\n<\/p>\n
Keeping up with an industry as fast-moving as\u00a0AI<\/a>\u00a0is a tall order. So until an AI can do it for you, here\u2019s a handy roundup of recent stories in the world of machine learning, along with notable research and experiments we didn\u2019t cover on their own.<\/p>\n By the way, TechCrunch plans to launch an AI newsletter on June 5.\u00a0Stay tuned<\/a>. In the meantime, we\u2019re upping the cadence of our semiregular AI column, which was previously twice a month (or so), to weekly \u2014 so be on the lookout for more editions.<\/p>\n This week in AI, OpenAI launched discounted plans for nonprofits and education customers and drew back the curtains on its most recent efforts to stop bad actors from abusing its AI tools. There\u2019s not much to criticize, there \u2014 at least not in this writer\u2019s opinion. But I will<\/em> say that the deluge of announcements seemed timed to counter the company\u2019s bad press as of late. <\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with Scarlett Johansson. OpenAI removed one of the voices<\/a> used by its AI-powered chatbot ChatGPT after users pointed out that it sounded eerily similar to Johansson\u2019s. Johansson later released a statement saying that she hired legal counsel to inquire about the voice and get exact details about how it was developed \u2014 and that she\u2019d refused repeated entreaties from OpenAI to license her voice for ChatGPT. <\/p>\n Now, a piece in The Washington Post<\/a> implies that OpenAI didn\u2019t in fact seek to clone Johansson\u2019s voice and that any similarities were accidental. But why, then, did OpenAI CEO Sam Altman reach out to Johansson and urge her to reconsider two days before a splashy demo that featured the soundalike voice? It\u2019s a tad suspect.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s OpenAI\u2019s trust and safety issues. <\/p>\n As we reported earlier in the month<\/a>, OpenAI\u2019s since-dissolved\u00a0Superalignment team<\/a>, responsible for developing ways to govern and steer \u201csuperintelligent\u201d AI systems, was promised 20% of the company\u2019s compute resources \u2014 but only ever (and rarely) received a fraction of this.\u00a0That (among other reasons) led to the resignation of the teams\u2019 two co-leads, Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever, formerly OpenAI\u2019s chief scientist.<\/p>\n Nearly a dozen safety experts have left OpenAI<\/a> in the past year; several, including Leike, have publicly voiced concerns that the company is prioritizing commercial projects over safety and transparency efforts. In response to the criticism, OpenAI formed a new committee<\/a> to oversee safety and security decisions related to the company\u2019s projects and operations. But it staffed the committee with company insiders \u2014 including Altman \u2014 rather than outside observers. This as OpenAI reportedly considers ditching<\/a> its nonprofit structure in favor of a traditional for-profit model.<\/p>\n Incidents like these make it harder to trust OpenAI, a company whose power and influence grows daily (see: its deals with news publishers). Few corporations, if any, are worthy of trust. But OpenAI\u2019s market-disrupting technologies make the violations all the more troubling. <\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t help matters that Altman himself isn\u2019t exactly a beacon of truthfulness.<\/p>\n When news of OpenAI\u2019s aggressive tactics toward former employees<\/a> broke \u2014 tactics that entailed threatening employees with the loss of their vested equity, or the prevention of equity sales, if they didn\u2019t sign restrictive nondisclosure agreements \u2014 Altman apologized and claimed he had no knowledge of the policies. But, according to Vox<\/a>, Altman\u2019s signature is on the incorporation documents that enacted the policies. <\/p>\n And if former OpenAI board member Helen Toner<\/a> is to be believed \u2014 one of the ex-board members who attempted to remove Altman from his post late last year \u2014 Altman has withheld information, misrepresented things that were happening at OpenAI and in some cases outright lied to the board. Toner says that the board learned of the release of ChatGPT through Twitter, not from Altman; that Altman gave wrong information about OpenAI\u2019s formal safety practices; and that Altman, displeased with an academic paper Toner co-authored that cast a critical light on OpenAI, tried to manipulate board members to push Toner off the board. <\/p>\n None of it bodes well.<\/p>\n Here are some other AI stories of note from the past few days:<\/p>\n\n