Two U.S. missiles hit an elementary school in Iran, killing over 150 people including 123 children on the first day of the Iran War. But Gizmodo notes that a new Bloomberg investigation cites U.S. officials involved in an unreleased internal Pentagon review who blame "a cascade of preventable failures that included an overreliance on an AI tool built by Palantir." According to the officials who spoke to Bloomberg, some personnel inside U.S. Central Command leaned too hard on the AI inside the Maven Smart System, an AI-powered data integration and targeting platform developed by Palantir to accelerate intelligence analysis and decision-making. The Defense Department has reportedly made the software tool a cornerstone of military operations over the past year... Officials said some users expected Maven to flag stale records or contradictions in the intelligence assembled for potential targets, though it is not clear why they thought the system would do that. The Minab [elementary school] site, which was cataloged as an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility due to outdated data, was fed into Maven with other candidates and came out as a recommended day-one target. Target-list work that once took hours was condensed into minutes. A Palantir spokesperson told Bloomberg the company "is not responsible for the underlying data nor identifying intelligence deficiencies" and that there is no evidence its software was at fault. Two people familiar with Palantir's Pentagon contracts said the government keeps primary responsibility for the quality of the information that's fed into Maven. After the strike, Palantir added features that "re-review underlying intelligence to identify factors that would disqualify a target and flag inconsistencies and inaccuracies that human review may have missed," a person familiar with the work said. That new functionality is said to have already caught some anomalies... More than 1,000 Iranian targets were hit in the first 24 hours, and according to Bloomberg's sources, that pace compressed the time available for additional confirmations. Staffing on civilian harm mitigation teams across the U.S. Department of Defense had also fallen by roughly 90% over recent years, shrinking to fewer than 20 people overall. The U.S. Central Command's group shrank from 10 people to one. No member of those teams reviewed the Minab site before the missiles were up in the air. A separate inquiry by the United Nations' Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran this week reached the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching an indiscriminate attack.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

OpenAIはChatGPTやCodexといったサービスを展開しており、ユーザー数は2026年7月末時点で10億人に達しています。OpenAIは10億人を超えるユーザーのデータを自社製オンラインストレージシステム「Habitat」で管理しているとのこと。このHabitatの詳細がOpenAIの公式ブログで解説されています。

続きを読む...

AIエージェントを社員ごとに導入すると、それぞれの実行環境やAPIキー・利用できるサービス・権限などを個別に管理する必要があります。各メンバーに専用のAIエージェントを割り当てながら、認証情報やアクセスルールをチーム単位でまとめて管理できるオープンソースの「OneCLI」が公開されています。

続きを読む...

Meta's AI "personal agent" Muse overtook ChatGPT as the #1 iOS free app in the U.S. on Friday, reports CNBC — and it's still showing more downloads as of Monday night. Muse now has over 2.5 million downloads since its debut less than two weeks ago, according to analytics firm Sensor Tower... [Muse] is currently ahead of popular services like OpenAI's ChatGPT, Polymarket and Kashi... It's also ahead of rival AI apps like Anthropic's Claude and SpaceXAI's Grok AI, in addition to the Facebook-parent's own Meta AI app... Meta pitched the app as a way for consumers to manage and direct supercharged digital assistants that can perform a number of tasks across the web, like filling out electronic forms and organizing email inboxes... "I think up to this point most of the agentic use cases have not really been for normal people," Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon told CNBC in a "Squawk on the Street" interview on Monday. "Now you've got Meta's Muse and other agents out there that are starting to maybe get more potential for more broad-based adoption." The buzz around Meta was also reflected in the stock, which surged more than 11% on Monday. Amazon is already blocking Muse, reports GeekWire. Amazon first tried to get Meta to voluntarily exclude Amazon, but they were unsuccessful: The problem, Amazon says, is that it never agreed to any of it. Meta didn't tell Amazon that Muse would access its store, the agent doesn't identify itself when it browses, and it appears to capture and store customer credentials, which the company says could create privacy and security risks. As of Sunday night, people trying to use Muse to shop on Amazon were seeing the popup, "Continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violates Amazon's Conditions of Use, to which our customers have agreed..." Amazon has spent the past year trying to keep outside agents off its site, suing Perplexity over its Comet browser and moving to block shopping agents from Google and OpenAI. [Amazon won a preliminary injunction against Perplexity in March, the article poitns out, "then lost it on Aug. 4, when the Ninth Circuit ruled that the user — not the AI company — was the one accessing Amazon's computers under federal anti-hacking law. The court denied Amazon's petition for rehearing on Sept. 10."] On Sunday night, Amazon said it is in direct conversation with Meta about the issue. Asked whether it would consider taking legal action, the company declined to comment. The business stakes are high for Amazon. In addition to operating its flagship e-commerce site, Amazon generated more than $68 billion in ad revenue last year — a business that depends on people browsing its pages and seeing sponsored products. Muse also appears to scrape account data, reports CNBC. But Shopify, however, "is working with Meta on Muse access. Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke announced Monday that the e-commerce site was partnering with Muse to allow agentic checkout in its online stores."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

プログラムの作成や修正をAIに任せるとき、単価の安いAIモデルを選べば費用も抑えられると思いがちです。ところが、AIの動作監視や評価を手がけるFiddlerの研究チームが複数のAIモデルに不具合を修正させて比べたところ、単価が安くても、正しく修正するための費用はかえって高くなる場合があることが分かりました。

続きを読む...

カリフォルニア州の大学生3人が、カリフォルニア州北部に位置する標高4321.8mのシャスタ山を登山中に救助されました。この大学生はAIで登頂計画を立てていて、ルートから外れてしまったとのことです。

続きを読む...

There's at least 15 author-driven lawsuits underway against AI companies, while publishers have filed roughly 10 more coordinated suits of their own, notes Publisher's Weekly. Yet "While the lawsuits play out, some publishers are building bridges." Google recently announced a partnership with Bloomsbury, De Gruyter Brill, Johns Hopkins University Press, Macmillan, O'Reilly Media, and Penguin Random House to enhance e-books from its Google Play store with AI, allowing readers to interact with the text of the books directly, ask questions and get answers, and develop tools such as quizzes and slideshows... [The CEO of the Author's Guild called the partnership "a positive step forward in the legitimized use of books in the AI ecosystem to the benefit of readers, publishers, and authors alike."] Of even more significance is the growing number of licensing deals publishers are striking with AI companies. In 2024, HarperCollins became the first of the Big Five to publicly reveal that it had signed a deal to license its content for AI training. The three-year agreement paid $5,000 per participating title, split equally between HarperCollins and the authors. Wiley announced its first AI licensing deal in 2024 and has since made several more. For fiscal year 2026, it reported earning $49 million in revenue from the deals. The company also has a number of strategic collaborations with companies including Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Anthropic, Perplexity, IQVIA, OpenEvidence, and others. And publishers are even building in-house AI tools for producing royalty statements, proofreading, and providing customer service: In its 2025 Salary and Jobs Report, Publisher's Weekly reported that 63% of industry professionals surveyed said their organizations were using AI... Keith Riegert, president of the Stable Book Group and CEO of Perfect Bound, has been a vocal advocate for the use of AI in publishing — despite calling himself a "hardcore techno-pessimist." He tells PW, "I do this because you use AI or you die at this point...." Like many in the industry, he maintains any use of AI must "start with a human and end with a human," and he draws a clear line, avoiding AI for core creative work, such as selecting titles, designing covers, or creating illustrations — reserving it for developmental editing, formatting, and admin instead... What is known is that each of the Big Five is developing proprietary AI systems for internal use, as proven by the numerous AI-related job openings the companies have posted... [And the parent company of Penguin Random House said in 2025 they used AI for marketing and to forecast demand.] There've been a few high-profile controversies about prominent authors accused of using AI. But Princeton University Press CEO Christie Henry "is less concerned about authors secretly using AI to write than about the time spent policing the situation." "It pulls us away from having focused time to think," she says. Princeton University Press is currently vetting companies that promise to be able to certify that a given book was written by a human, including Created by Humans, Human Authored, and Verify My Writing. Henry adds that the proliferation of plagiarized, copycat, and pirated books online, now supercharged by AI agents mass producing and reproducing content, is further draining resources, as it demands constant vigilance and takedown requests sent to Amazon, YouTube, and others.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.