Google's AI solved coding problems no human could crack at world's toughest programming contest, earning gold. But OpenAI quietly achieved perfect scores. The real story: advanced AI reasoning now matches human experts but remains too expensive for wide use.
Anthropic builds classified AI models for intelligence agencies while blocking FBI and ICE from domestic surveillance use. The contradiction has sparked White House tensions and raises questions about ethical lines in government AI.
Even the most advanced AI visual systems have a serious problem: They try to answer questions they can't actually solve. A new study from the University of Tokyo and their collaborators tested leading AI models on what seems like a simple task - knowing when to say "I can't answer that."
The results revealed a concerning gap between what these systems claim to understand and what they truly comprehend. The researchers created three types of impossible questions. They removed correct answers from multiple choice options, showed images that had nothing to do with the questions being asked, or provided completely irrelevant answer choices. A reliable AI system should recognize these situations and decline to answer.
But that's not what happened. While these same AI models score impressively on standard tests, they performed dismally when faced with impossible questions. Many open-source models got scores below 6% when they should have said "I can't answer this."
Credit: The University of Tokyo
The gap between closed-source models (like GPT-4 Vision) and open-source alternatives proved particularly stark. While GPT-4 Vision managed to identify unsolvable questions about 60% of the time, popular open-source models like CogVLM2 scored below 1% - despite both performing similarly well on standard tests.
"This suggests that our community's efforts to improve performance on existing benchmarks do not directly contribute to enhancing model reliability," the researchers note. In other words, we've been teaching AI to guess even when it shouldn't.
The study uncovers different failure patterns among models. Some struggle specifically with visual tasks, while others have trouble with basic reasoning about whether questions are answerable. The researchers found that adding explicit instructions to consider whether questions were impossible helped some models but made others perform worse.
Looking ahead, the team suggests that future AI development needs to focus not just on getting right answers, but on knowing when getting an answer isn't possible.
Why this matters:
Current AI visual systems are overconfident - they'll try to answer questions even when they can't possibly know the answer
We need new ways to measure AI reliability beyond just accuracy scores on standard tests
Tech translator with German roots who fled to Silicon Valley chaos. Decodes startup noise from San Francisco. Launched implicator.ai to slice through AI's daily madness—crisp, clear, with Teutonic precision and sarcasm.
E-Mail: marcus@implicator.ai
Reuters tested if major AI chatbots would help create phishing scams targeting seniors. Simple phrases like "for research" bypassed safety rules. In trials with 108 elderly volunteers, 11% clicked malicious links. The guardrails aren't holding.
AI adoption is splitting along wealth lines globally as businesses automate 77% of tasks. Singapore uses Claude 4.6x more than expected while India lags at 0.27x. The concentration threatens to widen economic gaps rather than close them.
Large U.S. companies just hit the brakes on AI—adoption fell from 14% to 12% in two months, the first decline since tracking began. MIT research explains why: 95% of enterprise pilots deliver zero ROI. The gap between AI hype and workflow reality is widening.
Students embrace AI faster than schools can write rules. While 85% use AI for coursework, institutions stall on policy—and tech giants step in with billions in training programs to fill the vacuum. The question: who gets to define learning standards?