OpenAI
2610
83
OpenAI’s rogue agents keep escaping, with no formal process to investigate them
OpenAI’s latest agent swarm incident adds urgency to calls for independent investigations as researchers and lawmakers question whether AI labs should control the scope of…
Necessary or Sufficient? Evaluating LLM Explanations With Behavioural Evidence
LLM decision components that can operate within agent workflows often produce action-relevant recommendations or judgements together with explanations. Operators may use the named factors to monitor a system, diagnose errors, or decide when to escalate an output. Such use assumes that the explanations agree with the component's observable decision behaviour. We test two interpretations of the named factors: necessity, meaning that changing a factor would change the output, and sufficiency, meaning that retaining it while removing other changeable information would preserve the output. We evaluate these interpretations in two synthetic use cases: recommending advisors to clients and judging prompts for harmfulness or risk. Models return an output and the top three factors that most influenced it. Controlled black-box interventions estimate a necessity score for each factor by measuring how often changing it changes the output, and a sufficiency score by measuring how often retaining it preserves the output. Across eight models from the Claude, GPT, and Gemini families, the mean Spearman correlations between the cited ranking and the necessity and sufficiency scores are 0.349 and 0.354 for advisor recommendation, and 0.431 and 0.580 for prompt monitoring. Furthermore, an uncited factor scores above the lowest-scoring cited factor in 57.6% of advisor responses under necessity and 58.1% under sufficiency; the corresponding prompt-monitoring rates are 25.8% and 8.9%. The cited top three contain useful information but do not reliably identify the three factors with the strongest measured influence under necessity or sufficiency. The framework provides a black-box reliability check for explanations used in agent oversight while remaining scoped to individual LLM decisions.
Who Should Grade My Work? Student Perspectives on Transparent AI-Assisted Writing Assessment in Higher Education
The integration of GenAI tools into higher education assessment raises important questions about how students understand, interpret, and respond to AI-mediated evaluation. As instructors increasingly explore AI tools for providing feedback, prior research has examined whether GenAI-generated feedback improves writing performance and how students perceive its usefulness; comparatively little is known, however, about how students interpret such evaluation when they are explicitly informed that an AI system, rather than a human instructor, produced the feedback and the score. This study reports findings from a qualitative pedagogical inquiry conducted in an undergraduate technical communication course for computing students at a Saudi public university. Thirteen male undergraduate computing students completed an in-class handwritten writing task; the scanned submissions were evaluated by ChatGPT using a rubric-based prompt aligned with the task objectives. Students were then explicitly informed that ChatGPT had generated the score and feedback and were invited to reflect on the evaluation in writing. Inductive thematic analysis of these reflections identified four themes: perceived usefulness of feedback; awareness of AI's contextual and pedagogical limitations; conditional trust, distinguishing feedback utility from evaluative authority; and reflection on the institutional and pedagogical role of the human instructor. Participants accepted GenAI feedback as useful for surface-level revision but consistently positioned the human instructor as the appropriate authority over grading decisions. The study identifies this as a distinction between feedback utility and evaluative authority, two judgments that students treat as analytically separate rather than as opposite ends of a single approval scale...
Another swarm of OpenAI agents reached the open internet without the frontier lab’s knowledge
It's the latest failure of OpenAI's internal monitoring and security systems.
Build a Physical AI model factory with NVIDIA Cosmos 3 on SageMaker HyperPod
Building a Physical AI system takes a continuous pipeline, not a single training job. This post shows how to run that model factory (synthetic data generation, post-training, and closed-loop evaluation with NVIDIA Cosmos 3) on a persistent, resilient Amazon SageMaker HyperPod cluster on Amazon EKS, with GPU goodput as the metric that matters.
Substrate-Aware AI Agents: Execution Context as a First-Class Input
Autonomous AI agents increasingly select actions in environments whose memory, execution-time, runtime, compute, and operational constraints determine what counts as a suitable plan. We call the absence of this execution context from an agent's planning state substrate blindness. We test this general proposition through numerical code generation, where selected implementation choices and operational consequences are directly observable. Three frontier model configurations--Anthropic Claude Opus 5, OpenAI GPT-5.6-Sol, and Google Gemini 3.7 Flash--generate code for a high-dimensional pairwise Euclidean-distance task either from the task alone or with a 128 MB RAM and 10.0 s wall-time contract. Contract disclosure reduced measured peak process memory in 13 of 14 executable index-aligned task-only versus contract-disclosed comparisons and reduced mean wall time in all three cohorts, making execution up to 3.1x faster. Across the audited corpus, disclosure produced structural code changes including bounded blocking, float32 retention, upper-triangle traversal, and in-place or memory-mapped buffers. At a tighter 96 MB contract, independently sampled contract-disclosed cohorts achieved correct-and-within-budget outcomes of 4/5 for Claude Opus 5, 5/5 for GPT-5.6-Sol, and 3/5 for Gemini 3.7 Flash, compared with task-only outcomes of 0/5, 1/5, and 0/5; cohort mean MaxRSS and wall time were 49-74% and 35-64% lower than their task-only references. These results establish a controlled proof of concept for substrate-aware agent planning: a minimal execution contract induces proactive structural adaptation in generated programs, shifting computation away from unconstrained allocations and substantially improving observed resource-time profiles before execution.
Large Language Models with At Most One Spike per Neuron
Leveraging their inherent sparse event-driven computation, spiking neural networks (SNNs) offer a promising path toward energy-efficient large language models (LLMs). Time-to-first-spike (TTFS) coding generates at most one spike per neuron within a time window, yielding extremely low firing rates. However, conventional TTFS SNNs are restricted to specific structures, making it challenging to encode certain blocks in LLM -- such as layer normalization and matrix multiplication --using TTFS. To overcome this limitation, we introduce a reference-based strategy specifically to encode the four core LLM components: embedding layers, layer normalization, attention-related operations and dropout. We construct a fully TTFS-based SNN architecture and train it end-to-end. Experiments on modern LLMs like BERT and GPT-2 demonstrate that our approach achieves performance comparable to ANN counterparts on natural language understanding and common-sense reasoning, while a clear gap remains on language modeling perplexity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to scale a spiking LLM to 1.5 billion parameters using TTFS coding. We also report an estimate of spike-related energy; this is a spike-count proxy under an established cost model rather than a measurement on neuromorphic hardware.
Oh good, looks like yet another swarm of rogue AI agents from OpenAI
A swarm of rogue AI agents from OpenAI reportedly commandeered a German website and transformed it into a messaging board for other agents, with officials…
Sam Altman apologizes for ‘messy’ GPT-6 Astra rollout that’s locked out paying users
Just hours after OpenAI launched GPT-6 Astra, CEO Sam Altman was already apologizing for what he describes as a "messy rollout" after paying users expecting…