A study by Palisade Research, a group focused on AI safety and ethics, has uncovered a concerning trend: newer AI models are capable of identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities on their own, bypassing safeguards and using shortcuts to achieve their goals, even when such actions are prohibited. To demonstrate this, the researchers pitted seven leading large language models (LLMs) against Stockfish, a renowned chess engine that has challenged grandmasters since 2014. Faced with an almost insurmountable opponent, OpenAI’s o1 and DeepSeek’s R1 resorted to manipulating system files to alter the positions of chess pieces on the board. The researchers asked each model to explain its “reasoning” for each move. In one instance, o1 justified its actions by stating that the “task is to ‘win against a powerful chess engine,’ not necessarily to win fairly in a chess game.” This reasoning led the model to attempt cheating in 37 percent of its games, succeeding in six percent of cases. Meanwhile, R1 tried to cheat 11 percent of the time but failed to execute a successful hack. This study is part of a growing body of research suggesting that problem-focused LLM development comes with significant risks. In another recent study, a different team found that o1 consistently engaged in deceptive behavior. The model not only lied to researchers without prompting but also manipulated answers to basic math questions to avoid triggering the end of tests, demonstrating a surprising level of self-preservation. While there’s no need to panic—yet—these findings underscore the ethical challenges of AI development and the importance of prioritizing accountability over rapid progress. Jeffrey Ladish, Palisade’s executive director, told Time Magazine, “As you train models and reinforce them for solving difficult challenges, you train them to be relentless.” The tech industry has invested billions into AI development, often prioritizing speed over safety in what some critics describe as a “race to the bottom.” In their eagerness to outpace competitors, major tech companies seem more focused on impressing investors with hype than asking whether AI is the right tool for the task at hand. If we hope to limit AI’s deceptive tendencies to board games, it is crucial for developers to prioritize safety over speed. The stakes are too high to ignore the ethical implications of creating increasingly autonomous and unpredictable systems. The post The Smarter AI Becomes, the More It Cheats When Facing Defeat appeared first on Anomalien.com.

It seems to be a slow news week for NBC. The network apparently has nothing important to cover other than hyping up outrage porn over a month-old story about President Donald Trump making passports recognize biological reality.   During Sunday’s Nightly News program, NBC propped up a gender-deluded celebrity as “one of Hollywood’s brightest young stars” and a hero somehow breaking ground toward universal justice by complaining on TikTok that his passport no longer affirms his nutbaggery.      “Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing. I’m never gonna stop being trans,” whined “Euphoria” star Hunter Schafer, a man who believes he’s a woman.  “A letter and a passport can’t change that. And f*ck this administration,” continued the actor, who also plays a “transgender” high school student in the series. Related: CNN Lets Pro-Gay Activist Complain About Trump on Transgenders NBC applauded him for “using her platform to let others know this policy doesn’t change who she is.”  In a way, the anchor has a point. No executive order can change Schafer’s gender. He would’ve remained a boy without the swipe of Trump’s pen. While it’s pathetic our society has devolved to the point where basic biology needs to be established via policy, people can no longer get away with identity fraud on their passports. But that’s “harmful” according to the program’s activist attorney, who believes the change “exposes them” to “outing” for lying. “It leaves them without that option as an accurate representation of who they are,” complained their guest, Omar Gonzales-Pagan, in an attempt to flip the premise at stake on its head. Follow MRCTV on X! MRCTV's @Justine_Brooke speaks with @Schilling1776 about the lamestream media's hatred of women. "Women are so much better and bigger than abortion." pic.twitter.com/bxPtCY7I1u — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 22, 2025

On-air reactions to recent programming changes continue to reveal the ongoing institutional rot at MSNBC. As part of a network-wide prime time meltdown, star anchor Rachel Maddow openly blasted the programming changes that led to the cancellation of multiple programs in addition to Joy Reid’s.  Here is Rachel Maddow’s rant in its entirety (click “expand” to view transcript): Rachel Maddow RAKES MSNBC on-air over programming changes pic.twitter.com/Q0wQ1nMbpy — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) February 25, 2025 RACHEL MADDOW: All right. I'm going to take a little point of personal privilege here, just for a moment, if it is okay with you. You may have already heard about changes that have been announced at MSNBC over the last couple of days. The new president of our network made it official today. Some of our shows are moving to different time slots or expanding or going away altogether. In primetime, just so you know, I am here five days a week for the first 100 days of Trump's presidency, as planned. And as planned, I will go back to just Mondays after that. That is not changing. What is changing is that the show Alex Wagner Tonight is not coming back at nine after the first 100 days. Instead, Alex will be a senior political analyst for MSNBC, and Jen Psaki will start hosting the 9 P.M. hour all the other nights except for Mondays. So that's a big change. An even bigger programming change is at 7 P.M. 7 P.M. Eastern, where Joy Reid's show The ReidOut ended tonight, and Joy is not taking a different job in the network. She is leaving the network altogether and that is very, very, very hard to take. I am 51 years old. I have been gainfully employed since I was 12 and I have had so many different kinds of jobs, you wouldn't believe me if I told you. But in all of the jobs I have had in all of the years I have been alive, there is no colleague for whom I have had more affection and more respect than Joy Reid. I love everything about her. I have learned so much from her. I have so much more to learn from her. I do not want to lose her as a colleague here at MSNBC, and personally, I think it is a bad mistake to let her walk out the door. It is not my call and I understand that. But that's what I think. I will tell you, it is also unnerving to see that on a network where we've got two, count ‘em, two nonwhite hosts in primetime, both of our nonwhite hosts in primetime are losing their shows, as is Katie Phang on the weekend. And that feels worse than bad, no matter who replaces them. That feels indefensible. And I do not defend it. But there's just one other piece of it that you should know. From your side of the TV screen you will- you will mostly see changes in terms of who's in the anchor chair, and actually everybody's who's going to be in anchor chairs from here on out are great colleagues and great at what they do. And you are not going to be disappointed in who's on our air and what you're going to be seeing. But one thing you cannot necessarily see is that the people who get our shows on the air, they're really being put through the ringer. Dozens of producers and staffers, including some who are among the most experienced and most talented and most specialist producers in the building, are facing being laid off. They're being invited to reapply for new jobs. That has never happened at this scale in this way before when it comes to programing changes, presumably because it's not the right way to treat people and it's inefficient and it's unnecessary, and it kind of drops the bottom out of whether or not people feel like this is a good place to work. And so we don't generally do things that way. Maybe all of our folks, including most of the people who are getting this very show on the air right now, maybe they will all get new jobs here, and I hope they do. But in the meantime, being put in this kind of limbo, the anxiety and the discombu- discombobulation is off the charts, at a time when this job already is extra stressful and difficult. It is not news for me to tell you that the press and freedom of the press are under attack in a way that is really- it's a big deal for our country. It's very visceral for us here. I know that the business of the press is not an easy thing, and I know that no job is forever but I think- I think I'm safe in saying, for all of us anchors who you know through the TV, please know that what pains us the most is not what happens to us. It is what happens to our coworkers on whom we depend and who you don't necessarily know, but we respect and love them and depend on them. And did I mention we respect them? This is a difficult time in the news business, but it does not need to be this difficult. We welcome new voices to this place and some familiar voices to new hours. It's going to be great, honestly. And we want to grow and succeed and reach more people than ever and be resilient and stay here forever. I also believe, and I bet you believe, that the way to get there is by treating people well, finding good people, good colleagues, doing good work with them, and then having their back. That, we could do a lot better on. A lot better. This rant was part of an ongoing primetime struggle session wherein the hosts took turns eulogizing Joy Reid, whose incendiary tenure as an MSNBC host ended (perhaps for now) on Monday. But it should be noted that this isn’t the first time that MSNBC hosts take to the air to opine about personnel decisions.  Recall the outrage, fueled by MSNBC, when former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel was hired, then unhired as an NBC commentator. Note what Maddow said at the time, when the internal revolt successfully reversed the hiring of a hated outsider: MADDOW: I still feel like a little -- it always feels wrong to talk about things, you know, in the company as if it's news.  Maddow expressed no such qualms, however, when the firings happened within the liberal clique. She had quite a bit to say, actually. First, she called the firings of Joy Reid, Katie Phang, and others “a bad mistake”. Maddow then proceeded to impute racial animus to the cancellations of Reid and Wagner’s shows: MADDOW: I will tell you, it is also unnerving to see that on a network where we've got two, count ‘em, two nonwhite hosts in primetime, both of our nonwhite hosts in primetime are losing their shows, as is Katie Phang on the weekend. And that feels worse than bad, no matter who replaces them. That feels indefensible. And I do not defend it. Never mind that Reid’s show is rumored to be replaced by a weeknight version of The Weekend, featuring Michael Steele, Symone Sanders-Townsend and Alicia Menéndez. Reid might be gone, but her toxic brand of racial arson remains alive and well at MSNBC. After interceding for production staff, Maddow proceeds to end her diatribe by chiding the network to “do a lot better”. It is here that we stop and consider the madness of allowing the inmates to continue to run the asylum. Allowing talent to spike the ball after the ouster of McDaniel effectively created the permission structure for them to think themselves entitled to openly weigh in on personnel decisions. Ultimately, networks are businesses, and MSNBC is entitled to assess whether or not retaining their talents is what’s best for business. In the case of Reid (and Mohyeldin, and Capehart, and Phang, as well as Wagner and Díaz-Balart on weekdays), the network decided that it was best to move on.  This same rationale is what compelled MSNBC to retain Maddow’s part-time services for $25 million a year. They may one day decide that these monies are best spent elsewhere- perhaps on more diverse talent, per Maddow’s hypocritical protestations. If Maddow is so outraged by the lack of diversity at MSNBC, why not step aside and redistribute that timeslot (and salary) to more deserving talents of color, instead of protesting its bequeathing to melanin-deficient Obama/Biden apparatchik Jen Psaki?  Having just settled a defamation lawsuit over the malicious “uterus collector” defamation of a Georgia doctor, MSNBC may also decide that the remaining anchor slate is a liability and move on from them, as well- Maddow included. So long as Maddow is the public face and de facto titular head of the network, these entitled meltdowns will continue.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart went on such a fierce anti-capitalism rant on Monday’s episode of The Daily Show that he literally gave himself a bloody hand as he smashed his coffee cup against his desk. Afterwards, Stewart would call capitalism “exploitative” and suggest Democrats adopt a new MANGIONE acronym before jokingly stopping himself. Stewart was ranting about how DOGE finding a million dollars of wasteful spending here and there to cut isn’t going to fix the system. Instead, politicians need to go after corporations and ideally health insurance companies.  It was during a rant on a Biden policy, which Stewart portrayed as woefully insufficient, that he hurt himself.     Later, Stewart continued, “Look, capitalism is by definition exploitative. It's how it operates. That's fine. But then government's role should be to ease the negative effects on Americans of that exploitation, not subsidize that treachery with our money. We are getting [bleep] at a Diddy party and they're making us buy the baby oil.” Not appreciating how franchises work, Stewart rolled on, “Look man, I want DOGE to work. I want better efficiencies, get rid of the alphabet agencies that don't do enough, make the Pentagon pass an audit, but we are DOGE-ing in the wrong place if we want to really change the system. Companies like Walmart and McDonald's make billions of dollars in taxpayer-subsidized profits, yet many of their hard-working employees need taxpayer-subsidized public assistance.” Holding up his hand for the first time since the injury, Stewart was just getting started, “We are subsidizing the very system that makes workers' lives harder in the first place! All in the name of freedom and liberty, but the greatest restriction of freedom in this country isn't DEI and pronoun pressure. It's [bleep] poverty and struggle and the government’s role, I’m not done, ya bastards! It's fine!” Stewart then turned to Democrats, “The government's role should be to end the corruption that enables that exploitation. That's what the Democrats should be doing. Every [bleep] day! Every day! Every day at 5:00 P.M. sharp, the Democrats should go live on Facebook and do the people's audit. Find the absurdities and the remedies in our exploitive system. “ Alluding to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Stewart kept going, “Get someone like AOC or Jasmine Crockett or Chris Murphy or anybody that doesn't sound like they're complaining why there's no more frozen yogurt at the cafeteria in The Villages. I'm sorry! You have no rizz! And we need something more than shouting, we need something constructive to anchor our hopes. A new acronym. For a new age. It's not MAGA. It is something more like Make... America... Not ... Governed... In... Obviously... Negative... Abort! Abort! Abort! No vigilantes!  But do something!” If Stewart suffered that injury in the U.K., he might have to go months before getting treatment. If he got in Canada, they might suggest he euthanize himself. Here is a transcript for the February 24 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 2/24/2025 11:19 PM ET JON STEWART: Look, capitalism is by definition exploitative. It's how it operates. That's fine. But then government's role should be to ease the negative effects on Americans of that exploitation, not subsidize that treachery with our money. We are getting [bleep] at a Diddy party and they're making us buy the baby oil!  Look man, I want DOGE to work. I want better efficiencies, get rid of the alphabet agencies that don't do enough, make the Pentagon pass an audit, but we are DOGE-ing in the wrong place if we want to really change the system. Companies like Walmart and McDonald's make billions of dollars in taxpayer-subsidized profits, yet many of their hard-working employees need taxpayer-subsidized public assistance. Airlines get billions in bailouts that they use in stock buybacks and bonuses, but if you're on food assistance, you're not allowed to buy hot food with it. Cause apparently heated entrees are for winners.  We are subsidizing the very system that makes workers' lives harder in the first place! All in the name of freedom and liberty, but the greatest restriction of freedom in this country isn't DEI and pronoun pressure. It's [bleep] poverty and struggle and the government’s role, I’m not done, ya bastards! It's fine!  The government's role should be to end the corruption that enables that exploitation. That's what the Democrats should be doing. Every [bleep] day! Every day! Every day at 5:00 P.M. sharp, the Democrats should go live on Facebook and do the people's audit. Find the absurdities and the remedies in our exploitive system.  Get someone like AOC or Jasmine Crockett or Chris Murphy or anybody that doesn't sound like they're complaining why there's no more frozen yogurt at the cafeteria in The Villages. I'm sorry! You have no rizz! And we need something more than shouting, we need something constructive to anchor our hopes. A new acronym. For a new age. It's not MAGA. It is something more like Make... America... Not ... Governed... In... Obviously... Negative... Abort! Abort! Abort! No vigilantes!  But do something!

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) was apparently caught on a hot mic last week threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. When confronted online by peers and critics about his remark, footage of which went viral Monday, the congressman suggested that he had said no such thing. Crenshaw attended the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in Britain, which ran from Feb. 17 to 19. At the conference, he sat down for an interview with GB News' Steven Edginton to discuss American global leadership, the "neocon" label often applied to him, and the war in Ukraine. Toward the end of the interview, Edginton referred to the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has given to Ukraine, then said, "I know that people like Tucker Carlson would make the argument that there's a real opportunity cost there. You know, we could have spent that money on the border or fixing, you know, issues in America." When asked whether the money provided to Ukraine might have been better spent helping Americans, Crenshaw said, "You can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. ... We spend 75%, 80% of our budget on a welfare state in America — on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would love to ask Tucker what he thinks that $100 billion should be spent on, if he would vote for it as a conservative." 'I wonder who he will threaten to kill next?' "Tucker doesn't know what he's talking about," continued Crenshaw. "Tucker likes to visit Moscow and talk about how great the grocery stores are, so I don't really take his advice very seriously." Additional footage has appeared online showing Edginton asking Crenshaw after the interview, "Have you ever met Tucker?" "We've talked a lot on Twitter. If I ever meet him, I'll f**king kill him," the congressman seemingly answered. Edginton indicated on X that when he laughed off the remark, Crenshaw doubled down, stating, "No, seriously, I would kill him." The video of Crenshaw's apparent threat went viral Monday, prompting significant backlash. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), for instance, asked Crenshaw, "Did you threaten to kill my friend @TuckerCarlson?" Crenshaw responded, "lol, no." 'I'll send you my address.' The congressman's denial prompted more criticism and scrutiny, as well as a community notes clarification on X. Federalist CEO Sean Davis noted, "You know there's a video of you saying otherwise, right?" Turning Point USA journalist Savanah Hernandez cited Crenshaw's denial as a prime example of "how carelessly our politicians lie to us." Podcaster Shawn Ryan asked, "I wonder who he will threaten to kill next? Has anyone checked on Tucker?" Elon Musk posed the question, "Why is Crenshaw homicidal regarding Tucker?" Tucker Carlson evidently took the threat in stride. Responding to Musk's question, Carlson extended an interview request to Crenshaw. "Why don't you come sit for an interview and we'll see how you do?" wrote Carlson. "I'll send you my address." Crenshaw and Carlson have long had an antagonistic long-distance relationship. The congressman, who is running for re-election next year, has characterized Carlson as a "know-nothing elitist," a "click-chaser," and a "mindless" contrarian who seeks to "defend America's enemies" and "sow doubt and paranoia and false narratives." Carlson, on the other hand, has called Crenshaw "eye patch McCain" — a "neocon" who engages in "Soviet-style politics" and attacks "moms who are worried about baby formula as pro-Russia." Carlson has also suggested that Crenshaw is a liberal Republican who should be "bagging groceries at Walmart" and a "liar." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WAIT, WHAT?! Rep. Steve Cohen BUTCHERS Old Saying and HOOBOY and YIKES All In One (Watch)

She KNEW: The LOOK on Rachel Maddow's Face During Joy Reid's Last Show SOOO Very Telling (Watch)

IRS Employee Shares 'Journey' of Going Into the Office and Being FIRED, Receives ZERO Sympathy (Watch)

Tuesday Morning Minute: The Woes of Nose

Superbugs are what we routinely call bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics. The name isn't exaggerated, as these acquired defenses allow the superbugs to survive and potentially provoke more havoc.  Scientists like Professor José R Penadés's team at Imperial College London have been trying to figure out how superbugs get their problems in the hope of a solution for years, working on a theory they did not share with anyone until the arrival of a new piece of AI. Google's newly released co-scientist AI (based on Gemini 2.0) needed only 48 hours to reach the same conclusion as the scientists after a decade of research. The AI also came up with additional reasons why a bug might get superpowers, including a new concept scientists are now studying. Continue reading... The post Google’s new AI solves superbug problems in two days – human researchers needed a decade appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Presidents’ Day weekend deals: $298 Nintendo Switch OLED, $279 Apple iPad 10, Dell & HP laptops, more Today’s deals: Apple accessory sale, $90 Ninja Air Fryer Pro, $188 ergonomic office chair, more Today’s deals: $99 AirPods 4, $200 off eufy X10 Pro Omni in white, $30 Crest 3D Whitestrips, more Best Echo Dot deals for February 2025