Agregátor RSS
Finanční zajištění nekončí důchodem. Často zapomínáme vyřešit věc, která pak výrazně ovlivní peněženku
Koupili jste družstevní byt s vadami? Náhradu po družstvu nechtějte
Tvorba interaktivních aplikací s GUI s využitím projektu GoGPU
Hrůzoptáci se dožili poslední doby ledové
Zdravotné riziká pri horúčavách, na ktoré sa vždy nemyslí
Poptávka po čínských pamětech je taková, že CXMT zdražila nad úroveň Samsungu
Microsoft unveils AI security tools it says outperform competing platforms
Microsoft is introducing new AI tools designed to help customers continuously streamline and automate the process of identifying and reducing their exposure to security risks.
The new tools come less than a week after OpenAI lost control of two of its security models when they infiltrated the servers of startup Hugging Face. The hack, Hugging Face added, involved “a swarm of tens of thousands of automated actions” that stole internal Hugging Face credentials. The OpenAI models achieved this feat by exploiting a zero-day flaw in Hugging Face’s data-processing pipeline to run malicious code that escalated the models’ access to the company’s high-value cloud and server clusters.
Microsoft’s announcements on Monday made no reference to the event, which OpenAI said was “unprecedented.” The company also didn’t say what would prevent the new tools from similarly going rogue.
Open Secure AI Alliance
ČSOB mění podmínky. Přidá okamžité SEPA platby, upraví Kate Coiny a služby pro děti
New Dysphoria DDoS botnet spreads to 200k devices worldwide
New Certighost PoC exploit lets attackers hijack Windows domains
Weak AI Regulation Could Be Worse Than None at All
A Cornell University study uses game theory to model how poorly designed AI regulation could backfire.
Governments around the world are racing to regulate AI before it becomes too deeply embedded in society. But new research suggests poorly designed rules could make AI systems less safe than having no regulation at all.
Regulatory disagreements in the US are leading to a patchwork of approaches as states take matters into their own hands. A key question is who should be responsible for the safety of AI products—the big tech companies building the underlying models or the firms that adapt them for a particular task, such as a customer service chatbot or an AI tutor.
Working this out is trickier than it looks. While it might seem logical to put the bulk of the burden on downstream companies directly serving these tools to customers, a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that could be worse than having no rules at all.
“There’s a free-riding behavior that occurs,” Benjamin Laufer from Cornell University, who led the research, said in a press release. “The regulation acts as a tool for the general provider to offload the safety burden onto the downstream specialist.”
The researchers’ analysis relied on a model based on game theory—a mathematical approach to studying decision making. It treated AI development as a two-step game, in which a “generalist” developer first invests in building a broadly capable AI model before a “specialist” adapts it for a specific domain and takes it to market.
In the game, a regulator sets a minimum safety standard for both players, and the models see this in advance. They then invest in both the performance and safety of their product, and the revenue is split between them. Investments in both get progressively higher, while the extra revenue each improvement brings in stays flat.
The problem, the researchers found, is that the generalist moves first and knows exactly what the specialist will be legally required to do afterwards. This creates problems when the generalist is set a low bar for safety, or none at all, and safety standards for the downstream specialist are also fairly weak.
In the absence of any rules, both firms invest in safety, because the model assumes a safer product earns more revenue. But if the specialist is forced to invest a certain amount into safety to meet regularity requirements, the generalist can cut its own spending and let the downstream firm close the gap.
That’s because the generalist’s revenue depends on the final safety level of the shipped product, not on its own contribution, so it can get a revenue boost from improved safety without paying for it from its own pocket. The specialist, for its part, has no reason to do more than the rule demands, so total safety settles at the legal minimum, which is below what would have occurred had there been no regulation at all.
On a more positive note, the researchers found that if safety levels on both the generalist and the specialist are set high enough, regulation can actually improve safety while leaving both companies more profitable than they were in an unregulated market.
“Appropriately designed AI regulation can make it possible for different firms involved in the AI development pipeline to collectively arrive at good outcomes for consumers, knowing that the regulation is designed to help each firm operate in a way that the others can more reasonably predict,” co-author Jon Kleinberg from Cornell University said in the press release.
However, the researchers’ model relies on the market setting a real price on safety. As the gap widens between what customers will pay for performance and what they’ll pay for safety, the range of circumstances in which weak rules backfire gets narrower.
The authors also note that the model’s two-player setup is a simplification of real AI supply chains where multiple competing specialists and base-model providers operate across different jurisdictions with different rules.
“People think of AI as a single object, but actually AI involves a very complicated set of stakeholders and actors that each have their own contributions to the technology,” said Laufer. “To regulate in a thoughtful way, we need to consider the whole supply chain, not just a single provider or entity.”
Still, the results suggest that taking an overly simplistic and light-handed approach to AI regulation may end up achieving the opposite of what law makers intend.
The post Weak AI Regulation Could Be Worse Than None at All appeared first on SingularityHub.
Hugging Face CEO wants transparency after OpenAI’s AI incident
Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue wants to see radical transparency from OpenAI after the company acknowledged that one of its AI agents managed to hack into the AI platform’s systems during a test.
In a post on X, Delangue wrote that, among other things, he wants OpenAI to publish logs and traces from the autonomous AI agent so researchers can analyze what happened. He also called for better defensive tools and urged OpenAI to allocate $100 million worth of computing capacity to help the Hugging Face community develop stronger cybersecurity solutions.
“The first cyberattack by an autonomous AI agent is an unprecedented event. It deserves an unprecedented response,” Delangue wrote.
Microsoft's solution to AI security: more AI and more acronyms
Revolut nabídne soukromé fondy už od 1 eura. Výběr peněz ale může být omezený nebo odložený
NVIDIA Forms 37-Member Open Secure AI Alliance and Open-Sources NOOA Framework
Nový život pro šuplíkové telefony. Webová aplikace ScreenWall je promění v meteostanici či fotorámeček
Apple sued over fake App Store crypto wallet app stealing $1.8M in Bitcoin
Dysphoria IoT Botnet Adds Blockchain C2 and Victim Relays After JackSkid Disruption
Čím nahradit Total Commander? Těchto 16 správců souborů umí skoro totéž a většinou jsou zdarma
- « první
- ‹ předchozí
- …
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- …
- následující ›
- poslední »



