Connect with us

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



Miles Brundage, a well-known former policy researcher at OpenAI, is launching an institute dedicated to a simple idea: AI companies shouldn’t be allowed to grade their own homework.

Today Brundage formally announced the AI Verification and Evaluation Research Institute (AVERI), a new nonprofit aimed at pushing the idea that frontier AI models should be subject to external auditing. AVERI is also working to establish AI auditing standards.

The launch coincides with the publication of a research paper, coauthored by Brundage and more than 30 AI safety researchers and governance experts, that lays out a detailed framework for how independent audits of the companies building the world’s most powerful AI systems could work.

Brundage spent seven years at OpenAI, as a policy researcher and an advisor on how the company should prepare for the advent of human-like artificial general intelligence. He left the company in October 2024. 

“One of the things I learned while working at OpenAI is that companies are figuring out the norms of this kind of thing on their own,” Brundage told Fortune. “There’s no one forcing them to work with third-party experts to make sure that things are safe and secure. They kind of write their own rules.”

That creates risks. Although the leading AI labs conduct safety and security testing and publish technical reports on the results of many of these evaluations, some of which they conduct with the help of external “red team” organizations, right now consumers, business and governments simply have to trust what the AI labs say about these tests. No one is forcing them to conduct these evaluations or report them according to any particular set of standards.

Brundage said that in other industries, auditing is used to provide the public—including consumers, business partners, and to some degree regulators—assurance that products are safe and have been tested in a rigorous way. 

“If you go out and buy a vacuum cleaner, you know, there will be components in it, like batteries, that have been tested by independent laboratories according to rigorous safety standards to make sure it isn’t going to catch on fire,” he said.

New institute will push for policies and standards

Brundage said that AVERI was interested in policies that would encourage the AI labs to move to a system of rigorous external auditing, as well as researching what the standards should be for those audits, but was not interested in conducting audits itself.

“We’re a think tank. We’re trying to understand and shape this transition,” he said. “We’re not trying to get all the Fortune 500 companies as customers.”

He said existing public accounting, auditing, assurance, and testing firms could move into the business of auditing AI safety, or that startups would be established to take on this role.

AVERI said it has raised $7.5 million toward a goal of $13 million to cover 14 staff and two years of operations. Its funders so far include Halcyon Futures, Fathom, Coefficient Giving, former Y Combinator president Geoff Ralston, Craig Falls, Good Forever Foundation, Sympatico Ventures, and the AI Underwriting Company. 

The organization says it has also received donations from current and former non-executive employees of frontier AI companies. “These are people who know where the bodies are buried” and “would love to see more accountability,” Brundage said.

Insurance companies or investors could force AI safety audits

Brundage said that there could be several mechanisms that would encourage AI firms to begin to hire independent auditors. One is that big businesses that are buying AI models may demand audits in order to have some assurance that the AI models they are buying will function as promised and don’t pose hidden risks.

Insurance companies may also push for the establishment of AI auditing. For instance, insurers offering business continuity insurance to large companies that use AI models for key business processes could require auditing as a condition of underwriting. The insurance industry may also require audits in order to write policies for the leading AI companies, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.

“Insurance is certainly moving quickly,” Brundage said. “We have a lot of conversations with insurers.” He noted that one specialized AI insurance company, the AI Underwriting Company, has provided a donation to AVERI because “they see the value of auditing in kind of checking compliance with the standards that they’re writing.”

Investors may also demand AI safety audits to be sure they aren’t taking on unknown risks, Brundage said. Given the multi-million and multi-billion dollar checks that investment firms are now writing to fund AI companies, it would make sense for these investors to demand independent auditing of the safety and security of the products these fast-growing startups are building. If any of the leading labs go public—as OpenAI and Anthropic have reportedly been preparing to do in the coming year or two—a failure to employ auditors to assess the risks of AI models could open these companies up to shareholder lawsuits or SEC prosecutions if something were to later go wrong that contributed to a significant fall in their share prices.  

Brundage also said that regulation or international agreements could force AI labs to employ independent auditors. The U.S. currently has no federal regulation of AI and it is unclear whether any will be created. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order meant to crack down on U.S. states that pass their own AI regulations. The administration has said this is because it believes a single, federal standard would be easier for businesses to navigate than multiple state laws. But, while moving to punish states for enacting AI regulation, the administration has not yet proposed a national standard of its own.

In other geographies, however, the groundwork for auditing may already be taking shape. The EU AI Act, which recently came into force, does not explicitly call for audits of AI companies’ evaluation procedures. But its “Code of Practice for General Purpose AI,” which is a kind of blueprint for how frontier AI labs can comply with the Act, does say that labs building models that could pose “systemic risks” need to provide external evaluators with complimentary access to test the models. The text of the Act itself also says that when organizations deploy AI in “high-risk” use cases, such as underwriting loans, determining eligibility for social benefits, or determining medical care, the AI system must undergo an external “conformity assessment” before being placed on the market. Some have interpreted these sections of the Act and the Code as implying a need for what are essentially independent auditors.

Establishing ‘assurance levels,’ finding enough qualified auditors

The research paper published alongside AVERI’s launch outlines a comprehensive vision for what frontier AI auditing should look like. It proposes a framework of “AI Assurance Levels” ranging from Level 1—which involves some third-party testing but limited access and is similar to the kinds of external evaluations that the AI labs currently employ companies to conduct—all the way to Level 4, which would provide “treaty grade” assurance sufficient for international agreements on AI safety.

Building a cadre of qualified AI auditors presents its own difficulties. AI auditing requires a mix of technical expertise and governance knowledge that few possess—and those who do are often lured by lucrative offers from the very companies that would be audited.

Brundage acknowledged the challenge but said it’s surmountable. He talked of mixing people with different backgrounds to build “dream teams” that in combination have the right skill sets. “You might have some people from an existing audit firm, plus some people from a penetration testing firm from cybersecurity, plus some people from one of the AI safety nonprofits, plus maybe an academic,” he said.

In other industries, from nuclear power to food safety, it has often been catastrophes, or at least close calls, that provided the impetus for standards and independent evaluations. Brundage said his hope is that with AI, auditing infrastructure and norms could be established before a crisis occurs.

“The goal, from my perspective, is to get to a level of scrutiny that is proportional to the actual impacts and risks of the technology, as smoothly as possible, as quickly as possible, without overstepping,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Worried about AI taking your job? New Anthropic research shows it’s not that simple

Published

on



Welcome to Eye on AI, with AI reporter Sharon Goldman. In this edition…New Anthropic research on AI and jobs…Leadership drama at Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines…Another blockbuster quarter for TSMC…Google Gemini introduces Personal Intelligence.

It’s probably the number one question people ask me when they hear I cover AI: “Will AI take my job?” That question is often followed by, “How about your job?”

Sigh. Well, so far, I’m still here. And new research from Anthropic suggests the fate of our jobs is more complicated than a simple story of humans being replaced by AI agents and robots.

In the latest installment of its Economic Index, Anthropic rolled out a new way of measuring how people actually use its chatbot Claude—what kinds of tasks they give it, how much autonomy they grant it, and how often it succeeds. The goal is to get a clearer, data-driven picture of whether AI is really making people faster at work, what sorts of tasks AI supports best and how it might actually change the nature of people’s occupations and professions.

I spoke yesterday to Anthropic economist Peter McCrory about the ongoing research, which he said the company kicked off in earnest a year ago in recognition of the fact that AI is a general purpose technology that will affect every job in some way–certainly every sector of the economy. 

AI reshapes jobs differently depending on the role

But the results are not always straightforward–at least for now. For example, the research found that AI is reshaping jobs differently depending on the role. A radiologist or therapist may find that AI can elevate their skills by taking on some of the most time-intensive tasks, allowing them to spend more time talking with patients and clients. But people in other jobs may find themselves being deskilled, or that their jobs become simpler without allowing them to devote more time to some obvious higher-level task. This could happen for jobs such as data entry workers, IT specialists and travel agents. 

In addition, human collaboration and oversight remain essential, particularly for complex work. So AI appears to increase productivity for highly-skilled professionals, rather than replacing those roles. 

McCrory said that he is hopeful that other researchers can take Anthropic’s insights to better understand the uneven implications of AI on the labor market. However, one thing is easily understood: Adoption is happening quickly – in fact, AI is spreading across the US faster than any major technology in the past century, he said. 

“In our last report that we put out in September, we documented that disproportionate use is concentrated in a small number of states,” he explained. “In this report, we see evidence that low-usage states are catching up pretty quickly.” 

Anthropic’s Claude is growing in the number of tasks it can cover

And there is no doubt that AI is getting more powerful: The research found that Anthropic’s Claude is growing in the number of tasks it can cover, with 44% of jobs now able to use AI in at least a quarter of its tasks, up from 36% in the last report. 

I couldn’t help but note that the latest research was completed before Anthropic’s latest model, Opus 4.5, debuted – and also prior to the release of Claude’s Cowork application, a general-purpose AI agent that can manipulate, read, and analyze files on a user’s computer, which just came out this week. 

“it just illustrates the broad-based applicability of this technology, and the fact that Claude is increasingly able to not just give you information, but take actions on your behalf, under your discretion and delegation,” McCrory said. “I think you might see a rise in the importance of delegation skills–there’s evidence from the academic literature that suggests that people get more value out of large language models when they have better managerial skills.” That’s also been his own experience, he added: “I find myself delegating increasingly sophisticated tasks to Claude that I might have otherwise given to a research assistant if I had one.”

When I told McCrory that I had written in last week’s Eye on AI about software developers excited about using Claude Code but depressed over reducing their role to that of a manager, he nodded sympathetically and suggested I check out other Anthropic research, developed by its societal impacts team. 

“I think the big takeaway here is that we don’t know what’s on the horizon,” he said. When I pointed out how much most of us dislike uncertainty, he emphasized that he hoped the report and the data would help researchers see the future a bit more clearly. “We’re committed to open sourcing this data,” he said, so economists and policymakers can better understand the potential is of what’s coming and how we all prepare for it. 

With that, here’s more AI news.

Sharon Goldman
sharon.goldman@fortune.com
@sharongoldman

FORTUNE ON AI

AI ‘godfather’ Yoshua Bengio says he’s found a fix for AI’s biggest risks and become more optimistic by ‘a big margin’ on humanity’s future – by Sharon Goldman

Trump triggers retail investors to dump the Magnificent Seven – by Jim Edwards

Teachers decry AI as brain-rotting junk food for kids: ‘Students can’t reason. They can’t think. They can’t solve problems’ – by Eva Roytburg

What Apple’s AI deal with Google means for the two tech giants, and for $500 billion ‘upstart’ OpenAI by Jeremy Kahn and Beatrice Nolan

 

AI IN THE NEWS

Leadership drama at Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines. In a surprising leadership shake-up, two co-founders of Mira Murati’s AI startup Thinking Machines Lab — Barret Zoph and Luke Metz — announced they’re leaving the fledgling company to rejoin OpenAI, just months after departing the organization to help start the venture. According to Wired, another former OpenAI researcher, Sam Schoenholz, is also returning to OpenAI as part of the move. The departures were confirmed in an internal memo from OpenAI’s applications chief, Fidji Simo, who said the return “has been in the works for several weeks.” The turn of events represents a significant blow to Thinking Machines Lab, which had only recently raised a large seed round and recruited top talent, and underscores the intense competition for elite AI researchers in the industry.

Another blockbuster quarter for TSMC. According to CNBC and others, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s largest semiconductor fabricator, reported a 35% jump in profit and record revenue as demand for AI chips continues to surge. The company beat expectations on both revenue and net income, with its high-performance computing business—driven by AI and data center chips—now accounting for 55% of sales. Advanced chips of 7 nanometers or smaller made up more than three-quarters of wafer revenue, underscoring how central cutting-edge AI processors have become to TSMC’s business. 

Google Gemini introduces Personal Intelligence. In a new blog post written by Google VP Josh Woodward, the company announced the US beta launch of “Personal Intelligence” in its Gemini app–which lets users opt in to securely connect their Gmail, Photos, Search, YouTube and other Google apps to Gemini. The idea is to make the assistant more proactive and useful—combining information across emails, photos, and searches to answer questions or offer recommendations specific to your life—while keeping privacy control in the user’s hands (the feature is off by default and users choose what to connect). Personal Intelligence is initially available in the U.S. to paid subscribers, with plans to expand over time, and signals Google’s push to differentiate its consumer AI by leveraging its wider ecosystem to power more personalized AI interactions.

EYE ON AI NUMBERS

48% 

That’s how many single adults reported using AI to help draft break-up messages or boundary-setting texts, according to new research from chat assistant use.ai. 

As a result, there’s less need to “ghost” dating partners now that users can rely on AI to navigate emotionally charged conversations. Among those who used AI tools to let their dates down gently, 62% described the resulting conversations as more structured, and 39% noted fewer follow-up conflicts. 

According to the survey of 4,812 single adults across five English-language markets, the trend extends beyond dating: 27% rehearse sensitive in-person conversations with AI, while 20% use it to manage boundaries in non-romantic relationships. 

AI CALENDAR

Jan. 19-23: World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland.

Jan. 20-27: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Singapore.

Feb. 10-11: AI Action Summit, New Delhi, India.

March 2-5: Mobile World Congress, Barcelona, Spain.

March 16-19: Nvidia GTC, San Jose, Calif.

April 6-9: HumanX, San Francisco. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Customers lament Tesla’s move toward monthly fees for self-driving cars

Published

on



Elon Musk’s announcement that Tesla will soon stop selling its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, leaving consumers with monthly fees as their only option, has inspired mixed reactions online and more questions about tech giants’ shift towards subscription-based services.

Musk, Tesla’s CEO, shared the news on Wednesday on X. FSD will no longer be available for outright purchase starting February 14, after which the software will “only be available as a monthly subscription.”

For Musk, the move signals an end to his longtime portrayal of FSD as an “appreciating asset,” worth buying outright now because the price will only rise as the software improves. And for Tesla, the change represents the latest decision by a tech giant to move towards a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model, in which a provider continues to host its software—handling updates, security, and maintenance—while renting it to users. But for the Tesla-curious and those who already own one of Musk’s cars, the move was a reminder of how difficult it has become to truly own things in today’s economy.

“Imagine buying a self-driving car and still having to pay a monthly subscription just for it to actually drive itself,” one user wrote in a reply to Musk’s announcement.

“You will own nothing and be happy.”

At current rates, Tesla owners can purchase FSD—which remains primarily a driver-assistance program that requires an attentive driver at all times—for $8,000, or opt for a monthly subscription for $99. Tesla owners who have already purchased FSD will retain the software, though it is unclear whether they will be able to transfer the rights to a new vehicle, as Tesla previously made possible through limited-time promotions. Tesla did not immediately reply to Fortune’s request for comment on whether rates would remain unchanged or transfers between vehicles would be possible after February 14. At the current monthly price point, it would take drivers around seven years to match the outright purchase cost.

Tesla has gradually raised FSD’s purchase price from $5,000 at launch to $ 15,000 in 2022, its most expensive point. Musk described the price hikes as evidence of FSD being a sound investment for consumers to get an early stake in, although the software’s upfront price dipped to $8,000 in 2024, around the same time Tesla reduced the monthly rental fee in the U.S. from $199 to $99.

The price slashes occurred in the wake of reports alleging a low conversion rate among Tesla drivers who opted to upgrade to FSD. While Tesla does not actively disclose the percentage of its customer base that uses FSD, CFO Vaibhav Taneja said the share was “still small, around 12% of our current fleet” during an October earnings call.

‘You will never actually own your EV’

Many of the replies to Musk’s announcement lamented the prevalence of subscription-based features that car companies now withhold. 

“People want to own their stuff outright, not be eternally beholden,” one user wrote.

“You will never actually own your EV, because it will be useless without the software that you can never remove, replace, or modify,” said another, before adding a recommendation: “Stick to internal combustion engines with as few computers as possible.”  

Criticism has ramped up recently about the software dependency of new vehicles, to the point that the industry has referred to electric cars as “smartphones on wheels.” Tesla is far from the only offender, as in August, Volkswagen released a new feature to increase the horsepower on some of its electric cars priced at $22.50 a month. GM also offers a subscription-based hands-free driving capability, Super Cruise, on designated highways. Launched in 2017, the service offers a three-year trial period, followed by a $25 monthly fee. Super Cruise has grown into a significant money-maker for GM, which late last year projected an active user base of 600,000 and more than $200 million in revenue for 2025.

Software updates and subscription fees in their cars might be starting to frustrate users. Last year, 68% of consumers said they would pay for car-connected services, according to an S&P Global survey, down from 86% in 2024.

While electric vehicles tend to be the most software-heavy, all cars nowadays rely on connected services in some way, regardless of their powertrain. Most modern cars are supported by up to a million lines of code, and frequent updates can quickly make some features incompatible. In 2022, as carriers upgraded their telecommunications infrastructure from 3G, many cars made by Toyota, Chrysler, and Jeep—including both battery- and gasoline-powered models—permanently lost access to a feature that automatically notified first responders in the event of a crash.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s visa crackdown hits SEA’s Cambodia and Thailand, a decision experts find ‘puzzling’

Published

on



Several Asian countries are hit by the Trump Administration’s decision to pause immigrant processing for 75 countries, including the Southeast Asian nations of Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar and Laos. 

The suspension, which will take effect on Jan. 21, is the first time the U.S. is restricting applicants from Cambodia and Thailand, just months after U.S. President Donald Trump inked trade deals with both nations on the sidelines of the 2025 ASEAN Summit. He had assured Southeast Asian leaders at the event that they could view the U.S. as a “strong partner and friend” in the years to come. 

The suspension covers several other countries elsewhere in Asia, including the South Asian nations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well as countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. The suspension only covers immigrant visas; non-immigrant visas, like tourist and business visas, are not affected. (The U.S. is set to host the FIFA World Cup this year).

“President Trump has made clear that immigrants must be financially self-sufficient and not be a financial burden to Americans,” the U.S. State Department wrote in a post on Jan. 14. It continued that it was starting a “full review of all policies, regulations, and guidance to ensure that immigrants from these high-risk countries do not utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge.” The post made clear that while nationals in the affected countries could submit applications, no visas would be issued during the suspension. 

“Given the transactional nature of the U.S. dealings with other countries, these pauses can be seen as another way for the U.S. to coerce countries to strike deals that they otherwise would not be keen to do,” suggests Nona Pepito, an associate professor of economics at Singapore Management University. 

Trump’s engagement with Southeast Asia has remained mostly focused on trade, though the U.S. President also tried to negotiate a ceasefire to the violent border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand last year. 

The ceasefire ultimately fell apart, and the two countries began fighting again in late December; both now operate under another, China-facilitated, ceasefire. Last week, the U.S. offered $45 million in aid to both countries to help maintain the truce. 

Laos is already subject to a full travel ban. Cambodia has also previously been in the Trump Administration’s cross-hairs, appearing in a leaked State Department memo last July that noted “concerns” with the Southeast Asian country’s migration policies, though it wasn’t included in later travel restrictions.

Before this suspension, Thailand had yet to be targeted by U.S. immigration policies. A ban could risk “pushing the Thai government and its people closer to China,” Pepito warns. “If the U.S. is seen as an unreliable partner, Thailand, a key treaty ally, may look elsewhere for security and economic cooperation.”

Thailand’s addition is “puzzling,” says Tan Sook Rei, a senior lecturer at Singapore’s James Cook University (JCU), who points out that both the Philippines and Vietnam—which rank among the top sources of U.S. immigrant visas—are “notably absent” from the visa suspension list. “The policy appears less focused on managing migration volumes than on political signaling.”

Jacob Wood, an associate professor of economics at JCU, points to allegations by U.S. officials that Thai businesses have been issuing fake certificates of origin to support China’s “tariff-washing” practices as a source of tension between Washington and Bangkok.

Trump has launched a sweeping crackdown on immigration since taking office a year ago. Last month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in what it called “historic progress in securing the homeland,” claimed that over 2.5 million “illegal aliens” had left the U.S. 

The U.S. is also tightening pathways for legal migration to the country. Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), which provided a safe haven for individuals overseas of “special humanitarian concern.” 

Moreover, the president has increased vetting for international students trying to attend the U.S. The number of new international students starting at a U.S. college or university in fall 2025 fell by 17%, according to the Institute of International Education.

The U.S. has also hiked fees for H-1B employment visas, often used by high-skilled labor in sectors like tech, to $100,000.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.