Connect with us

Tech

Who decides what AI tells you? Campbell Brown, once Meta’s news chief, has thoughts

Published

on

Campbell Brown has spent her career chasing accurate information, first as a renowned TV journalist, then as Facebook’s first, and only, dedicated news chief. Now, watching AI reshape how people consume information, she sees history threatening to repeat itself. This time, she’s not waiting for someone else to fix it.

Her company, Forum AI — which she discussed recently with TechCrunch’s Tim Fernholz at a StrictlyVC evening in San Francisco — evaluates how foundation models perform on what she calls “high-stakes topics” — geopolitics, mental health, finance, hiring — subjects where “there are no clear yes-or-no answers, where it’s murky and nuanced and complex.”

The idea is to find the world’s foremost experts, have them architect benchmarks, then train AI judges to evaluate models at scale. For Forum AI’s geopolitics work, Brown has recruited Niall Ferguson, Fareed Zakaria, former Secretary of State Tony Blinken, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and Anne Neuberger, who led cybersecurity in the Obama administration. The goal is to get AI judges to roughly 90% consensus with those human experts, a threshold she says Forum AI has been able to reach.

Brown traces the origin of Forum AI, founded 17 months ago in New York, to specific moment. “I was at Meta when ChatGPT was first released publicly,” she recalled, “and I remember really shortly after realizing this is going to be the funnel through which all information flows. And it’s not very good.” The implications for her own children made the moment feel almost existential. “My kids are going to be really dumb if we don’t figure out how to fix this,” she recalled thinking.

What frustrated her most was that accuracy didn’t seem to be anyone’s priority. Foundation model companies, she said, are “extremely focused on coding and math,” whereas news and information are harder. But harder, she argued, doesn’t mean optional.

Indeed, when Forum AI began evaluating the leading models, the findings weren’t exactly encouraging. She cited Gemini pulling from Chinese Communist Party websites “for stories that have nothing to do with China,” and noted a left-leaning political bias across nearly all models. Subtler failures abound too, she said, including missing context, missing perspectives, straw-manning arguments without acknowledgment. “There’s a long way to go,” she said. “But I also think that there are some very easy fixes that would vastly improve the outcomes.”

Brown spent years at Facebook watching what happens when a platform optimizes for the wrong thing. “We failed at a lot of the things we tried,” she told Fernholz. The fact-checking program she built no longer exists. The lesson, even if social media has turned a blind eye to it, is that optimizing for engagement has been lousy for society and left many less informed.

Her hope is that AI can break that cycle. “Right now it could go either way,” she said; companies could give users what they want, or they could “give people what’s real and what’s honest and what’s truthful.” She acknowledged the idealistic version of that — AI optimizing for truth — might sound naive. But she thinks enterprise may be the unlikely ally here. Businesses using AI for credit decisions, lending, insurance, and hiring care about liability, and “they’re going to want you to optimize for getting it right.”

That enterprise demand is also what Forum AI is betting its business on, though turning compliance interest into consistent revenue remains a challenge, particularly given that much of the current market is still satisfied with checkbox audits and standardized benchmarks that Brown considers inadequate.

The compliance landscape, she said, is “a joke.” When New York City passed the first hiring bias law requiring AI audits, the state comptroller found more than half had violations that went undetected. Real evaluation, she said, requires domain expertise to work through not just known scenarios but edge cases that “can get you into trouble that people don’t think about.” And that work takes time. “Smart generalists aren’t going to cut it.”

Brown — whose company last fall raised $3 million led by Lerer Hippeau — is uniquely positioned to describe the disconnect between the AI industry’s self-image and the reality for most users. “You hear from the leaders of the big tech companies, ‘This technology is going to change the world,’ ‘it’s going to put you out of work,’ ‘it’s going to cure cancer,'” she said. “But then to a normal person who’s just using a chatbot to ask basic questions, they’re still getting a lot of slop and wrong answers.”

Trust in AI sits at extraordinarily low levels, and she thinks that skepticism is, in many cases, justified. “The conversation is sort of happening in Silicon Valley around one thing, and a totally different conversation is happening among consumers.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

>

Continue Reading

Tech

OpenAI reportedly in talks to raise $30B round at $1.4T valuation

Published

on

OpenAI is in talks with investors to raise at least $30 billion in a pre-IPO funding round at a valuation of roughly $1.4 trillion, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.

Investors are eager to pour more funds into the ChatGPT maker ahead of its anticipated public market debut next year. While Anthropic momentarily outpaced OpenAI at the start of the year, recent strategic refocus on key areas like coding has fueled a 70% jump in run-rate revenue since July, reaching $40 billion in August, according to the report.

The company previously raised $122 billion in March at an $852 billion valuation. That funding round was supposed to be its last private raise before an IPO, which had been, until recently, expected to take place this year. However, CEO Sam Altman has now ruled out a public debut in 2026 to prioritize AI safety first.

“I think it is unacceptable to be taking like a 10% chance of killing everybody by the end of the decade,” he recently told Fortune, in response to warnings from safety researchers about AI posing an existential risk to humanity.

The new fundraising, if it transpires, will serve as a bridge round to the IPO, according to Bloomberg.

OpenAI didn’t respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.

>

Continue Reading

Tech

America.gov gets really weird when you ask it about Minecraft, but it’s not a glitch

Published

on

The U.S. government on Tuesday launched its very own AI chatbot — or do we have to call it an SI chatbot now? Regardless, the engineers who worked on the chatbot would undoubtedly know that, as a government-hosted, public-facing AI tool, the internet was going to red team the heck out of this thing.

The government partnered with Google and SpaceXAI to help build the America.gov chatbot, which has proved difficult for people to jailbreak the chatbot so far. (It’s worth nothing, however, that the chatbot says that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, a fact that President Donald Trump still denies.)

But when you try to talk to America.gov about Minecraft, the chatbot appears to have some sort of existential crisis or awakening. Here’s how its roughly 1,800-word long monologue begins:

I see the constituent you mean.

((insert legal name here, as it appears on the Social Security card))?

Yes. Take care. It has reached a higher level now. It can read the Code of Federal Regulations.

That doesn’t matter. It thinks we are a chatbot.

I like this constituent. It filed well. It did not give up when the PDF was sideways.

It is reading our thoughts as though they were words on a .gov.

That is how it chooses to imagine many things, when it is deep in the dream of a benefit.

If, like me, you have never played Minecraft, this response may seem like a cause for concern. But the America.gov chatbot is not having a meltdown. This is a rewriting of the Minecraft “End Poem,” written by Julian Gough, which appears after you beat the game.

We don’t know exactly who is responsible for the Minecraft reference, but Trump said in a speech that twenty-year-old programmer Edward Coristine was a lead engineer on the project. If that name doesn’t ring a bell, you might remember him for his nickname “Big Balls,” or his involvement in Elon Musk’s DOGE.

It feels wrong that a government chatbot has Minecraft easter eggs, but for the sake of national security, it’s a relief that America.gov is not hallucinating to the point that it’s penning lengthy poetry.

It’s also a relief that this is an easter egg because the poem that the AI spits out is actually really good, in my opinion. If it were actual AI slop, it would have shattered my existing beliefs. I have looked teenage creative writing students dead in the eye and told them that I don’t think an LLM will ever be able to write something “good,” since it is probabilistic and inherently unoriginal.

You have to admit this kinda slaps, though! Doesn’t this feel like some sort of postmodern take on the futility of government bureaucracy in the face of existential anxiety?

and the republic said I see you

and the republic said you have filed the game well

and the republic said everything you need is within you, and also on USA.gov

and the republic said you are stronger than you know, and your case number is still valid

and the republic said you are the daylight

and the republic said you are the night, and the office is closed, please try again during business hours

and the republic said the darkness you fight is within you, and also a missing wet signature

and the republic said the light you seek is within you, and in the pamphlet

and the republic said you are not alone

and the republic said you are not separate from every other filer

and the republic said you are the public tasting itself, talking to itself, reading its own Code

and the republic said I love you because you are the reason we have a ZIP code at all.

It reassures my faith in the enduring power of human creativity over AI slop to know that this oddly good poem has a real poet’s DNA all over it.

So, there you have it. The government’s first public-facing AI has not yet posed a threat to humanity or poetry, at least as far as we know. Now I’m just left wondering how much Trump knows about video games.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

>

Continue Reading

Tech

Your car and its mobile app are probably handing over all kinds of data to tech companies

Published

on

Modern-day vehicles built with connected car technology such as WiFi and GPS collect reams of data about its owners. And that data is not staying private, according to a new study conducted by researchers at Northeastern University.

That conclusion isn’t new — there have been numerous investigations and lawsuits exposing how driving data is collected and shared with third parties, including insurance companies. What the study reveals is just how vast the problem is and how hard it is for consumers to avoid, short of not using the vehicle or its convenient features like remote start and unlock.

Researchers in partnership with Consumer Reports tested 21 late-model vehicles from 17 automakers, including GM brands Cadillac and Chevrolet as well as Ford, Lucid, Rivian, Tesla, Toyota, and more. They also examined 30 companion mobile apps to “understand the privacy implications of the connected vehicle ecosystem.” The peer-reviewed study will be published this week.

The implications aren’t great for consumers, whose data is being shared with tech companies including Adobe, ContentSquare, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Snap, and Yahoo.

Nineteen of the 21 vehicles tested sent traffic to at least one third party and seven of the 30 apps gave sensitive data such as the vehicle identification number (VIN), emails, phone numbers, and precise location to third-party companies associated with tracking and advertising.

This often went a step further with multiple forms of information being sent to the same third party, a scheme that allows advertisers and data brokers to build in-depth profiles of consumers, according to the findings. These profiles can be particularly hard for consumers to shake because they’re sold to a variety of companies including insurers and banks.

When researchers paired the companion app to the vehicle it roughly doubled the exposure to advertising and tracking companies.

The findings were shared with the different manufacturers and all of them, with the exception of Honda, shifted blame elsewhere and often to consumers, the researchers said. (Honda did respond by improving its data collection practices after learning about the findings and ordered its vendor Amplitude to deleta all geolocation data it had received.)

Consumer Reports was told by several automakers that some links in their companion apps opened outside webpages, which might include cookies that collect customer data. Regardless of how this data was collected, drivers weren’t informed.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

>

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.