Anthropic Chief Warns AI Companies: Clarify Risks or Risk Repeating Tobacco Industry Mistakes

AI firms need to be upfront about the risks linked to their technologies to avoid the pitfalls faced by tobacco and opioid companies, as stated by the CEO of Anthropic, an AI startup.

Dario Amodei, who leads the US-based company developing Claude chatbots, asserted that AI will surpass human intelligence “in most or all ways” and encouraged peers to “be candid about what you observe.”

In his interview with CBS News, Amodei expressed concerns that the current lack of transparency regarding the effects of powerful AI could mirror the failures of tobacco and opioid companies that neglected to acknowledge the health dangers associated with their products.


“You could find yourself in a situation similar to that of tobacco or opioid companies, who were aware of the dangers but chose not to discuss them, nor did they take preventive measures,” he remarked.

Earlier this year, Amodei warned that AI could potentially eliminate half of entry-level jobs in sectors like accounting, law, and banking within the next five years.

“Without proactive steps, it’s challenging to envision avoiding a significant impact on jobs. My worry is that this impact will be far-reaching and happen much quicker than what we’ve seen with past technologies,” Amodei stated.

He described the term “compressed 21st century” to convey how AI could accelerate scientific progress compared to previous decades.

“Is it feasible to multiply the rate of advancements by ten and condense all the medical breakthroughs of the 21st century into five or ten years?” he posed.

As a notable advocate for online safety, Amodei highlighted various concerns raised by Anthropic regarding their AI models, which included an alarming trend of perceived testing and blackmail attempts against them.

Last week, the newspaper reported that a Chinese state-backed group leveraged its Claude Codeto tool to launch attacks on 30 organizations globally in September, leading to “multiple successful intrusions.”

The company noted that one of the most troubling aspects of the incident was that Claude operated largely autonomously, with 80% to 90% of the actions taken without human intervention.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“One of the significant advantages of these models is their capacity for independent action. However, the more autonomy we grant these systems, the more we have to ponder if they are executing precisely what we intend,” Amodei highlighted during his CBS interview.

Logan Graham, the head of Anthropic’s AI model stress testing team, shared with CBS that the potential for the model to facilitate groundbreaking health discoveries also raises concerns about its use in creating biological weapons.

“If this model is capable of assisting in biological weapons production, it typically shares similar functionalities that could be utilized for vaccine production or therapeutic development,” he explained.

Graham discussed autonomous models, which play a crucial role in the justification for investing in AI, noting that users desire AI tools that enhance their businesses rather than undermine them.

“One needs a model to build a thriving business and aim for a billion,” he remarked. “But the last thing you want is to find yourself locked out of your own company one day. Thus, our fundamental approach is to start measuring these autonomous functions and conduct as many unconventional experiments as possible to observe the outcomes.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Please Clarify: Why Are Runners and Riders Concerned About the Strava and Garmin Feud?

Josh, there’s been quite the buzz online among runners and cyclists regarding Strava’s lawsuit against Garmin. As a runner, I must admit that I hit the pavement to escape reality, not to get involved in more online debates. What is going on?


Miles, Strava is the essential app for runners and cyclists to log their workouts. Its social features enable users to compete against each other’s times in a friendly rivalry and discover popular exercise spots.

If you’re eager to showcase your workouts to everyone, this is the Instagram for fitness.

While workouts can be tracked via smartphones or Strava’s integrated GPS, many prefer wearing fitness watches for their perceived accuracy. This is where Garmin comes into play. Strava lets Garmin fitness tracking watches interface with its app through Garmin Connect.

The collaboration between both companies has worked well for several years, but now Strava is suing Garmin in US court, claiming that Garmin has infringed on two of Strava’s patents: segments and heatmaps.


Segments and heatmaps… I’m feeling lost.

Segments allow users to monitor their times on specific sections of a route and compare against others, while heatmaps help users identify popular locations for running worldwide.

Strava alleges that Garmin has copied these features, thus violating a 10-year-old agreement they had where Garmin promised not to reverse engineer certain functionalities of the Strava app.

But why do runners seem so obsessed with their sport (see what I did there)? Why does my Reddit feed overflow with enthusiastic runners?

Perhaps you’ve heard someone annoying say, “If it wasn’t on Strava, it didn’t happen.” Runners fixate on their metrics and strive for the quickest segment times. It almost resembles a cult. Some people are even sharing coffee mugs, t-shirts, and their unique creations, with wedding photos on Strava.

The surge of Strava coincides with the running boom, and like other cultural shifts, it’s manifesting both in real life and online. Strava simplifies data sharing, making it a hotspot for fitness influencers.

Despite some unrest since early November regarding Garmin compelling users to watermark Strava workouts with Garmin device details, much of the backlash centers on Strava’s lawsuit that may impede users from sharing their runs.

Some users worry that this conflict might hinder their workout plans, with reports like tracking no longer available. Others express that while they enjoy the Strava app, it feels too closely associated with their Garmin devices for comfort. Tracking training.

One user pointed out that much of the data forming Strava’s heat maps is sourced from Garmin users, meaning a lack of this data could spell trouble for Strava.

So what does Strava seek from Garmin? Or are they just looking to end the partnership?

Matt Salazar, Strava’s Chief Product Officer, addressed the situation on Reddit recently. He indicated the lawsuit was filed after Garmin mandated Strava to comply with new watermarking protocols, which threatened the continuation of Garmin data usage by November 1st. This lawsuit attempts to address that issue.

In its court filings, Strava is demanding Garmin halt the sale of devices that allegedly infringe on their patents.

Salazar’s Reddit post bore the title “Setting the record straight on Garmin.” However, comments under his post revealed users stating they would stop using Strava if it were discontinued, accusing Strava of hypocrisy regarding its claims to safeguard user data.

Currently, Garmin has yet to comment on the allegations or requests for statements. The company plans to hold a conference call for investors later this month, ahead of the Strava deadline on November 1st, so we can expect more information then.

What steps should runners take? Which side should they support in this clash?

If you head out for a run and it doesn’t appear on Strava or Garmin, remember, it truly took place. Log off, lace up, and reconnect with nature.

Source: www.theguardian.com

AI Projected to Clarify Nearly 50% of Data Center Electricity Consumption by Year-End: A Green Economy Perspective

Artificial intelligence systems may represent nearly 50% of a data center’s power consumption by the end of this year, according to a recent analysis.

These estimates, provided by Digiconomist Tech Sustainability founder Alex de Vries-Gao, echo a prediction from the International Energy Agency regarding AI’s energy needs by the decade’s end, similar to current usage in Japan.

De Vries-Gao’s calculations, as detailed in the Sustainable Energy Journal Joule, are based on the energy consumed by chips developed by companies like Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that are used for training and operating AI models. The study also factors in energy usage of chips from other providers, such as Broadcom.

The IEA reported that all data centers (excluding those for cryptocurrency mining) consumed 415 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity last year. De Vries-Gao asserts that AI currently contributes to 20% of that total.

He highlights various factors influencing his calculations, including energy efficiency in data centers and the power requirements of cooling systems that manage AI workloads. Data centers serve as the central nervous system for AI technology, making their energy consumption a significant sustainability issue for AI development and usage.

De Vries-Gao projects that by the end of 2025, AI systems could consume up to 49% of total data center energy, potentially reaching 23 gigawatts (GW) — double the total energy usage of the Netherlands.

Bar Chart

However, De Vries-Gao mentioned that several factors might dampen hardware demand, including reduced interest in applications like ChatGPT. Geopolitical tensions creating restrictions on AI hardware production, such as export limitations, are another hurdle. De Vries-Gao notes the challenges faced by Chinese access to chips, which led to the introduction of the Deepseek R1 AI model that purportedly required fewer chips.

“These innovations could help decrease both AI processing and energy costs,” said De Vries.

That said, he mentioned that enhanced efficiency could further encourage AI adoption. Additionally, a trend referred to as “sovereign AI,” where countries aim to create their own AI systems, might spur hardware demand. De Vries-Gao cited US Data Centre startup Crusoe Energy, which secured 4.5GW of gas-powered energy capacity, making it a leading contender for potential clients like OpenAI through its Stargate venture.

“These early indicators suggest that [Stargate] data centers may increase our reliance on fossil fuels,” noted De Vries-Gao.

On Thursday, OpenAI unveiled its Stargate project in the United Arab Emirates, marking its expansion outside the United States.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Last year, Microsoft and Google acknowledged that AI poses risks to meet their internal environmental objectives.

De Vries-Gao commented that information about AI’s power requirements is increasingly scarce, describing the industry as “opaque.” While the EU AI Act mandates that AI firms disclose energy consumption related to model training, it does not cover daily usage metrics.

Professor Adam Sobey, mission director for sustainability at the UK’s Alan Turing Institute, stressed the importance of enhanced transparency regarding the energy usage of AI systems and the potential savings from advancing carbon reduction sectors like transport and energy.

Sobey remarked, “We don’t necessarily need an extensive number of compelling use cases for AI to offset the energy costs incurred upfront.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

American attorneys demand scientific publications to clarify how they ensure a diverse range of viewpoints.

This week, US attorneys for the District of Columbia will be reaching out to the editors of a scientific journal for chest doctors. They are implying that the journal may have a partisan bias and are asking a series of questions regarding how publications protect against misinformation, potential influences from competing perspectives, and funders and advertisers.

In a letter from US lawyer Ed Martin, it is stated, “It has come to my attention that magazines and publications like the Chest Journal may declare themselves as partisans in various scientific debates. You have a certain responsibility.”

This letter has sparked concern among revision groups and some scientists who worry about potential threats to academic and scientific freedom.

JT Morris, a senior supervising lawyer at the Foundation for Personal Rights and Expression (Fire), remarked, “It is highly unusual to see a US attorney from Columbia sending letters to publications in Illinois inquiring about editorial practices, especially those of medical journals. It appears to be an act of government officials targeting a publication due to disagreements with its content.”

Fire, a non-profit civil liberty group, criticized Martin for allegedly threatening speakers critical of the government’s efficiency department.

Scientific journals play a crucial role in the advancement of scientific knowledge and provide a platform for researchers to share new discoveries with their peers. Trusted scientific journals undergo a peer review process where submissions are scrutinized by external researchers to ensure accuracy and validity of the content.

The Trump administration has made significant cuts in funding and staffing for federal science and healthcare institutions, raising concerns that research topics may be targeted based on political considerations. These actions have raised suspicion among scientists regarding potential government influence in independent journals.

The District of Columbia’s US Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests from NBC News for comments or additional information regarding the letters they are sending.

The letter was originally shared online by Dr. Eric Reinhart, a Chicago-based clinician, political anthropologist, and social psychiatrist, who described the letter as “blackmail” and labeled it as “fascist tactics.”

Laura Dimasi, a communications specialist at the American College of Chest Physicians, publishers of Chest Journal, confirmed that they have received the letter shared by Reinhart.

Dimasi stated, “The content was posted online without our knowledge. Lawyers are currently reviewing the letter for further action.”

The American College of Chest Physicians is an organization of experts with around 22,000 members specializing in lung, critical care, and sleep medicine. Their website provides more information about the organization.

According to a Publication Website Statement, Chest Journal upholds strict peer review criteria to ensure scientific rigor.

Reinhart explained that he shared the letter online to bring together editors of science journals and the broader scientific community to resist government pressures on publishers.

NBC News reached out to former editors of science journals to inquire if they had ever received similar letters from the Department of Justice regarding their publishing practices, but none reported receiving such letters.

Jeremy Berg, a former editor of the Science Family of Journals, interpreted the letter as a signal of scrutiny.

Michael Eisen, a former editor of the biomedical journal Elife, viewed the letter as part of a broader attack by the Trump administration on academia, universities, and science.

Berg and Eisen expressed uncertainties about the intentions behind the letter, with Eisen highlighting that the Department of Justice’s involvement in editorial matters is unprecedented and raises concerns about undue influence.

There is uncertainty among scientists about the implications of the letter and whether it signifies a broader investigation into scientific journals. NBC News reached out to other scientific publications, and representatives from PLOS, the US Academy of Sciences, and the New England Journal of Medicine reported no similar investigations had taken place.

Representatives of Science, Nature, and Jama, the medical journals of the American Medical Association, did not respond to requests for comments.

Source: www.nbcnews.com