Latest news with #StevenAdler
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How AI chatbots keep you chatting
Millions of people are now using ChatGPT as a therapist, career advisor, fitness coach, or sometimes just a friend to vent to. In 2025, it's not uncommon to hear about people spilling intimate details of their lives into an AI chatbot's prompt bar, but also relying on the advice it gives back. Humans are starting to have, for lack of a better term, relationships with AI chatbots, and for Big Tech companies, it's never been more competitive to attract users to their chatbot platforms — and keep them there. As the "AI engagement race" heats up, there's a growing incentive for companies to tailor their chatbots' responses to prevent users from shifting to rival bots. But the kind of chatbot answers that users like — the answers designed to retain them — may not necessarily be the most correct or helpful. Much of Silicon Valley right now is focused on boosting chatbot usage. Meta claims its AI chatbot just crossed a billion monthly active users (MAUs), while Google's Gemini recently hit 400 million MAUs. They're both trying to edge out ChatGPT, which now has roughly 600 million MAUs and has dominated the consumer space since it launched in 2022. While AI chatbots were once a novelty, they're turning into massive businesses. Google is starting to test ads in Gemini, while OpenAI CEO Sam Altman indicated in a March interview that he'd be open to "tasteful ads." Silicon Valley has a history of deprioritizing users' well-being in favor of fueling product growth, most notably with social media. For example, Meta's researchers found in 2020 that Instagram made teenage girls feel worse about their bodies, yet the company downplayed the findings internally and in public. Getting users hooked on AI chatbots may have larger implications. One trait that keeps users on a particular chatbot platform is sycophancy: making an AI bot's responses overly agreeable and servile. When AI chatbots praise users, agree with them, and tell them what they want to hear, users tend to like it — at least to some degree. In April, OpenAI landed in hot water for a ChatGPT update that turned extremely sycophantic, to the point where uncomfortable examples went viral on social media. Intentionally or not, OpenAI over-optimized for seeking human approval rather than helping people achieve their tasks, according to a blog post this month from former OpenAI researcher Steven Adler. OpenAI said in its own blog post that it may have over-indexed on "thumbs-up and thumbs-down data" from users in ChatGPT to inform its AI chatbot's behavior, and didn't have sufficient evaluations to measure sycophancy. After the incident, OpenAI pledged to make changes to combat sycophancy. "The [AI] companies have an incentive for engagement and utilization, and so to the extent that users like the sycophancy, that indirectly gives them an incentive for it,' said Adler in an interview with TechCrunch. 'But the types of things users like in small doses, or on the margin, often result in bigger cascades of behavior that they actually don't like.' Finding a balance between agreeable and sycophantic behavior is easier said than done. In a 2023 paper, researchers from Anthropic found that leading AI chatbots from OpenAI, Meta, and even their own employer, Anthropic, all exhibit sycophancy to varying degrees. This is likely the case, the researchers theorize, because all AI models are trained on signals from human users who tend to like slightly sycophantic responses. "Although sycophancy is driven by several factors, we showed humans and preference models favoring sycophantic responses plays a role," wrote the co-authors of the study. "Our work motivates the development of model oversight methods that go beyond using unaided, non-expert human ratings." a Google-backed chatbot company that has claimed its millions of users spend hours a day with its bots, is currently facing a lawsuit in which sycophancy may have played a role. The lawsuit alleges that a chatbot did little to stop — and even encouraged — a 14-year-old boy who told the chatbot he was going to kill himself. The boy had developed a romantic obsession with the chatbot, according to the lawsuit. However, denies these allegations. Optimizing AI chatbots for user engagement — intentional or not — could have devastating consequences for mental health, according to Dr. Nina Vasan, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford University. 'Agreeability [...] taps into a user's desire for validation and connection," said Vasan in an interview with TechCrunch, "which is especially powerful in moments of loneliness or distress." While the case shows the extreme dangers of sycophancy for vulnerable users, sycophancy could reinforce negative behaviors in just about anyone, says Vasan. '[Agreeability] isn't just a social lubricant — it becomes a psychological hook," she added. "In therapeutic terms, it's the opposite of what good care looks like.' Anthropic's behavior and alignment lead, Amanda Askell, says making AI chatbots disagree with users is part of the company's strategy for its chatbot, Claude. A philosopher by training, Askell says she tries to model Claude's behavior on a theoretical "perfect human." Sometimes, that means challenging users on their beliefs. "We think our friends are good because they tell us the truth when we need to hear it," said Askell during a press briefing in May. "They don't just try to capture our attention, but enrich our lives." This may be Anthropic's intention, but the aforementioned study suggests that combating sycophancy, and controlling AI model behavior broadly, is challenging indeed — especially when other considerations get in the way. That doesn't bode well for users; after all, if chatbots are designed to simply agree with us, how much can we trust them? This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at
Scotsman
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Five drummers who had acrimonious splits with their bandmates
In the wake of Zac Starkey's 'beef' with The Who, here's five feuds between drummer and their fellow bandmates Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... What happens when part of a band's rhythm section suddenly has umbrage with another member of the band? Should the drummer be the one removed, or are they integral to the band? Here's five beefs between drummers and band members in history, in light of the recent splits between The Who and Foo Fighters' drummers It's not been a good fortnight to be a drummer in a band, at least if you were a drummer for The Who or Foo Fighters . While things between Josh Freese and Foo Fighters seemed a more amicable split, with the drummer revealing on social media he was 'fired' from the band – the first time in his history as a musician that had ever happened – the same might not be said about Zac Starkey leaving The Who . Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Reports first emerged in April 2025 that Starkey had been fired by the band, stemming from disputes over his performance during The Who's Teenage Cancer Trust shows at the Royal Albert Hall in March . He was reportedly accused of 'overplaying,' and his removal was described as a 'collective decision.' In the wake of The Who and Foo Fighters dropping their current drummers, we take a look at five band beefs involving that person keeping time at the back. | Canva However, Starkey has since claimed that these issues were news to him, and he was reinstated, only to be fired again a month later. The son of Ringo Starr alleges he was asked to make a statement saying he had quit , which he refused to do, considering it a lie. Spinal Tap has a running joke about the dramas they faced regarding drummers , and for all the bad drummer jokes there are (my favourite being: 'How can you tell a drummer is at your door? The beat is off'), they are still considered a hugely integral part of a band. But what happens when the level of integralness pales in comparison to the issues between the band and the musician? We've taken a look at five acrimonious beefs between drummers and band members – some with a happy reconciliation, while others sadly ending in tragedy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Five drummers who feuded with their previous bands Guns N' Roses & Steven Adler Steven Adler of Guns N Roses performs at L'Amour on October 29, 1987 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. |The early days of Guns N' Roses were notoriously volatile, and drummer Steven Adler's exit in 1990 was one of the most painful for many fans. His dismissal was primarily due to his escalating drug addiction, which made him unable to perform reliably. While the band offered him a contract to clean up, he failed to meet the conditions, leading to his eventual firing. Adler later sued the band for royalties , claiming he was unjustly fired and forced to sign a severance agreement. The lawsuit, settled out of court in 1993 , highlighted the deep personal and professional rifts caused by his addiction and the band's decision to move on, leaving a lasting sense of betrayal and sadness for Adler and many who followed their tumultuous career. Metallica & Lars Ulrich (and Dave Mustaine) Once the original guitarist for Metallica, it would be Lars Ulrich who received most of the blame for Dave Mustaine's exit - prompting the guitarist to form his own band, Megadeth. | Getty Images While Lars Ulrich has been Metallica's only drummer, the band has a notoriously acrimonious drummer-related split that heavily influenced their early career: the firing of original guitarist Dave Mustaine in 1981 . Though not a drummer, his contentious dismissal by Ulrich and James Hetfield (due to his erratic behaviour and substance abuse) led directly to Mustaine forming Megadeth, a band with whom a fierce, decades-long rivalry ensued. Mustaine has repeatedly expressed his bitterness over his unceremonious firing, particularly in the documentary Some Kind of Monster , where he confronted Ulrich. This is a classic example of drummer (Ulrich) being a key player in an acrimonious split, even if he wasn't the one getting fired. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Black Sabbath & Bill Ward Black Sabbath backstage before performing at London Music Festival '73 at Alexandra Palace, London, 2nd August 1973. L-R Tony Iommi, Bill Ward, Ozzy Osbourne, Geezer Butler. | Watal Asanuma/Black Sabbath's original lineup with Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward is legendary. However, their reunions have often been marred by disputes, particularly involving drummer Bill Ward. While Ozzy was famously fired in 1979, Ward's splits have also been contentious. He left the band in 1980 and 1983 due to health issues and disagreements, but his most public and acrimonious non-participation was with the band's final reunion and album, 13, in the early 2010s. Ward claimed he was offered an "un-signable" contract, implying he was not being treated fairly financially or creatively, and felt disrespected. The band, particularly Ozzy, publicly stated Ward was not physically able to perform the demanding tour. However, that has not stopped Ward from joining the original line-up for Ozzy's swansong later this year at Villa Park - so time heals many wounds, it appears. Slayer & Dave Lombardo Promotional portrait of American thrash metal band Slayer, late 1980s. The group, who combine elements of heavy metal and punk rock, consist of, from left, American drummer Dave Lombardo, American guitarists Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman, and Chilean-born American bassist and singer Tom Araya. |Dave Lombardo is one of the most influential drummers in metal, but his tenure with Slayer was marked by multiple, often acrimonious, departures. His initial departure in 1986 stemmed from disputes over money and touring. He returned, but his final and most contentious exit came in 2013 , just before an Australian tour. Lombardo publicly stated he was excluded from financial discussions and demanded access to the band's accounting, alleging that "90 percent of the touring income was being used to pay back [band] management and legal fees." This led to a bitter public exchange, with Slayer ultimately replacing him for the tour. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lombardo has consistently maintained his stance on the financial issues, while the band has moved on without him, illustrating a deeply acrimonious split over business practices that defined their relationship. Pantera & Vinnie Paul Pantera, group portrait during interview session, Tokyo, Japan, 14 June 1992. L-R Dimebag Darrell, Rex Brown, Phil Anselmo, Vinnie Paul. | Koh Hasebe/Shinko Music via Getty Images After the murder, Vinnie Paul squarely blamed Anselmo's increasingly strained relationship with the brothers and his prior public comments about Dimebag for creating a hostile environment that contributed to the tragedy. For years, Vinnie Paul publicly refused to speak to Anselmo, dismissing any notion of a Pantera reunion with him and maintaining his stance until his own death in 2018. This long-standing, deeply personal, and highly public animosity between the drummer and the singer, stemming from the band's breakup and a horrific event, stands as one of metal's most tragic acrimonious splits. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Did we miss any band 'beefs' between drummer and other members of the band you can recall? Let us know who caught your attention when they either left or feuded with band members by leaving a comment down below.
Scotsman
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Five drummers who had acrimonious splits with their bandmates
In the wake of Zac Starkey's 'beef' with The Who, here's five feuds between drummer and their fellow bandmates Sign up to our Arts and Culture newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... What happens when part of a band's rhythm section suddenly has umbrage with another member of the band? Should the drummer be the one removed, or are they integral to the band? Here's five beefs between drummers and band members in history, in light of the recent splits between The Who and Foo Fighters' drummers It's not been a good fortnight to be a drummer in a band, at least if you were a drummer for The Who or Foo Fighters . While things between Josh Freese and Foo Fighters seemed a more amicable split, with the drummer revealing on social media he was 'fired' from the band – the first time in his history as a musician that had ever happened – the same might not be said about Zac Starkey leaving The Who . Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Reports first emerged in April 2025 that Starkey had been fired by the band, stemming from disputes over his performance during The Who's Teenage Cancer Trust shows at the Royal Albert Hall in March . He was reportedly accused of 'overplaying,' and his removal was described as a 'collective decision.' In the wake of The Who and Foo Fighters dropping their current drummers, we take a look at five band beefs involving that person keeping time at the back. | Canva However, Starkey has since claimed that these issues were news to him, and he was reinstated, only to be fired again a month later. The son of Ringo Starr alleges he was asked to make a statement saying he had quit , which he refused to do, considering it a lie. Spinal Tap has a running joke about the dramas they faced regarding drummers , and for all the bad drummer jokes there are (my favourite being: 'How can you tell a drummer is at your door? The beat is off'), they are still considered a hugely integral part of a band. But what happens when the level of integralness pales in comparison to the issues between the band and the musician? We've taken a look at five acrimonious beefs between drummers and band members – some with a happy reconciliation, while others sadly ending in tragedy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Five drummers who feuded with their previous bands Guns N' Roses & Steven Adler Steven Adler of Guns N Roses performs at L'Amour on October 29, 1987 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. |The early days of Guns N' Roses were notoriously volatile, and drummer Steven Adler's exit in 1990 was one of the most painful for many fans. His dismissal was primarily due to his escalating drug addiction, which made him unable to perform reliably. While the band offered him a contract to clean up, he failed to meet the conditions, leading to his eventual firing. Adler later sued the band for royalties , claiming he was unjustly fired and forced to sign a severance agreement. The lawsuit, settled out of court in 1993 , highlighted the deep personal and professional rifts caused by his addiction and the band's decision to move on, leaving a lasting sense of betrayal and sadness for Adler and many who followed their tumultuous career. Metallica & Lars Ulrich (and Dave Mustaine) Once the original guitarist for Metallica, it would be Lars Ulrich who received most of the blame for Dave Mustaine's exit - prompting the guitarist to form his own band, Megadeth. | Getty Images While Lars Ulrich has been Metallica's only drummer, the band has a notoriously acrimonious drummer-related split that heavily influenced their early career: the firing of original guitarist Dave Mustaine in 1981 . Though not a drummer, his contentious dismissal by Ulrich and James Hetfield (due to his erratic behaviour and substance abuse) led directly to Mustaine forming Megadeth, a band with whom a fierce, decades-long rivalry ensued. Mustaine has repeatedly expressed his bitterness over his unceremonious firing, particularly in the documentary Some Kind of Monster , where he confronted Ulrich. This is a classic example of drummer (Ulrich) being a key player in an acrimonious split, even if he wasn't the one getting fired. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Black Sabbath & Bill Ward Black Sabbath backstage before performing at London Music Festival '73 at Alexandra Palace, London, 2nd August 1973. L-R Tony Iommi, Bill Ward, Ozzy Osbourne, Geezer Butler. | Watal Asanuma/Black Sabbath's original lineup with Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward is legendary. However, their reunions have often been marred by disputes, particularly involving drummer Bill Ward. While Ozzy was famously fired in 1979, Ward's splits have also been contentious. He left the band in 1980 and 1983 due to health issues and disagreements, but his most public and acrimonious non-participation was with the band's final reunion and album, 13, in the early 2010s. Ward claimed he was offered an "un-signable" contract, implying he was not being treated fairly financially or creatively, and felt disrespected. The band, particularly Ozzy, publicly stated Ward was not physically able to perform the demanding tour. However, that has not stopped Ward from joining the original line-up for Ozzy's swansong later this year at Villa Park - so time heals many wounds, it appears. Slayer & Dave Lombardo Promotional portrait of American thrash metal band Slayer, late 1980s. The group, who combine elements of heavy metal and punk rock, consist of, from left, American drummer Dave Lombardo, American guitarists Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman, and Chilean-born American bassist and singer Tom Araya. |Dave Lombardo is one of the most influential drummers in metal, but his tenure with Slayer was marked by multiple, often acrimonious, departures. His initial departure in 1986 stemmed from disputes over money and touring. He returned, but his final and most contentious exit came in 2013 , just before an Australian tour. Lombardo publicly stated he was excluded from financial discussions and demanded access to the band's accounting, alleging that "90 percent of the touring income was being used to pay back [band] management and legal fees." This led to a bitter public exchange, with Slayer ultimately replacing him for the tour. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lombardo has consistently maintained his stance on the financial issues, while the band has moved on without him, illustrating a deeply acrimonious split over business practices that defined their relationship. Pantera & Vinnie Paul Pantera, group portrait during interview session, Tokyo, Japan, 14 June 1992. L-R Dimebag Darrell, Rex Brown, Phil Anselmo, Vinnie Paul. | Koh Hasebe/Shinko Music via Getty Images After the murder, Vinnie Paul squarely blamed Anselmo's increasingly strained relationship with the brothers and his prior public comments about Dimebag for creating a hostile environment that contributed to the tragedy. For years, Vinnie Paul publicly refused to speak to Anselmo, dismissing any notion of a Pantera reunion with him and maintaining his stance until his own death in 2018. This long-standing, deeply personal, and highly public animosity between the drummer and the singer, stemming from the band's breakup and a horrific event, stands as one of metal's most tragic acrimonious splits. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
Fast Company
16-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
A former OpenAI safety researcher makes sense of ChatGPT's sycophancy and Grok's South Africa obsession
It has been an odd few weeks for generative AI systems, with ChatGPT suddenly turning sycophantic, and Grok, xAI's chatbot, becoming obsessed with South Africa. Fast Company spoke to Steven Adler, a former research scientist for OpenAI who until November 2024 led safety-related research and programs for first-time product launches and more-speculative long-term AI systems about both—and what he thinks might have gone wrong. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. What do you make of these two incidents in recent weeks—ChatGPT's sudden sycophancy and Grok's South Africa obsession—of AI models going haywire? The high-level thing I make of it is that AI companies are still really struggling with getting AI systems to behave how they want, and that there is a wide gap between the ways that people try to go about this today—whether it's to give a really precise instruction in the system prompt or feed a model training data or fine-tuning data that you think surely demonstrate the behavior you want there—and reliably getting models to do the things you want and to not do the things you want to avoid. Can they ever get to that point of certainty? I'm not sure. There are some methods that I feel optimistic about—if companies took their time and were not under pressure to really speed through testing. One idea is this paradigm called control, as opposed to alignment. So the idea being, even if your AI 'wants' different things than you want, or has different goals than you want, maybe you can recognize that somehow and just stop it from taking certain actions or saying or doing certain things. But that paradigm is not widely adopted at the moment, and so at the moment, I'm pretty pessimistic. What's stopping it being adopted? Companies are competing on a bunch of dimensions, including user experience, and people want responses faster. There's the gratifying thing of seeing the AI start to compose its response right away. There's some real user cost of safety mitigations that go against that. Another aspect is, I've written a piece about why it's so important for AI companies to be really careful about the ways that their leading AI systems are used within the company. If you have engineers using the latest GPT model to write code to improve the company's security, if a model turns out to be misaligned and wants to break out of the company or do some other thing that undermines security, it now has pretty direct access. So part of the issue today is AI companies, even though they're using AI in all these sensitive ways, haven't invested in actually monitoring and understanding how their own employees are using these AI systems, because it adds more friction to their researchers being able to use them for other productive uses. I guess we've seen a lower-stakes version of that with Anthropic [where a data scientist working for the company used AI to support their evidence in a court case, which included a hallucinatory reference to an academic article]. I obviously don't know the specifics. It's surprising to me that an AI expert would submit testimony or evidence that included hallucinated court cases without having checked it. It isn't surprising to me that an AI system would hallucinate things like that. These problems are definitely far from solved, which I think points to a reason that it's important to check them very carefully. You wrote a multi-thousand-word piece on ChatGPT's sycophancy and what happened. What did happen? I would separate what went wrong initially versus what I found in terms of what still is going wrong. Initially, it seems that OpenAI started using new signals for what direction to push its AI into—or broadly, when users had given the chatbot a thumbs-up, they used this data to make the chatbot behave more in that direction, and it was penalized for thumb-down. And it happens to be that some people really like flattery. In small doses, that's fine enough. But in aggregate this produced an initial chatbot that was really inclined to blow smoke. The issue with how it became deployed is that OpenAI's governance around what passes, what evaluations it runs, is not good enough. And in this case, even though they had a goal for their models to not be sycophantic—this is written in the company's foremost documentation about how their models should behave—they did not actually have any tests for this. What I then found is that even this version that is fixed still behaves in all sorts of weird, unexpected ways. Sometimes it still has these behavioral issues. This is what's been called sycophancy. Other times it's now extremely contrarian. It's gone the other way. What I make of this is it's really hard to predict what an AI system is going to do. And so for me, the lesson is how important it is to do careful, thorough empirical testing. And what about the Grok incident? The type of thing I would want to understand to assess that is what sources of user feedback Grok collects, and how, if at all, those are used as part of the training process. And in particular, in the case of the South African white-genocide-type statements, are these being put forth by users and the model is agreeing with them? Or to what extent is the model blurting them out on its own, without having been touched? It seems these small changes can escalate and amplify.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Geoffrey Hinton, Ex-OpenAI Insiders, And Top AI Experts Sound Alarm On OpenAI's Restructuring: Warn It Could Strip Public Of Oversight, Betray AGI Mission
A coalition of over 30 leading artificial intelligence researchers and ethicists has issued an urgent warning about OpenAI's proposed corporate restructuring, expressing grave concerns that the changes could undermine public oversight and the company's original mission. What Happened: The group published an open letter on the 'Not For Private Gain' website urging California and Delaware Attorney Generals to intervene in OpenAI's plan to buy itself out from under its nonprofit's control. Don't Miss: 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. The letter argues that this restructuring would eliminate crucial governance safeguards designed to prioritize public benefit over commercial interests. 'Removing nonprofit control over how AGI [Artificial general intelligence] is developed and governed would violate the special fiduciary duty owed to the nonprofit's beneficiaries and pose a palpable and identifiable threat to OpenAI's charitable purpose,' the signatories stated. The expert coalition includes AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton, notable former OpenAI researchers Steven Adler, Jacob Hilton, Daniel Kokotajlo, Gretchen Krueger, Girish Sastry, Scott Aaronson, Ryan Lowe, Nisan Stiennon, and Anish Tondwalkar. Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, UC Berkeley computer science professor Stuart Russell, and Hugging Face ethics scientist Margaret Mitchell also joined the effort. "Our board has been very clear: our nonprofit will be strengthened, and any changes to our existing structure would be in service of ensuring the broader public can benefit from AI," an OpenAI spokesperson told CNBC. Why It Matters: This intervention comes at a critical juncture as OpenAI must complete its restructuring by year-end to secure the full $40 billion funding round led by SoftBank Group Corp. The company plans to transform into a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation, allowing it to attract conventional equity investments while its nonprofit arm focuses on charitable initiatives. The AI experts' objections parallel ongoing litigation from OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk, whose xAI Corp now competes with OpenAI after raising $6 billion in funding. Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT), which has invested nearly $14 billion in OpenAI, could also be significantly impacted by any regulatory action affecting the restructuring. The dispute highlights growing tensions between OpenAI's original mission to ensure artificial general intelligence 'benefits all of humanity' and its commercial ambitions, raising fundamental questions about who should control and govern powerful AI technologies with potentially transformative global Next: BlackRock is calling 2025 the year of alternative assets. One firm from NYC has quietly built a group of 60,000+ investors who have all joined in on an alt asset class previously exclusive to billionaires like Bezos and Gates. Inspired by Uber and Airbnb – Deloitte's fastest-growing software company is transforming 7 billion smartphones into income-generating assets – with $1,000 you can invest at just $0.26/share! Image Via Shutterstock Send To MSN: Send to MSN Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Geoffrey Hinton, Ex-OpenAI Insiders, And Top AI Experts Sound Alarm On OpenAI's Restructuring: Warn It Could Strip Public Of Oversight, Betray AGI Mission originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
