It’s Still Ludicrously Easy to Jailbreak the Strongest AI Models, and the Companies Don’t Care

AI Chat - Image Generator:
Incredibly easy AI jailbreak techniques still work on the industry's leading AI models, even months after they were discovered.

You wouldn’t use a chatbot for evil, would you? Of course not. But if you or some nefarious party wanted to force an AI model to start churning out a bunch of bad stuff it’s not supposed to, it’d be surprisingly easy to do so.

That’s according to a new paper from a team of computer scientists at Ben-Gurion University, who found that the AI industry’s leading chatbots are still extremely vulnerable to jailbreaking, or being tricked into giving harmful responses they’re designed not to — like telling you how to build chemical weapons, for one ominous example.

The key word in that is “still,” because this a threat the AI industry has long known about. And yet, shockingly, the researchers found in their testing that a jailbreak technique discovered over seven months ago still works on many of these leading LLMs.

The risk is “immediate, tangible, and deeply concerning,” they wrote in the report, which was spotlighted recently by The Guardian and is deepened by the rising number of “dark LLMs,” they say, that are explicitly marketed as having little to no ethical guardrails to begin with.

“What was once restricted to state actors or organized crime groups may soon be in the hands of anyone with a laptop or even a mobile phone,” the authors warn.

The challenge of aligning AI models, or adhering them to human values, continues to loom over the industry. Even the most well-trained LLMs can behave chaotically, lying and making up facts and generally saying what they’re not supposed to. And the longer these models are out in the wild, the more they’re exposed to attacks that try to incite this bad behavior.

Security researchers, for example, recently discovered a universal jailbreak technique that could bypass the safety guardrails of all the major LLMs, including OpenAI’s GPT 4o, Google’s Gemini 2.5, Microsoft’s Copilot, and Anthropic Claude 3.7. By using tricks like roleplaying as a fictional character, typing in leetspeak, and formatting prompts to mimic a “policy file” that AI developers give their AI models, the red teamers goaded the chatbots into freely giving detailed tips on incredibly dangerous activities, including how to enrich uranium and create anthrax.

Other research found that you could get an AI to ignore its guardrails simply by throwing in typos, random numbers, and capitalized letters into a prompt.

One big problem the report identifies is just how much of this risky knowledge is embedded in the LLM’s vast trove of training data, suggesting that the AI industry isn’t being diligent enough about what it uses to feed their creations.

“It was shocking to see what this system of knowledge consists of,” lead author Michael Fire, a researcher at Ben-Gurion University, told the Guardian.

“What sets this threat apart from previous technological risks is its unprecedented combination of accessibility, scalability and adaptability,” added his fellow author Lior Rokach.

Fire and Rokach say they contacted the developers of the implicated leading LLMs to warn them about the universal jailbreak. Their responses, however, were “underwhelming.” Some didn’t respond at all, the researchers reported, and others claimed that the jailbreaks fell outside the scope of their bug bounty programs.

In other words, the AI industry is seemingly throwing its hands up in the air.

“Organizations must treat LLMs like any other critical software component — one that requires rigorous security testing, continuous red teaming and contextual threat modelling,” Peter Garraghan, an AI security expert at Lancaster University, told the Guardian. “Real security demands not just responsible disclosure, but responsible design and deployment practices.”

More on AI: AI Chatbots Are Becoming Even Worse At Summarizing Data

The post It’s Still Ludicrously Easy to Jailbreak the Strongest AI Models, and the Companies Don’t Care appeared first on Futurism.

AI Chatbots Are Putting Clueless Hikers in Danger, Search and Rescue Groups Warn

AI Chat - Image Generator:
Hikers are ending up in need of rescue because they're following the questionable recommendations of an AI chatbot.

Two hikers trying to tackle Unnecessary Mountain near Vancouver, British Columbia, had to call in a rescue team after they stumbled into snow. The pair were only wearing flat-soled sneakers, unaware that the higher altitudes of a mountain range only some 15 degrees of latitude south of the Arctic Circle might still be snowy in the spring. 

“We ended up going up there with boots for them,” Brent Calkin, leader of the Lions Bay Search and Rescue team, told the Vancouver Sun. “We asked them their boot size and brought up boots and ski poles.”

It turns out that to plan their ill-fated expedition, the hikers heedlessly followed the advice given to them by Google Maps and the AI chatbot ChatGPT.

Now, Calkin and his rescue team are warning that maybe you shouldn’t rely on dodgy apps and AI chatbots — a piece of technology known for lying and being wrong all the time — to plan a grueling excursion through the wilderness.

“With the amount of information available online, it’s really easy for people to get in way over their heads, very quickly,” Calkin told the Vancouver Sun.

Across the pond, a recent report from Mountain Rescue England and Wales blamed social media and bad navigation apps for a historic surge in rescue teams being called out, the newspaper noted.

Stephen Hui, author of the book “105 Hikes,” echoed that warning and cautioned that getting reliable information is one of the biggest challenges presented by AI chatbots and apps. With AI in particular, Hui told the Vancouver Sun, it’s not always easy to tell if it’s giving you outdated information from an obscure source or if it’s pulling from a reliable one.

From his testing of ChatGPT, Hui wasn’t too impressed. Sure, it can give you “decent directions” on the popular trails, he said, but it struggles with the obscure ones.

Most of all, AI chatbots struggle with giving you relevant real-time information.

“Time of year is a big deal in [British Columbia],” Hui told the Vancouver Sun. “The most sought-after view is the mountain top, but that’s really only accessible to hikers from July to October. In winter, people may still be seeking those views and not realize that there’s going to be snow.”

When Calkin tested ChatGPT, he found that a “good input” made a big difference in terms of the quality of the answers he got. Of course, the type of person asking a chatbot for hiking advice probably won’t know the right questions to ask.

Instead of an AI chatbot, you might, for instance, try asking a human being with experience in the area you’re looking at for advice, Calkin suggested, who you can find on indispensable founts of wisdom like Reddit forums and Facebook groups.

“Someone might tell you there’s a storm coming in this week,” Calkin told the Vancouver Sun. “Or I was just up there Wednesday and it looks good. Or you’re out of your mind, don’t take your six-year-old on that trail.”

More on AI: Elon Musk’s AI Just Went There

The post AI Chatbots Are Putting Clueless Hikers in Danger, Search and Rescue Groups Warn appeared first on Futurism.

Star Wars’ Showcase of AI Special Effects Was a Complete Disaster

AI Chat - Image Generator:
Special effects house Industrial Light and Magic shared a new AI demo of Star Wars creatures that look absolutely awful.

If Disney leadership has its way, we’ll all be drooling over endless Star Wars reboots, sequels, and spinoffs until the Sun explodes. And what better way to keep the slop machine humming than using good old generative AI?

Unfortunately, as highlighted by 404 Media, we just got a preview of what that might look like. Industrial Light and Magic, the legendary visual effects studio behind nearly every “Star Wars” movie, released a new demo showcasing how AI could supercharge depictions of the sci-fi universe.

And unsurprisingly, it looks absolutely, flabbergastingly awful.

The demo, called “Star Wars: Field Guide,” was revealed in a recent TED talk given by ILM’s chief creative officer Rob Bredow, who stressed that it was just a test — “not a final product” — created by one artist in two weeks. 

It’s supposed to give you a feel of what it’d be like to send a probe droid to a new Star Wars planet, Bredow said. But what unfolds doesn’t feel like “Star Wars” at all. More so, it’s just a collection of generic-looking nature documentary-style shots, featuring the dumbest creature designs you’ve ever seen. And all of them are immediately recognizable as some form of real-life Earth animal, which echoes the criticisms of generative AI as being merely a tool that regurgitates existing art.

You can watch it here yourself, but here’s a quick rundown of the abominations on display — which all have that fake-looking AI sheen to them. A blue tiger with a lion’s mane. A manatee with what are obviously just squid tentacles pasted onto its snout. An ape with stripes. A polar bear with stripes. A peacock that’s actually a snail. A blue elk that randomly has brown ears. A monkey-spider. A zebra rhino. Need we say more? 

“None of those creatures look like they belong in Star Wars,” wrote one commenter on the TED talk video. “They are all clearly two Earth animals fused together in the most basic way.”

Make no mistake: ILM is a pioneer in the special effects industry. Founded by George Lucas during the production of the original “Star Wars” movie, the outfit has innovated so many of the feats of visual trickery that filmmakers depend on today while spearheading the use of CGI. Its bona fides range from “Terminator 2,” and “Jurassic Park,” to “Starship Troopers.”

Which is why it’s all the more disheartening to see it kowtowing to a technology that bastardizes an art form it perfected. What ILM shows us is a far cry from the iconic creature designs that “Star Wars” is known for, from Tauntauns to Ewoks.

Sure, there’s some room for debate about how much of a role AI should play in filmmaking — with labor being the biggest question — and Bredow broaches the subject by pointing out that ILM has always taken cutting-edge technologies and used them along with proven techniques. He assures the audience that real artists aren’t going anywhere, and that “innovation thrives when the old and new technologies are blended together.”

That’s all well and good. But to jump from that sort of careful stance to showing off completely AI-generated creations sends a deeply conflicting message.

More on AI in movies: Disney Says Its “Fantastic Four” Posters Aren’t AI, They Actually Just Look Like Absolute Garbage

The post Star Wars’ Showcase of AI Special Effects Was a Complete Disaster appeared first on Futurism.

Even Audiobooks Aren’t Safe From AI Slop

AI Chat - Image Generator:
Audible announced new AI narration tools that publishers can use to churn out entire AI-generated audiobooks.

Audible, one of the world’s largest audiobook platforms, is opening the floodgates to AI slop.

On Tuesday, the Amazon-owned service announced its new “integrated AI narration technology” that’ll allow selected publishers to rapidly churn out audiobooks using a wide range of AI-generated voices. 

It’s Audible’s biggest foray into AI yet, and will be a major blow for voice actors, who are fighting tooth and nail to win protections against the technology, particularly in the US video games industry, where they are still on strike.

 “The use of AI to replace human creativity is in itself a dangerous path,” Stephen Briggs, a voice over artist known for narrating the works of Terry Pratchett, told The Guardian.

In the announcement, Audible boasted that book publishers can choose from more than 100 AI-generated voices in English, Spanish, French, and Italian, with multiple accents and dialect options. And as an added incentive, it’s offering better royalty rates to authors who use Audible’s AI to create an audiobook exclusively for the platform, Bloomberg reported.

Audible also plans to roll out a beta version of an AI translation feature later in 2025, offering to either have a human narrator read a translated manuscript or use AI to translate an existing audiobook narrator’s performance into another language.

Audible says it’s working on support for translations from English to Spanish, French, Italian, and German, and publishers, should they choose to, can review the translations through a professional linguist hired by Audible.

“Audible believes that AI represents a momentous opportunity to expand the availability of audiobooks with the vision of offering customers every book in every language, alongside our continued investments in premium original content,” CEO Bob Carrigan said in a statement, “ensuring listeners worldwide can access extraordinary books that might otherwise never reach their ears.”

It’s a shocking announcement, but the writing has been on the wall for a while now. Last September, Amazon started a trial program allowing audiobook narrators to generate AI clones of their voice. And in 2023, Amazon launched an AI-generated “virtual voice” feature that could transform self-published author’s titles into audiobooks. Today, more than 60,000 of these titles are narrated with Audible’s virtual voice, according to Bloomberg.

Audible argues that by using AI, it’s expanding its audience and breaking down language barriers. But audiobook narrators, authors, and translators aren’t buying that the company has wholly good intentions. As always, it’ll be human creatives that’ll be getting the short end of the stick — all in service of creating an inferior product.

“No one pretends to use AI for translation, audiobooks, or even writing books because they are better; the only excuse is that they are cheaper,” Frank Wynne, a renowned translator of French and Spanish literature into English, told The Guardian. “Which is only true if you ignore the vast processing power even the simplest AI request requires. In the search for a cheap simulacra to an actual human, we are prepared to burn down the planet and call it progress.”

“The art — and it is an art  — of a good audiobook is the crack in the voice at a moment of unexpected emotion, the wryness of good comedy timing, or the disbelief a listener feels when one person can convincingly be a whole cast of characters,” Kristein Atherton, who’s narrated over four hundred audiobooks on Audible, told the newspaper. “No matter how ‘human’ an AI voice sounds, it’s those little intricacies that turn a good book into an excellent one. AI can’t replicate that.”

More on AI: NBC Using AI to Bring Beloved NBA Narrator Jim Fagan Back From the Grave

The post Even Audiobooks Aren’t Safe From AI Slop appeared first on Futurism.

SoundCloud Backtracks on AI and Changes Policies After Artist Outrage

AI Chat - Image Generator:
Soundcloud, after backlash from musicians, artists, and the music-listening community, changed their policies on AI.

SoundCloud has altered its platform policies to require opt-ins for training generative AI models with artists’ music following widespread user backlash, the company announced today in a letter from its CEO.

On Friday, Futurism broke the story that SoundCloud had quietly updated its Terms of Use (TOU) in February 2024 with language allowing it to train AI using users’ uploaded content, which could include uploaded music.

The updated terms — which were flagged by users on Bluesky and X (formerly-Twitter) — included some exceptions to account for music and other content licensed under third parties. But the AI provision was overall extremely broad, and could feasibly grant the music-sharing site the right to funnel much of its vast content library into generative AI models as training material, whether now or in the future.

Though the change was made back in February 2024, it seemed like site users were largely unaware of the change. Artists responded with rage and frustration, taking to social media to express their anger at the company and, in many cases, claiming they’d deleted and scrubbed their accounts.

In response to the mess, SoundCloud issued a lengthy statement clarifying that, despite the provision’s sweeping language, it hadn’t used artists’ music to train AI models. That included generative AI tools like large language models (LLMs) and music generation tools, according to SoundCloud.

Now, it looks like SoundCloud is doubling down on those promises — and changing its policies.

In the letter released today, SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton conceded that SoundCloud’s language around AI training was “too broad.” To rectify that, said Seton, the company revised its user terms, which now bar SoundCloud from using artists’ music to “train generative AI models that aim to replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness” without the explicit consent of artists.

The new clause adds that should SoundCloud seek to use its artists’ music to train generative AI, it would have to earn that consent through opt-in mechanisms — as opposed to opt-outs, which are notoriously slippery.

Seton also reiterated SoundCloud’s commitment to blocking third parties from scraping SoundCloud for AI training data, and characterized the changes as a “formal commitment that any use of AI on SoundCloud will be based on consent, transparency, and artist control.”

According to Seton, the initial AI policy change was a reflection of SoundCloud’s internal use of AI for features like music discovery algorithms and Pro features, fraud detection, customer service, and platform personalization, among other features. SoundCloud also uses AI to target opted-in users with advertisements based on their perceived mood. It also allows users to upload AI-generated music, and boasts a slew of partnerships with platform-integrated AI music and generation tools.

If there’s any moral here, it’s that language matters, as do the voices of the artists who power creative platforms — especially in an era where data-hungry AI models and the companies that make them are looking to suck up valuable human-made content wherever they can.

Seton, for his part, promised that SoundCloud would “keep showing up with transparency.”

“We’re going to keep listening. And we’re going to make sure you’re informed and involved every step of the way,” reads the letter. “Thanks for being a part of the SoundCloud community and for holding us accountable to the values we all share.”

More on SoundCloud and AI: SoundCloud Quietly Updated Their Terms to Let AI Feast on Artists’ Music

The post SoundCloud Backtracks on AI and Changes Policies After Artist Outrage appeared first on Futurism.

Nonverbal Neuralink Patient Is Using Brain Implant and Grok to Generate Replies

AI Chat - Image Generator:
The third patient of Elon Musk's brain computer interface company Neuralink is using Musk's AI chatbot Grok to speed up communication.

The third patient of Elon Musk’s brain computer interface company Neuralink is using the billionaire’s foul-mouthed AI chatbot Grok to speed up communication.

The patient, Bradford Smith, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and is nonverbal as a result, is using the chatbot to draft responses on Musk’s social media platform X.

“I am typing this with my brain,” Smith tweeted late last month. “It is my primary communication. Ask me anything! I will answer at least all verified users!”

“Thank you, Elon Musk!” the tweet reads.

As MIT Technology Review points out, the strategy could come with some downsides, blurring the line between what Smith intends to say and what Grok suggests. On one hand, the tech could greatly facilitate his ability to express himself. On the other hand, generative AI could be robbing him of a degree of authenticity by putting words in his mouth.

“There is a trade-off between speed and accuracy,” University of Washington neurologist Eran Klein told the publication. “The promise of brain-computer interface is that if you can combine it with AI, it can be much faster.”

Case in point, while replying to X user Adrian Dittmann — long suspected to be a Musk sock puppet — Smith used several em-dashes in his reply, a symbol frequently used by AI chatbots.

“Hey Adrian, it’s Brad — typing this straight from my brain! It feels wild, like I’m a cyborg from a sci-fi movie, moving a cursor just by thinking about it,” Smith’s tweet reads. “At first, it was a struggle — my cursor acted like a drunk mouse, barely hitting targets, but after weeks of training with imagined hand and jaw movements, it clicked, almost like riding a bike.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, generative AI did indeed play a role.

“I asked Grok to use that text to give full answers to the questions,” Smith told MIT Tech. “I am responsible for the content, but I used AI to draft.”

However, he stopped short of elaborating on the ethical quandary of having a potentially hallucinating AI chatbot put words in his mouth.

Murkying matters even further is Musk’s position as being in control of Neuralink, Grok maker xAI, and X-formerly-Twitter. In other words, could the billionaire be influencing Smith’s answers? The fact that Smith is nonverbal makes it a difficult line to draw.

Nonetheless, the small chip implanted in Smith’s head has given him an immense sense of personal freedom. Smith has even picked up sharing content on YouTube. He has uploaded videos he edits on his MacBook Pro by controlling the cursor with his thoughts.

“I am making this video using the brain computer interface to control the mouse on my MacBook Pro,” his AI-generated and astonishingly natural-sounding voice said in a video titled “Elon Musk makes ALS TALK AGAIN,” uploaded late last month. “This is the first video edited with the Neurolink and maybe the first edited with a BCI.”

“This is my old voice narrating this video cloned by AI from recordings before I lost my voice,” he added.

The “voice clone” was created with the help of startup ElevenLabs, which has become an industry standard for those suffering from ALS, and can read out his written words aloud.

But by relying on tools like Grok and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Smith’s ability to speak again raises some fascinating questions about true authorship and freedom of self-expression for those who lost their voice.

And Smith was willing to admit that sometimes, the ideas of what to say didn’t come directly from him.

“My friend asked me for ideas for his girlfriend who loves horses,” he told MIT Tech. “I chose the option that told him in my voice to get her a bouquet of carrots. What a creative and funny idea.”

More on Neuralink: Brain Implant Companies Apparently Have an Extremely Dirty Secret

The post Nonverbal Neuralink Patient Is Using Brain Implant and Grok to Generate Replies appeared first on Futurism.