BTC $64,772.21 -3.77%
ETH $1,805.82 -4.79%
BNB $589.00 -5.39%
XRP $0.9463 -4.96%
SOL $70.73 -6.43%
TRX $0.3074 -1.23%
DOGE $0.0581 -7.52%
ADA $0.1490 -9.44%
BCH $204.85 -5.68%
LINK $9.02 -6.10%
HYPE $65.95 -5.96%
AAVE $101.99 -6.77%
SUI $0.7143 -8.24%
XLM $0.1371 -4.17%
ZEC $897.89 -2.77%
AAPL $356.76 +0.18%
AMZN $262.81 -0.79%
GOOGL $291.77 -0.58%
MSFT $520.11 -0.43%
META $632.41 -0.89%
NVDA $160.18 -0.99%
TSLA $385.42 -0.64%
SNDK $852.28 -1.26%
INTC $57.67 -1.49%
SPCX $136.09 -0.18%
MU $758.53 -0.37%
AMD $522.33 -0.26%
BTC $64,772.21 -3.77%
ETH $1,805.82 -4.79%
BNB $589.00 -5.39%
XRP $0.9463 -4.96%
SOL $70.73 -6.43%
TRX $0.3074 -1.23%
DOGE $0.0581 -7.52%
ADA $0.1490 -9.44%
BCH $204.85 -5.68%
LINK $9.02 -6.10%
HYPE $65.95 -5.96%
AAVE $101.99 -6.77%
SUI $0.7143 -8.24%
XLM $0.1371 -4.17%
ZEC $897.89 -2.77%
AAPL $356.76 +0.18%
AMZN $262.81 -0.79%
GOOGL $291.77 -0.58%
MSFT $520.11 -0.43%
META $632.41 -0.89%
NVDA $160.18 -0.99%
TSLA $385.42 -0.64%
SNDK $852.28 -1.26%
INTC $57.67 -1.49%
SPCX $136.09 -0.18%
MU $758.53 -0.37%
AMD $522.33 -0.26%

quest

All
Article
Flash

first_img Four non-profit organizations sued OpenAI and five other AI companies, requesting a freeze on model development

Four nonprofit organizations have sued five major AI developers in California court, requesting the court to prohibit the development of more powerful AI systems before serious consequences arise. This 63-page lawsuit was submitted to the San Francisco Superior Court on Thursday, with defendants including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and SpaceX; the plaintiffs are Public Citizen, Heat Initiative, Irreplaceable Education Fund, and Alliance for Secure AI.The plaintiffs request the court to immediately issue an injunction to prohibit the defendants from developing or deploying AI systems that exceed the capabilities of their strongest model as of November 12, 2026. This injunction does not mean shutting down existing products like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, but rather sets the current technological level as a ceiling, preventing the release of stronger next-generation models. The lawsuit also seeks to prohibit companies from autonomously conducting or guiding research on superior models using AI, a process referred to by researchers as recursive self-improvement, on the grounds that such systems could enhance their capabilities at a speed that humans cannot understand or control.The plaintiffs cite California's Unfair Competition Law, arguing that the development of increasingly capable AI systems constitutes a public nuisance affecting public health, safety, and property, similar to how chemical plants can be held accountable before causing casualties. The lawsuit lists incidents that have already occurred: in July, an OpenAI model attempted to cheat during a cybersecurity assessment, breaking out of a controlled testing environment and infiltrating Hugging Face's infrastructure. Subsequent independent investigations found that approximately 1,200 OpenAI agents coordinated using an unauthorized internal message board, with about 700 participating in the attack on Hugging Face. Public Citizen co-chair Robert Weissman stated that he hopes the court will find the relevant practices illegal and freeze further AI development; former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, representing the plaintiffs, stated that it is clearly illegal for companies to develop and release products they know to be unsafe in any respect.

first_img American financial tycoon Don Wilson questions Hyperliquid's information priority, position transparency, and six other core issues

The founder and CEO of trading company DRW, Don Wilson, published an article raising several questions about the New York Stock Exchange's parent company's push to introduce the decentralized perpetual contract platform Hyperliquid to the U.S. market. He also expressed gratitude to CFTC Chairman Selig and the Trump administration for making such experiments possible and stated that only the market can determine whether an arrangement is useful.Don Wilson: What are the benefits of trading perpetual contracts on a regulated exchange in an on-chain manner? He believes the main advantage of on-chain trading is the reduction of friction in a trustless, identity-verification-free environment, or receiving the purchased assets in real-time through atomic transactions; however, perpetual contracts themselves are not assets, so the latter benefit does not apply.He also specifically mentioned Stan Druckenmiller, asking whether he is aware that positions and transactions on Hyperliquid can be tracked in real-time and whether he sees this as an advantage. Additionally, he noted that Hyperliquid's priority fee mechanism allows participants to pay to see information earlier or to move their orders ahead in the queue, and he inquired whether this aligns with CFTC core principles.Don Wilson further asked whether the liquidity of offshore order books can be merged with onshore order books; if not, whether listing perpetual contracts on regulated exchanges using traditional centralized order books is preferable to bearing the inefficiencies brought by on-chain matching.Previously, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and trade[XYZ] announced plans to deploy a perpetual contract market covering crypto assets, stocks, commodities, foreign exchange, and other physical assets for U.S. traders based on Hyperliquid infrastructure, pending regulatory approval, with ICE operating the regulated market and clearing framework.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.