AI News/Wire summary
AI refusals are unreliable, opaque and costly, the article argues
Key points
- Companies train models to refuse prompts, using other AI models to run exercises that reward refusals and penalize over-refusal.
- Anthropic reportedly said one type of classifier added 24% to its chatbots' compute costs earlier this year.
- Refusals are probabilistic: repeated identical risky questions were generally refused, but every so often a model answered, per Ryan McBain's tests.
- AI companies currently decide where the refusal line falls, and they reportedly do so with utmost secrecy.
Why it matters for marketers: Content teams should expect inconsistent refusals on borderline topics and should not assume a tool's safety filters are fixed or fully predictable.
Summary by the Z Media news desk, from the outlets' reporting. Read the full stories at the source.
Read the original
MIT Technology Review: We’re putting too much faith in AI’s ability to say no
Related on Z Media
- Google ships Gemini 4 Argon with tiered access and a price that doubles in NovemberOur brief, via Google DeepMind, 2 days ago
- OpenAI employee arrested over hidden recording device in officevia The Verge, 2 days ago
- YouTube Music starts labeling tracks made primarily with generative AIOur brief, via The Verge, yesterday
- Character.AI files for bankruptcy as Disney offers $20M for assets and a licenseOur brief, via TechCrunch, 3 days ago
- Anthropic warns small AI models could soon self-replicate across IoT devicesvia Ars Technica, 3 days ago
- Anthropic gives METR researchers employee-level access to its modelsvia TechCrunch, 6 hr ago