeting (ENDO 2025). Avexitide is an investigational, first-in-class glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor antagonist and has received FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation for PBH. PBH is a complication that can arise after bariatric surgery, such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A medical scientist in a lab coat gazing at a microscopic view of a drug in development. There are currently no FDA-approved treatments for PBH. Avexitide works by binding to the GLP-1 receptor on pancreatic islet beta cells, blocking the effect of excessive GLP-1 and thus mitigating hypoglycemia by decreasing insulin secretion and stabilizing glucose levels. Avexitide has generally been well-tolerated with a favorable safety profile across all trials. Amylyx expects to complete recruitment for the LUCIDITY trial this year, with topline data anticipated in H1 2026. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:AMLX) is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company that discovers and develops treatment options for neurodegenerative diseases and endocrine conditions in the US. While we acknowledge the potential of AMLX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
AI Hiring Favors Women Over Equally Qualified Men, Study Finds
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As artificial intelligence takes on a bigger role in corporate hiring — with many companies touting its impartiality — one researcher's findings suggest the technology may be more biased than humans, and is alread favoring women over equally qualified men. David Rozado, an associate professor at the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology and a well-known AI researcher, tested 22 large language models (LLMs)—including popular, consumer-facing apps like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok—using pairs of identical résumés that differed only by gendered names. His findings revealed that every single LLM was more likely to select the female-named candidate over the equally qualified male candidate. "This pattern may reflect complex interactions between model pre-training corpora, annotation processes during preference tuning, or even system-level guardrails for production deployments," Rozado told Newsweek. "But the exact source of the behavior is currently unclear." A Problem With Men? Rozado's findings reveal not just that AI models tend to favor women for jobs over men, but also how nuanced and pervasive those biases can be. Across more than 30,000 simulated hiring decisions, female-named candidates were chosen 56.9 percent of the time — a statistically significant deviation from gender neutrality, which would have resulted in a 50–50 split. When an explicit gender field was added to a CV — a practice common in countries like Germany and Japan — the preference for women became even stronger. Rozado warned that although the disparities were relatively modest, they could accumulate over time and unfairly disadvantage male candidates. "These tendencies persisted regardless of model size or the amount of compute leveraged," Rozado noted. "This strongly suggests that model bias in the context of hiring decisions is not determined by the size of the model or the amount of 'reasoning' employed. The problem is systemic." The models also exhibited other quirks. Many showed a slight preference for candidates who included preferred pronouns. Adding terms such as "she/her" or "he/him" to a CV slightly increased a candidate's chances of being selected. "My experimental design ensured that candidate qualifications were distributed equally across genders, so ideally, there would be no systematic difference in selection rates. However, the results indicate that LLMs may sometimes make hiring decisions based on factors unrelated to candidate qualifications, such as gender or the position of the candidates in the prompt," he said. Rozado, who is also a regular collaborator with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, emphasized that the biggest takeaway is that LLMs, like human decision-makers, can sometimes rely on irrelevant features when the task is overdetermined and/or underdetermined. "Over many decisions, even small disparities can accumulate and impact the overall fairness of a process," he said. However, Rozado also acknowledged a key limitation of his study: it used synthetic CVs and job descriptions rather than real-world applications, which may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of authentic résumés. Additionally, because all CVs were closely matched in qualifications to isolate gender effects, the findings may not reflect how AI behaves when candidates' skills vary more widely. "It is important to interpret these results carefully. The intention is not to overstate the magnitude of harm, but rather to highlight the need for careful evaluation and mitigation of any bias in automated decision tools," Rozado added. AI Is Already Reshaping the Hiring Process Even as researchers debate the biases in AI systems, many employers have already embraced the technology to streamline hiring. A New York Times report this month described how AI-powered interviewer bots now speak directly with candidates, asking questions and even simulating human pauses and filler words. Jennifer Dunn, a marketing professional in San Antonio, said her AI interview with a chatbot named Alex "felt hollow" and she ended it early. "It isn't something that feels real to me," she told the Times. Another applicant, Emily Robertson-Yeingst, wondered if her AI interview was just being used to train the underlying LLM: "It starts to make you wonder, was I just some sort of experiment?" Job seekers attends the South Florida Job Fair held at the Amerant Bank Arena on June 26, 2024 in Sunrise, Florida. More than 50 companies set up booths to recruit people from entry-level to... Job seekers attends the South Florida Job Fair held at the Amerant Bank Arena on June 26, 2024 in Sunrise, Florida. More than 50 companies set up booths to recruit people from entry-level to management. Open jobs include police officers, food service, security, sales reps, technicians, customer service, IT, teacher assistants, insurance agents, and account executives. More Photo byStill, some organizations defend the use of AI recruiters as both efficient and scalable, especially in a world where the ease of online job-searching means open positions often field hundreds if not thousands of applicants. Propel Impact told the Times their AI interviews enabled them to screen 500 applicants this year — more than triple what they managed previously. Rozado, however, warned that the very features companies find appealing — speed and efficiency — can mask underlying vulnerabilities. "Over many decisions, even small disparities can accumulate and impact the overall fairness of a process," he said. "Similarly, the finding that being listed first in the prompt increases the likelihood of selection underscores the importance of not trusting AI blindly." More Research Needed Not all research points to the same gender dynamic Rozado identified. A Brookings Institution study this year found that, in some tests, men were actually favored over women in 51.9 percent of cases, while racial bias strongly favored white-associated names over Black-associated names. Brookings' analysis stressed that intersectional identities, such as being both Black and male, often led to the greatest disadvantages. Rozado and the Brookings team agree, however, that AI hiring systems are not ready to operate autonomously in high-stakes situations. Both recommend robust audits, transparency, and clear regulatory standards to minimize unintended discrimination. "Given current evidence of bias and unpredictability, I believe LLMs should not be used in high-stakes contexts like hiring, unless their outputs have been rigorously evaluated for fairness and reliability," Rozado said. "It is essential that organizations validate and audit AI tools carefully, particularly for applications with significant real-world impact."
