“For months, extremely personal and sensitive ChatGPT conversations have been leaking into an unexpected destination,” reports Ars Technica: the search-traffic tool for webmasters , Google Search Console.

Though it normally shows the short phrases or keywords typed into Google which led someone to their site, “starting this September, odd queries, sometimes more than 300 characters long, could also be found” in Google Search Console. And the chats “appeared to be from unwitting people prompting a chatbot to help solve relationship or business problems, who likely expected those conversations would remain private.” Jason Packer, owner of analytics consulting firm Quantable, flagged the issue in a detailed blog post last month, telling Ars Technica he’d seen 200 odd queries — including “some pretty crazy ones.” (Web optimization consultant Slobodan ManiÄ helped Packer investigate…) Packer points out “nobody clicked share” or were given an option to prevent their chats from being exposed.

Packer suspected that these queries were connected to reporting from The Information in August that cited sources claiming OpenAI was scraping Google search results to power ChatGPT responses. Sources claimed that OpenAI was leaning on Google to answer prompts to ChatGPT seeking information about current events, like news or sports… “Did OpenAI go so fast that they didn’t consider the privacy implications of this, or did they just not care?” Packer posited in his blog… Clearly some of those searches relied on Google, Packer’s blog said, mistakenly sending to GSC “whatever” the user says in the prompt box… This means “that OpenAI is sharing any prompt that requires a Google Search with both Google and whoever is doing their scraping,” Packer alleged. “And then also with whoever’s site shows up in the search results! Yikes.”

To Packer, it appeared that “ALL ChatGPT prompts” that used Google Search risked being leaked during the past two months. OpenAI claimed only a small number of queries were leaked but declined to provide a more precise estimate. So, it remains unclear how many of the 700 million people who use ChatGPT each week had prompts routed to Google Search Console.

“Perhaps most troubling to some users — whose identities are not linked in chats unless their prompts perhaps share identifying information — there does not seem to be any way to remove the leaked chats from Google Search Console..”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The new series from Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan, Pluribus, was emphatically made by humans, not AI, reports TechCrunch:

If you watched all the way to the end of the new Apple TV show “Pluribus,” you may have noticed an unusual disclaimer in the credits: “This show was made by humans.” That terse message — placed right below a note that “animal wranglers were on set to ensure animal safety” — could potentially provide a model for other filmmakers seeking to highlight that their work was made without the use of generative AI.

In fact, yesterday the former X-Files writer told Variety “I hate AI. AI is the world’s most expensive and energy-intensive plagiarism machine….”

He goes on, about how AI-generated content is “like a cow chewing its cud — an endlessly regurgitated loop of nonsense,” and how the U.S. will fail to regulate the technology because of an arms race with China. He works himself up until he’s laughing again, proclaiming: “Thank you, Silicon Valley! Yet again, you’ve fucked up the world.”

He also says “there’s a very high possibility that this is all a bunch of horseshit,” according to the article. “It’s basically a bunch of centibillionaires whose greatest life goal is to become the world’s first trillionaires. I think they’re selling a bag of vapor.”

And earlier this week he told Polygon that he hasn’t used ChatGPT “because, as of yet, no one has held a shotgun to my head and made me do it.” (Adding “I will never use it.”)

Time magazine called Thursday’s two-episode premiere “bonkers.” Though ironically, that premiere hit its own dystopian glitch. “After months of buildup and an omnipresent advertising campaign, Apple’s much-anticipated new show Pluribus made its debut…” reports Macworld. “And the service promptly suffered a major outage across the U.S. and Canada.”

As reported by Bloomberg and others, users started to report that the service had crashed at around 10:30 p.m. ET, shortly after Apple made the first two episodes of the show available to stream. There were almost 13,000 reports on Downdetector before Apple acknowledged the problem on its System Status page. Reports say the outage was brief, lasting less than an hour…

[T]here remains a Resolved Outage note on Apple TV (simply saying “Some users were affected; users experienced a problem with Apple TV” between 10:29 and 11.38 p.m.), as well as on Apple Music and Apple Arcade, which also went down at the same time. Social media reports indicated that the outage was widespread.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“The Firefox brand is getting a refresh and you get the first look,” says a new web page at Firefox.com. “Kit’s our new mascot and your new companion through an internet that’s private, open and actually yours.”

Slashdot reader BrianFagioli believes the new mascot “is meant to communicate that message in a warmer, more relatable way.”

And Firefox is already selling shirts with Kit over the pocket (as well as stickers)…

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

For more than a decade, the nonprofit Common Crawl “has been scraping billions of webpages to build a massive archive of the internet,” notes the Atlantic, making it freely available for research.
“In recent years, however, this archive has been put to a controversial purpose: AI companies including OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Nvidia, Meta, and Amazon have used it to train large language models.

“In the process, my reporting has found, Common Crawl has opened a back door for AI companies to train their models with paywalled articles from major news websites. And the foundation appears to be lying to publishers about this — as well as masking the actual contents of its archives…”

Common Crawl’s website states that it scrapes the internet for “freely available content” without “going behind any ‘paywalls.'” Yet the organization has taken articles from major news websites that people normally have to pay for — allowing AI companies to train their LLMs on high-quality journalism for free. Meanwhile, Common Crawl’s executive director, Rich Skrenta, has publicly made the case that AI models should be able to access anything on the internet. “The robots are people too,” he told me, and should therefore be allowed to “read the books” for free. Multiple news publishers have requested that Common Crawl remove their articles to prevent exactly this use. Common Crawl says it complies with these requests. But my research shows that it does not.

I’ve discovered that pages downloaded by Common Crawl have appeared in the training data of thousands of AI models. As Stefan Baack, a researcher formerly at Mozilla, has written, “Generative AI in its current form would probably not be possible without Common Crawl.” In 2020, OpenAI used Common Crawl’s archives to train GPT-3. OpenAI claimed that the program could generate “news articles which human evaluators have difficulty distinguishing from articles written by humans,” and in 2022, an iteration on that model, GPT-3.5, became the basis for ChatGPT, kicking off the ongoing generative-AI boom. Many different AI companies are now using publishers’ articles to train models that summarize and paraphrase the news, and are deploying those models in ways that steal readers from writers and publishers.

Common Crawl maintains that it is doing nothing wrong. I spoke with Skrenta twice while reporting this story. During the second conversation, I asked him about the foundation archiving news articles even after publishers have asked it to stop. Skrenta told me that these publishers are making a mistake by excluding themselves from “Search 2.0” — referring to the generative-AI products now widely being used to find information online — and said that, anyway, it is the publishers that made their work available in the first place. “You shouldn’t have put your content on the internet if you didn’t want it to be on the internet,” he said. Common Crawl doesn’t log in to the websites it scrapes, but its scraper is immune to some of the paywall mechanisms used by news publishers. For example, on many news websites, you can briefly see the full text of any article before your web browser executes the paywall code that checks whether you’re a subscriber and hides the content if you’re not. Common Crawl’s scraper never executes that code, so it gets the full articles.

Thus, by my estimate, the foundation’s archives contain millions of articles from news organizations around the world, including The Economist, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Harper’s, and The Atlantic…. A search for nytimes.com in any crawl from 2013 through 2022 shows a “no captures” result, when in fact there are articles from NYTimes.com in most of these crawls.

“In the past year, Common Crawl’s CCBot has become the scraper most widely blocked by the top 1,000 websites,” the article points out…

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A CRISPR-based drug given to study participants by infusion is raising hopes for a much easier way to lower cholesterol, reports CNN:

With a snip of a gene, doctors may one day permanently lower dangerously high cholesterol, possibly removing the need for medication, according to a new pilot study published Saturday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was extremely small — only 15 patients with severe disease — and was meant to test the safety of a new medication delivered by CRISPR-Cas9, a biological sort of scissor which cuts a targeted gene to modify or turn it on or off. Preliminary results, however, showed nearly a 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, the “bad” cholesterol which plays a major role in heart disease — the No.1 killer of adults in the United States and worldwide. The study, which will be presented Saturday at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans, also found an average 55% reduction in triglycerides, a different type of fat in the blood that is also linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

“We hope this is a permanent solution, where younger people with severe disease can undergo a ‘one and done’ gene therapy and have reduced LDL and triglycerides for the rest of their lives,” said senior study author Dr. Steven Nissen, chief academic officer of the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular & Thoracic Institute at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio…. Today, cardiologists want people with existing heart disease or those born with a predisposition for hard-to-control cholesterol to lower their LDL well below 100, which is the average in the US, said Dr. Pradeep Natarajan, director of preventive cardiology at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston…

People with a nonfunctioning ANGPTL3 gene — which Natarajan says applies to about 1 in 250 people in the US — have lifelong levels of low LDL cholesterol and triglycerides without any apparent negative consequences. They also have exceedingly low or no risk for cardiovascular disease. “It’s a naturally occurring mutation that’s protective against cardiovascular disease,” said Nissen, who holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Cleveland Clinic. “And now that CRISPR is here, we have the ability to change other people’s genes so they too can have this protection.”

“Phase 2 clinical trials will begin soon, quickly followed by Phase 3 trials, which are designed to show the effect of the drug on a larger population, Nissen said.”

And CNN quotes Nissen as saying “We hope to do all this by the end of next year. We’re moving very fast because this is a huge unmet medical need — millions of people have these disorders and many of them are not on treatment or have stopped treatment for whatever reason.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A former Business Analyst reportedly filed a class action lawsuit claiming that for years, hundreds of remote employees at Bank of America first had to boot up complex computer systems before their paid work began, reports Human Resources Director magazine:

Tava Martin, who worked both remotely and at the company’s Jacksonville facility, says the financial institution required her and fellow hourly workers to log into multiple security systems, download spreadsheets, and connect to virtual private networks — all before the clock started ticking on their workday. The process wasn’t quick. According to the filing in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, employees needed 15 to 30 minutes each morning just to get their systems running. When technical problems occurred, it took even longer…

Workers turned on their computers, waited for Windows to load, grabbed their cell phones to request a security token for the company’s VPN, waited for that token to arrive, logged into the network, opened required web applications with separate passwords, and downloaded the Excel files they needed for the day. Only then could they start taking calls from business customers about regulatory reporting requirements…
The unpaid work didn’t stop at startup. During unpaid lunch breaks, many systems would automatically disconnect or otherwise lose connection, forcing employees to repeat portions of the login process — approximately three to five minutes of uncompensated time on most days, sometimes longer when a complete reboot was required. After shifts ended, workers had to log out of all programs and shut down their computers securely, adding another two to three minutes.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Joe_Dragon for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.