OpenAI Math Result Stokes Data-Sharing Concerns

In case you missed it: we got an eye-catching X post on Tuesday night from Evan Hubinger, a leader of Anthropic's alignment efforts. Responding to the resignation announcement of an Anthropic employee who warned that AI companies aren’t doing enough to ensure AI won't kill humanity, Hubinger wrote that the employee is “correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.” Hubinger added that he was worried about future AI models, not those currently available, but still, yikes!

Meanwhile, our colleague Jyoti sizes up the significance of Meta’s new personal AI agent, Muse, unveiled on Tuesday. That’s below. But before we get to that:

This may go down as the year the AI industry got a crash course in mathematics. Breakthroughs in AI models have yielded announcements on such arcane subjects as the “Erdős unit distance problem” and the “Jacobian Conjecture,” which observers have watched as an indicator of AI progress in other domains.

The latest announcement, OpenAI's claim on Tuesday that it had solved the vexing “Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem,” has drawn attention for another reason: questions over whether its math-genius models may have gained an edge by incorporating data from two human mathematicians that had used OpenAI's Codex in their work on the same problem. Those questions fed into concerns about the possibility of AI companies learning from customers’ use of their AI models to develop competing products.